Talk:Every Nation Churches & Ministries/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I have created an archive at Talk:Every Nation/Archive 1

I made another archive as the Talk Page has gotten long and cumbersome to load. Talk:Every Nation/Archive 2 Thelma Bowlen^Talk 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Leaving wikipedia

I've decided to leave wikipedia User:Jbolden1517#I'm done. You may need to find another mediator. Good luck in resolving this and remember try and be nice to each other and build up general principles from easily resolvable facts. jbolden1517^Talk 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done for all your hard work on this article. Sorry to see you go, as your commitment was a great asset to Wikipedia - I'm sure I won't be the only person to ask you to reconsider packing up for good...? David L Rattigan 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I want to thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for your commitment to upholding the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia by ensuring impartiality in this mediation. Your efforts have gotten people from pole opposites working together to make a good article. Without a doubt, you will be missed in the Wikipedia community and I am sure all your contributions are appreciated. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Rewrite

Sorry for reverting, I normally don't do that, but this article has been under heavy moderation for awhile now, and it would cheapen the process to add in that much information without prior discussion of it. Please post that information here, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is for distribution of verifiable information only, meaning that this is not the place for investigative journalism or opinion. Only documented or proven sources may be used in such a context, regardless of its truth (see linked article on WP:V). -DaveHarris 13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You were absolutely right to revert. A lot of effort has gone into this article, and that edit seemed like an attempt to undo all that and go back to the previous version. David L Rattigan 13:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We (Blueboy, jbolden and myself) have worked hard on this. Thanks! Thelma Bowlen^Talk 03:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have volunteered to take over the mediation from User:Jbolden1517. I haven't been following the mediation closely, so please be patient with me. I just didn't want to see the hard work being reversed. If someone could summarise where we're up to, that would be very helpful. I will gradually try to catch up with the talk archives. David L Rattigan 13:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've followed it from day to day, and thus far it has come a long way. It may even be very close to being an agreeable article for both parties (Thelma Bowlen is the EN spokesperson, Blueboy96 is on the other side). As far as I've seen, most of Thelma's issues have been addressed (I believe there is still the issue of link organization and removing unofficial sources). The two biggest issues in this mediation have been WP:BLP and WP:V. I'm not about to tell you how to run the mediation, but right now might be a good time to implement Thelma's requests, and from there allow Blueboy to one by one add in verifiable information. The mediation has taken a fairly complex path, and if you can't easily catch up with the whole discussion, that might be a good way to handle it (strip it down and then add back in information as it is verified and agreed upon). Also, much of the information, given its private (and potentially damaging to the persons involved) nature, was sent to Jbolden1517 through Email. If you have a way to contact him, you might want copies of those for reference, as he made quite a few calls based on that information. But if Thelma and Blueboy can each give a short summary of what they feel is left to be accomplished, that might make it much easier on you (and easier to reorganize the main talk page. Much of the earlier discussion on this page has not been touched since May and might be irrelevant given the current state of the article. Thanks for taking Jbolden's spot! -DaveHarris 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

May not be around as much

I may not be as active as I have been lately in this mediation, but my wife's wireless Internet adapter has crapped out for some reason, and it may be as late as Thursday before we can get someone out here. So if I'm silent for a long time, please be patient. Blueboy96 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bad apples"

As someone who saw Maranatha-style practices at KPIC, I find it laughable that any Maranatha practices are just restricted to "bad apples" in the organization.

It would seem to me that Ron Lewis qualifies as a "bad apple." If I'm to understand Every Nation's current line, Broocks, Bonasso, Murrell and the other Every Nation leaders--including Lewis--not only detested Maranatha's authoritarianism, but didn't want to touch anything Maranatha with a 10-foot-pole. And yet we have Lewis demonstratably lying on the record--which has only been underscored since Thelma has admitted that KPIC is an Every Nation church. Even without the things that happened to me in there, it would seem to me that Lewis isn't very repentant of his Maranatha past--if he was, why would he lie about it?

One could ask the same question about Phil Bonasso as well, given his filing as the CA registered agent for Maranatha not long after it officially ceased to exist in Kentucky.

