Talk:Every Nation Churches & Ministries

Updated citation of Statement of Faith under Belief section. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned up grammar and style. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 00:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Added citation from ECFA website for official name.Thelma Bowlen^Talk 04:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed "headquarters" being located in Brentwood, Tennessee, and cited that the organization is located in seven regions around the world. Updated Infobox to reflect the same change to locations. The organization is located in seven regions around the world. Reverted name to official name "Every Nation Churches & Ministries". Thelma Bowlen^Talk 04:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think someone has inserted some bias against them in the article. While these points may need to be raised there is obviously someone with an agenda editing and adding to it. It needs to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.114.99 (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think its time to go after the Maranatha section. The only big thing we are missing is the doctrinal differences in detail. I'm going to start 2 pages

• Talk:Every Nation/Archive Maranatha which contains everything Maranatha related from this page and
• Talk:Every Nation/Maranatha which will be the live debate on that section.

jbolden1517^Talk 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add all these pages to your watch list.

Cleaning Up The Article

The article looks a bit like spaghetti. I am re-organizing and cleaning out a lot of questionable material that has no references or weak references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TKirby (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Reads Like A Tabloid

I am really disappointed with the quality of this article. It reads a little like the National Enquirer.

It seems like the group of disgruntled folks from Factnet have come over and set up shop here at Wikipedia. The article reads very much like their posts. They are trying to present all the arguments and everything they dislike or feel is wrong about Every Nation.

"The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge"

This article is the epitome of imbalance. It is not neutral. And I think it fails miserably at approaching encyclopedic.

They even put links to their Anti-EN site at Factnet as External Links

Because the article is so anti-Every Nation slanted, it fails to grasp the essence of the organization or help the reader understand what the organization is all about. In that, it is a disservice to its readers and Wikipedia.

But this is my perspective. At this point, I think I'd like to ask Seraphimblade if you think that this article is "balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TKirby (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC) TKirby 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How would one honestly and fairly represent criticisms of MS/EN in a manner that MS/EN apologists could appreciate? I can easily start a blog chronicling the various abuses I suffered, the many times my discipler took advantage of me or simply made me feel worthless, the general spirit of control, and negligence and biblical ignorance of "pastors" like Phil Bonasso. (Whether that guy has the slightest grasp of historical Christianity is still an open question for me.) Then I could cite the blog here, but that certainly wouldn't appease and MS/EN defenders.

I suppose if you simply don't know the deal by now, you are brainless or you simply don't care about what that groups has been and what they have done. Their existence has proven to be so unnecessary when there are so many responsible ministries. I wish I had known that 12 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.107.2.20 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BlueBoy Edits

I reverted since there are many issues with the recent edits.

1. "Headquarters" -- I could not find any references to Nashville as being the headquarters for EN under their new structure. Most of their board are overseas, so I don't want to assume Nashville.

I believe that Nashville is the U.S. "Headquarters" (if you want to use that term, although I don't believe EN would use that term). But to list the U.S. main offices and not the main offices in other countries would be, in my mind, ethno-centric.

Their site does list offices in London, Pasig City (Metro Manila), and Nashville. I do think it would be okay to say it has offices on these locations.

2. Characterizing EN as an "Umbrella" organization would constitute original research.

3. Links to NAR: "However, this claim appears to be false." This is original research and disallowed by Wikipedia.

TKirby (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede those points ... but there didn't seem to be anything wrong with the other stuff, so I put it back in. Note that a considerable amount of this is cited from EN materials and Websites. Blueboy96 13:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

4. "EN has faced allegations..." EN has not faced allegations, which are generally understood to be written legal documents to be defended in court.

5. Your reference cites the EN website addressing "accusations". I do believe these are accusations such as those found on Factnet and personal blogs.

Here are a few passages from the Wikipedia policies for a refresher:

"Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

"Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research"

"In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by TKirby (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

6. The Jim Laffoon passage is original research. It's not suitable for encyclopedia either. Ministers give hundreds and sometimes thousands of sermons in their lifetimes. Yet you pick one particular sermon and make that the centerpiece of the historic passage.

7. The Lawson passage is original research.

At this point, I have to say I am a little bit puzzled with your edits. I know you've been on Wikipedia for a while, and you cannot be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies of Original Research and Verifiability.

Your POV is showing. Perhaps you were one of those that were hurt in Maranatha. I don't know. But I think it would be a waste of your talents to spend your time trying to convince folks that EN is a bad organization.

TKirby (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated ECFA numbers to 2007 and fixed link. TKirby (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So how do you explain deleting the section on the NFL expressing concern about Champions for Christ? And how do you explain David Houston and Paul Barker--two top leaders at ENLI--being members of the ACEA? Neither of those are original research. Blueboy96 20:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

These passages are not properly sourced (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ), and actually some of the verbiage looks to me to be original research (e.g. "Every Nation does not consider itself part of the New Apostolic Reformation and claims to have severed official ties with Wagner...". Sources such as christiandefense.org, rickross.com and acea-schools.org are not reliable sources:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Shall I go on?

TKirby (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles about the NFL are sourced to the Florida Times-Union--Ross is just hosting the full text on his Website. If it were an article written by Ross himself, one might be able to quibble about reliability--but since it's coming from a newspaper, to my mind it's the end of the ball game. And how, pray tell, is the ACEA site not reliable? It's the Website for the Apostolic Council for Educational Accountability--and is run by Peter Wagner. Are you saying Wagner isn't reliable about sayings regarding his own organization? By the logic you're using, we can't use EN's Website as a source either.

And Jim Laffoon is not just any EN minister--he is one of the top leaders in the entire organization. To wit, a member of the International Ministry Team. And at least at the time of the speech, was the fourth-ranking leader in EN behind Broocks, Bonasso and Murrell. I'm not entirely sure where he ranks now, but he is definitely still up there as a member of the top oversight board for the whole EN organization. Put this another way--United States Senators give tons of speeches in their lifetimes. But wouldn't you think a speech by the majority or minority leader, or a committee chairman, would carry more weight? Blueboy96 13:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the ACEA can speak to ACEA. (By the way, the ACEA site doesn't look like it's been updated since 2007, so I don't know where you get 2008 info??). But I don't see any reference for this:

In spite of the strong unofficial ties, Every Nation does not consider itself part of the New Apostolic Reformation and claims to have severed official ties with Wagner

The Jim Lafoon passage doesn't really add to the article, since the reason is already summarized. TKirby (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The article has been riddled with unsourced content, both promotional and critical. I've removed a bit of each, but this will require more work and the attention of neutral editors. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've had to remove so much crap, unsourced, primary sources. Is this a wikipedia article, or a promotional blog page? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I pulled out a lot of the fluff, and also the rather incoherent "criticism" section that didn't even contain any criticism. Of course, that means there's not much left. A lot of the article wasn't describing how the organization operates, but rather was pushing how great some people apparently think it is. That's something we can do without. I think we do need more neutral description of the operation of the organization. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to find reliable sources for articles like this. There are either sources that are connection to the organization, or rival groups that are highly critical. I'm in favor of a tiny article, with minimal content, unless some decent sources are available. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I appreciate the comments. I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I'm going to review everything with the NPOV and sources guidelines from Wikipedia and use those if I add any further edits. I'm also referencing other Wiki pages that are well-done. Please continue to review!

Re: keeping the article minimal. That sounds great, but in the history of this page the lack of information for a basic organization has caused people to continue adding things from their own POV. I think it should be populated and checked as best as possible with any credible sources available. --Arielexandria (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with "His People"

What's the relationship with "His People" Church? I think they were started in South Africa.--197.228.59.65 (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)