So I feel I must ask--if, in fact, Every Nation seeks to remove "bad apples" from the organization, is it prepared to hold Lewis and Bonasso to fuller account? --Blueboy96 05:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, well. It's been two weeks. I've been trying to give Every Nation the benefit of the doubt, to believe that they're willing to change. I can't speak for Anonymou or any other ex-member, but I can call it like I see it from my perspective. Thelma's been way more forthcoming than anyone I've ever encountered in Every Nation. However, she can only act on what her bosses in Nashville tell her. It's too bad, because it's obvious from the lack of response to a simple question--whether it's prepared to hold Ron Lewis and Phil Bonasso to fuller account--that all their talk of accountability is so much hot air.

David, that's the main beef that this ex-EN member has with these guys--as I see it, they haven't really repented at all. What is more, Thelma's admission that Beacon City Church in Boston is, in fact, a former Maranatha church is a tacit admission that Every Nation hasn't told the truth at all about how it came to be. Every Nation's current line on Beacon City is that it's a revived Maranatha church--but in fact, in 2001, they spoke of it as "our upcoming church plant." See for yourself at their original site, hosted on KPIC's site.

At the very least, Every Nation knows that Ron Lewis is blatantly misleading the public about KPIC's origins and his letting him get away with it. Sounds like that if the folks in Nashville are looking for bad apples, they need to take a good, long look about 300 miles east on Interstate 40.

I know this sounds harsh, but this whole episode says a lot about the kind of people Thelma are working for.Blueboy96 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That all may be true, but I don't see how this information belongs in an encyclopedia... But theologically, keep in mind that it is not the job of EN headquarters to repent on behalf of their pastors, it is the job of the pastors to repent to the people on behalf of themselves. How would EN really be accomplishing anything by doing it for them? If anything it might hurt matters. Look at Maranatha; even though the "organization" apologized, you still have a ton of hurt people out there because the pastors themselves never repented. Hence most of the controversy around even this article, of what is claimed to be a separate organization. When a man wrongs you, it's up to that man to repent for it. At any rate, an encyclopedia's job is to report verifiably true information. People are not sources, documents and words are. While the things you claim may well be true, an encyclopedia can only use documentable sources for its information. As such, it's no place for conspiracy theories, even if such theories are true.

As far as bad apples in the organization, that happens everywhere. In the Catholic Churches scandal, nothing was really done about it. In EN, at least they are removing them from pastorships and as far as I know, they have never denied the truth, even though they don't display it openly. (who would?) I would say give it time, things are shifting and have been for awhile now, and just as flour isn't sifted in just one motion, neither will EN be. It just takes time and the natural order of things. --DaveHarris 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that the Boston info belongs in this article, since this is the second PROVEN instance of blatant dishonesty from a major leader in EN who pastors the third or fourth most important church in the whole network. To review: Ron Lewis claims to have left Maranatha in the early 1980s, but we now have confirmation from Thelma, as well as from public record, that this is not true. Beacon City has been holding itself out as a KPIC plant, but we now have proof from Thelma, as well as from a Web archive, that this is not true. Since this is a verifiable and proven contradiction of the official line, it belongs in the article. Blueboy96 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed EN Exposed

The link goes to a free blogging site where an anonymous individual rants (can I use that term?) about his Maranatha experiences. If this qualifies as a bona fide site that Wikipedia should link to, I suggest this show on the MCM page.

I did not read all the entries, but I could not see any entries about Every Nation. I don't think this link will serve your readers. (tk)

TKirby 05:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Restarting a dormant mediation

Seems there hasn't been much action on this mediation ... I'm interested in getting it going again. Anyone around? Blueboy96 18:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of this Page is an ABUSE of Wikipedia

It is clear that most of the information that people want to post here involves their personal opinions, complaints, and antagonism toward the church. THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA If you want to debate your opinions, start a blog. But, wait, you already have started several blogs on this topic. There is plenty of opportunity to debate the pros and cons of Every Nation church on your own blogs elsewhere. It is entirely inappropriate to turn Wikipedia into a blog.

The purpose of an encylopedia article is to give essential facts about a person, organization, or event that is noteworthy. An encyclopedia is not an opinion page, editorial page, scandal sheet, or avenue for attacks.

I have written elsewhere that an encyclopedia article need not be 'neutral' to have a 'neutral point of view' and it is not wrong to portray something as good or bad. But I draw the line here because of the substance and type of negative information. The NATURE of the attacks here are simply personal disagreements and opinions. They are entirely inappropriate.

Similarly, about 1/3rd or more of this article involves attempting to show that former Maranatha pastors have continued in service to their Lord Jesus Christ and have found a home now in Every Nation.

But since those former Maranatha pastors admit that they were once in Maranatha, and now are in Every Nation, the extensive list of minutiae is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate. It is highly un-professional and un-encyclopedia-esque. It is enough to simply state that those pastors who were in Maranatha acknowledge the fact (even if they don't repeat it every single day).

Furthermore, nearly all of the information concerning corporate activity is false and misleading. I am an attorney. The actions described do not have the meaning suggested, and are deceptive by ulyankee and others.

For example, it is expensive and difficult to apply for IRS tax status, including as a church. It is an entirely understandable that a reformed and completely revised church would want to continue using the incorporation and IRS tax status of a predecessor church. It is simply false to point to that as any indication of the church's current beliefs or practices. I am quite sure that ulyankee and others know and will admit that their suggestion is false.

Similarly, ulyankee seems to have some strange fixation with corporate bylaw.s Have you ever read corporate bylawys? They are incredible generic, having nothing to do with what the organization believes. Corporate bylaws concern when and how meetings are held and various details that could not be more thoroughly irrelevant.

Indeed, most corporate bylaws are nearly identical to one another, at least in substance if not in literal wording. So every church in America operates under corporate bylaws that are almost identical to one another. These bylaws have nothing to do with theology or religion. They exist for status with the state government only.

Finally, an encyclopedia article should be focused on what an organization IS not what it was in the past.

Jon Moseley

ALSO: The improper nature of this discussion is highlighted by the discussion about whether critics are at a disadvantage in verifying their accusations. AN ENCYCLOPEDIA IS NOT ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE *SUSPECT* TO BE TRUE. There is no "disadvantage" in being unable to post AS SUPPOSED FACT that which you cannot verify. The purpose of the article (assuming it is noteworthy at all) is to describe what Every Nation IS not what people suspect it to be? Why should we even be talking about anyone's opinion of what MIGHT be true? How is that consistent with an encyclopedia? Therefore, if Every Nation can document what it is, why would we be interested in anyone else's criticism? There are plenty of blogs where people can post their criticisms without having to verify or document anything they might say. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

To put the whiners on here in the best possible light, even then, it is improper: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. IT IS NOT CONSUMER REPORTS.

Jon Moseley

NPOV

Much of this reads like a sales brochure rather than an encyclopedic entry.

Specifically I would like to address the Core Values section. This is actually a repeat of what is already talked about in the history section. Unless a clear, and encyclopedic teason can be provided within the next 7 days, I intend to remove the section.Osakadan 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - Member Churches

Some Member Churches

Important churches include King's Park International Church in Durham, North Carolina and Metro MorningStar Church in Sterling, Virginia (a suburb of Washington, D.C.), even though the Sterling, Virginia church has only just purchased a building in 2005 in the expensive, over-heated housing market of Washington, D.C. Bethel World Outreach Center, located near Every Nation's headquarters and led by Broocks. Other churches include:

The word important is Every Nation's opinion and in no way encyclopedic. But beyond that I feel the whole section should be removed. It reads much like a directory and is unecesary as the article clearly states that Every Nation has churches in many diferent countries with a number being listed.

If a clear argument for retention is not given in the next 7 days, I call for removal.Osakadan 00:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to History

Reverting back to agreed upon revision during mediation 12:11, 27 June 2006 Jbolden1517 for the following reasons:

1. This is not true. EN’s decision to change its name is well-documented and was primarily due to the fact that Morning Star International was frequently confused with Rick Joyner’s MorningStar Ministries. Also, since Joyner’s ministry pre-dated our own, we would never have been able to trademark our name. The origin of the name EN comes from Rice Broocks, and not Jim Laffoon. This is referenced in Broocks’ book, Every Nation in Our Generation, to convey the Great Commission in a fresh way to our ministry.
2. Deleted the line referencing Rick Shelton’s church in Missouri since everyone agrees they are no longer a part of EN.

Thelma Bowlen^Talk 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Either this is true or not

What am I saying tonight? The nations, the earth, are up for grabs. Up for grabs. God has bestowed a new name on us. Every Nation Churches and Ministries.

— Jim Laffoon, “To Reach and To Rule” MSI/EN World Conference

And it is. It is referenced. And can be included in the page.

Edits to Member Churches and to Churches Leaving EN

Removing “Churches leaving denominations is quite unusual. Schisms do occur though, and denominations have been to known to divide over fundamental issues,” for the following reasons:

1. EN is not a denomination. It is a network of affiliated churches.
2. This is a POV statement (see WP:POV) – there is no basis or reputable third-party reference for an assertion that this is “quite unusual”.

Deleting second paragraph for the following reasons:

1. This is Original Research (see WP:OR) as well as the contributor’s POV. There is no reference to back up any of these claims (see WP:V). These statements are an attempt to bring back in the shepherding issue which was already dealt with in mediation and was already addressed in the Freedom of Conscience section. Furthermore, statements such as “possible misconduct” and “has been alleged” are obvious weasel words (see WP:WEASEL).
2. Removed listing of churches that have left for the following reasons:
   1. This definitely qualifies as Undue Weight (see WP:Undue Weight). Listing every single church that has left EN is an attempt to unfairly weight the article toward the contributor’s POV. If said contributor is allowed to list every church that has left, can we also list the 400 churches that are members? Instead, we are proposing the following compromise:
      1. Remove “Member Churches” per Osakadan’s suggestion dated 24 December 2006 on the basis that this is not encyclopedic.
      2. Remove “Churches Leaving EN Group” section also on the basis that it is not encyclopedic and for the abovementioned reasons.
      3. Replace both deleted sections with the final paragraph under History [[1]].

Thelma Bowlen^Talk 09:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't just delete a whole section, especially as the nunmber of churches leaving is very significant. There are still sections listing places where EN ahs churches so it is valid. Denomination or network of churches - I don't care what terminology is used. Do you have a references?Osakadan 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

.."Internal EN communiques, EN's website and official blogs..." are all WP:OR. "Shepherding-style control" is slanted POV WP:Undue Weight. "..possible misconduct..covering things up..as has been alleged" are all WP:WEASEL.

Propose the last line under History in lieu of this section. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Links to Maranatha

Reverted entire section to agreed upon mediated revision dated 20:00, 24 June 2006 Jbolden1517. The Maranatha issue was widely discussed and was the major focus of our previous mediation. The contributor is attempting to re-introduce issues that were already resolved in mediation. The Links to Maranatha is clearly Undue Weight (see WP:Undue Weight). Furthermore, the “vocal group” of former EN members that is referenced is a very small number of individuals on FactNet, which is not a reputable third-party source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided). Also, most of the language is weasel words (see WP:WEASEL) – “they claim”, “these alleged”.

Thelma Bowlen^Talk 10:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Legal Disputes

The first sentence was deleted. Again, these are weasel words “maybe considered by some” and “embroiled”. This is another attempt to bring Maranatha back into the picture. Deleted the entire second paragraph for the following reasons:

This lawsuit was dismissed “with prejudice” which means it can never again be filed in a court of law (http://www.bwoc.org/complaint_resolved.html)

By detailing all of the allegations of the lawsuit, including words such as “had hidden its true nature”, “had been psychologically damaged”, the contributor is trying to paint a very negative image of EN. The defendants in the case received an open letter from the two students and their mothers (ie all plaintiffs) which is posted on the Bethel website (http://www.bwoc.org/complaint_resolved.html). This open letter was not part of the official court documents which were ordered sealed by the judge. In this letter, the plaintiffs themselves state under oath that:

They are “persuaded that members of Bethel Church, its pastors and the Bethel Parties [Every Nation Churches, and Victory Clubs], have sincere beliefs which can be a positive influence in the world. The Plaintiffs are also persuaded that the vast and overwhelming majority of the members of Bethel Church, its pastors and [Every Nation Churches, and Victory Clubs], are good and decent people motivated by the spirit of Christ, who try to live Christ's teaching, and who desire to help young people in need.” (http://www.bwoc.org/complaint_resolved.html).

Therefore, since the Plaintiffs themselves have sworn that the previous allegations were not true, we feel it is prejudicial to leave these statements in the EN entry.

The Plaintiffs are persuaded that the Bethel Parties do not believe, promote or condone extraordinary fasting which may be a health risk.

The Plaintiffs are also persuaded that the Bethel Parties do not promote or condone prayer as a substitute for legitimate prescription medication prescribed by health care professionals for legitimate medical or mental health conditions.

Further, the Plaintiffs absolve the Bethel Parties and their officers as well as members who are not currently parties to the litigation, of any fault or responsibility for any injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs in the course of their association with the Bethel Parties or their members. The Plaintiffs agree to dismiss their claims against the Bethel Parties with prejudice such that those claims may never be brought again, and release the Bethel Parties from any responsibility for damages or injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs arising from or related to the events which are, or could have been, the subject of the lawsuit.

REREAD THE LETTER - It in no way absolves anyone.Osakadan 20:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph on Trinity lawsuit. EN is not a party to this lawsuit. Furthermore, there is no reference or citation for this and it includes the contributor’s original opinion that “the church will likely…”

Thelma Bowlen^Talk 10:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree--since Trinity is part of EN, it should be mentioned. Also, I was merely stating a fact that current precedent dictates groups of more than 50 people are too big to be libeled. One of the elements of libel is identification--and groups of more than 50 people are too big to be identified.Blueboy96 16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed “To Reach and To Rule”

Removed the “to reach and to rule” section for the following reasons:

1. This section is a transcript directly cut and pasted from FactNet which is not a reputable third party source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided).
2. It is also a very long transcript which is both un-encyclopedic and constitutes Undue Weight (see WP:Undue Weight).
3. Also, by selecting certain excerpts out of context from a single message by a single pastor in EN, Osakadan is trying to imply that EN embraces the doctrine of Dominion Theology. This is OR (see WP:OR) and is not true. EN’s position on Christian dominion is clearly stated on its website at: (http://www.everynation.org/en/top/about-us/faqs.html)

Thelma Bowlen^Talk 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The transcript is an accurate account of a talk at an EN conference, which can be bought from your own ministry. Jim Laffoon (with Rice Broocks) “To Reach and To Rule” Morning Star International/Every Nation Churches and Ministries 2004 World Conference: Every Leader – Every Church – Every Nation July 15, 2004 Conference audio and video available for sale from www.everynation.org; www.everynationstore.com Note: original recording is © Every Nation Productions, 2004. This is a transcription from the original recording.

I would also add that transcripts are perfectly legitimate under fair use provisions--if someone ripped it off the CD and posted an mp3 of it, then that would definitely violate copyright. Blueboy96 16:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And here's the link from the EN store page: http://www.everynationstore.com/Detail.bok?no=29 Unless you can tell me of a legal way to post the actual video of Laffoon's comments, a transcript is the only way to report it. Blueboy96 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned earlier, there's no legal way that we know of to post the audio or video itself--unless EN Productions gives us permission to do so, Thelma. If we can get that permission, we'd be more than happy to post it to prove we're arguing from good faith here. Or if you guys post it yourself on YouTube--noticed you've got a pretty big archive of video there.Blueboy96 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have refrained from contributing to the Every Nation Wikipedia entry for various reasons, but as I am the person who transcribed this particular talk from the original Every Nation Productions CD series that I have in my possession, I would like to make a few comments here as pertains to this. While I suppose one could argue that transcribing a talk is OR, it might need to be balanced by the fact that it was properly cited and anyone could very easily check its accuracy against the original recording. In addition, I would argue that "To Reach and To Rule" is not being given "undue weight" because it, along with the other messages in the 2004 World Conference CD (and DVD) series "captures the essence of the messages that were shared by the senior leadership of the movement" according to both the liner notes and what is posted on Every Nation's online store: http://www.everynationstore.com/Detail.bok?no=29. Since Jim Laffoon is not merely a senior leader of the movement but is Every Nation's most senior prophetic minister, Rice Broocks also participated in closing this talk, and the sermon indeed was presented as the prophetic rationale for the name change to Every Nation, it would be difficult to argue "undue weight" as it further clarifies not just Every Nation's name change from Morning Star but indeed its entire raison d'être of "Every Nation in Our Generation." I also have audio and video from other Morning Star/Every Nation conferences and sermons by other current and former senior and mid-level leaders which additionally confirm that this is not a minority opinion held just by Jim Laffoon; notably the 2002 North American Conference audio and video purchased from ENP in late 2006. I may respectfully add that the profusion of recorded and documented evidence indicating that EN has a history of teaching and supporting "Christian dominion" seriously brings into question the accuracy of Every Nation's public position regarding Christian dominion as posted on its website, unless one can present recent sermons or teachings which directly correct or refute prior ones. Ulyankee 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think referecing to a tape is much like referencing an article or any other written source. Not all articles or books are online, some are even out of print, but yet common practice has that they can be referenced on wikipedia or in academia. There is no problem referencing the speech at all.Osakadan 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Blueboy96 weighs in

Regarding the suit against Bethel--it's important to note that the case has been dropped and sealed. According to records from the Davidson County (Nashville) Clerk of Court, that's exactly what happened. The case was dropped with prejudice, and all documents related to the case have been sealed. It would be highly misleading not to note this important fact.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm very busy with work and family. Re. the suit against Bethel, the case was dropped with prejudice specifically because it had no merit. What would be misleading is to state the allegations of the lawsuit, when the open letter from the plaintiffs clearly shows that they were untrue. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're telling me that just because a case is dropped, you can't post about the allegations? Speaking as a journalist by training, I have never, EVER, heard of a story about a dropped case that doesn't mention the allegations involved. If I were working at a newspaper or TV station and tried to run a story like that, my editor would throw it back in my face.

You--or should I say, EN speaking through you--are not hiding your agenda very well. You're not interested in mediating in good faith--only in scrubbing the page to keep out anything that may portray you in a bad light. In the name of the letter of Wikipedia's rules, you are violating the spirit of Wikipedia's rules. And you may be violating Wikipedia's rules yourselves in the process, by effectively claiming your view is the only truly neutral view.Blueboy96 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "To Reach and To Rule"--I propose that it be put back in, but citing the actual speech itself and not the transcript. And it's been referenced on other locations on the Web, not just FactNet.

On a related note--it's been almost a week since we suggested that EN Productions either give us permission to release the CD and/or DVD from MSI/EN's 2004 conference. And no response. I just checked YouTube--unless I'm missing something, it's not there. I'm left wondering--is EN trying to goad us into breaking the law by putting the actual speech online, or are they just not interested in mediating in good faith? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we misheard it--that speech could do a lot to clear EN's name. After all, you claim to have been falling all over yourselves to distance yourselves from Maranatha. While references to excerpts of the speech will more than suffice, nothing is better than the genuine article. --Blueboy96 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not EN should post the audio/video, the issue is it's un-encyclopedic and it's Ulyankee's Original Research (see WP:OR) to try to prove that EN subscribes to Dominion Theology - which we do not - and which we have already addressed. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So are you telling us this speech by Laffoon doesn't exist? Is that what you're telling us? That's basically what you're saying by calling it original research.

And how, pray tell, can you call something original research that you're selling on your own site? We're quoting directly from your OWN materials. If this speech doesn't exist, it's not our task to prove that it exists--it's yours to prove that it doesn't exist.Blueboy96 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and something else. This isn't just a sermon by "a single pastor." This is a sermon from one of EN's top leaders. Laffoon is a member of EN's International Policy Council, which is a subgroup of the International Ministry Council. Which means that he is one of EN's top nine leaders. At the time of this sermon, he was a member of the International Apostolic Team. And Rice Broocks affirmed that sermon by asking the audience to "thank the Lord for what we've heard."

One minute, you say this sermon is the view of a crank whose views are not condoned by EN. In the next, you imply it doesn't exist (which is basically what you're saying by calling it original research). Either argument is just plain laughable on its face given the evidence. Again, it's not our task to prove this sermon exists--it's yours to prove it doesn't exist. That video or audio could potentially exonerate EN--why are you stonewalling on it? It's not doing you guys any favors. Blueboy96 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Links to New Apostolic Reformation RV

Reverted back to original mediated version regarding links to Peter Wagner. This is Original Research (see WP:OR) by the contributor. EN is not part of the Latter Rain Movement. Furthermore, the Agape Press allegations were based on biased information regarding the high school lawsuit, which has since been proven wrong. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We can provide cited material showing that you teach that you guys are Latter Rain. And again, how in the world can you guys even suggest that you can't write about allegations made against someone just because they've supposedly been proven false? To remove material just because it's the teensiest bit controversial violates Wikipedia's rules--and you know that it does. Wikipedia is not supposed to be EN's PR agency. Like I mentioned earlier, EN isn't doing a good job of hiding its agenda here. Blueboy96 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

removed affiliated businesses

Affiliated businesses are not businesses of EN.

removed global cafe

From what I can tell, Global Cafe is an offshoot of Bethel Church in Nashville. Also, the comment about "this structure may violate IRS regulations" is weasel words and may violate wikipedia guidelines referencing living persons.

If it's an offshoot of Bethel, it should be in the article. You've just torpedoed your own argument. Moreover, we can prove that there are three Bethel pastors on the board--so therefore, there is a possibility that this structure violates IRS regulations. Blueboy96 14:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that you cut out a statement that was in fact sourced, so it is not original research. You've just tipped EN's hand again for the entire Wikipedia community to see. I say again, and I'll keep saying it until my lips fall off--EN is not interested in mediating in good faith. Not by a longshot. Instead, you guys are trying to scrub out anything even the least bit controversial. You're stealing a page from the same playbook Scientology and ICOC's apologists used. And yet you claim to be just a run-of-the-mill charismatic group?Blueboy96 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Inpop Records

Inpop already has its own entry on wikipedia and does not belong under EN's entry.

If Rice Broocks wasn't on the board, I'd agree. Blueboy96 14:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kiwisrule 07:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

History - Name change

A name change of any organization is significant. The Laffoon quote is an explanation of the change from a senior leader of EN as such is a valid. 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Osakadan

I also note that Thelma did not take issue with the fact it existed, just the manner it was cited. Or at least that was her initial position before appearing to claim that it doesn't even exist. A pretty serious contradiction, as I see it. As far as I'm concerned, EN has proven beyond all doubt that it is abusing the mediation process to scrub out any material that may be critical of it, no matter how much it is cited. This is in and of itself a violation of Wikipedia's rules, by implying that its view is the only legitimate view. The standard in Wikipedia is verifiability from a reliable source--and how much more reliable can you get than EN's OWN material? Blueboy96 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

With this in mind, I added in the fact that another factor in the name change is confusion with Rick Joyner's ministry. While Laffoon's claim of a divine message was a major factor, it was not the ONLY factor--not by a mile.Blueboy96 05:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Reading through the Talk and History pages, it's obvious that Blueboy96 and Osakadan are the ones with an agenda. Pink collar girl 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a look at the talk page, you'll see that it's EN that's not interested in mediating in good faith. How in the world can EN suggest writing about a trial without including the allegations? And how in the world can EN say one minute that something isn't properly cited, and imply it doesn't even exist in the next? For my money, it shows that they're taking a page from the same playbook Scientology and the Boston Movement use. And we see how far it got them. There's a whole lot there that we can put in, but we haven't because it could potentially violate Wikipedia policy. EN, on the other hand, is treading on the line of violating the rules by saying its view is the only legitimately neutral view. Blueboy96 13:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

After a quick look

Since I was asked for my opinion, I figured I'd give one! After an initial look (without an in-depth review of the sources thus far), I do see some issues:

• The massive transcript ("Preserving This Vital Truth") needs to go. It certainly could be used as a source (with the standard restrictions and cautions regarding using self-published sources) with perhaps a one- or two-sentence quote and short paraphrase, but having that much is excessive. (Since Every Nation appears to be willing to release that under the GFDL, it might be appropriate for Wikisource-that's up to them of course, but usually transcripts and such belong over there so long as they're public-domain or other free licenses.)
• The sentence about the link to Maranatha is sourced to a Geocities page. This is not an acceptable source, and needs a real one. I've tagged it for verification for now. (It looks like Every Nation in a quote in that same paragraph acknowledged themselves a link with some of their members to Maranatha, one would think that could simply be referenced.) I've cut that section quite a bit, if all the verifiable information we have is that the same people were members of both, five paragraphs is significant undue weight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is whether sources are acceptable, much of the information on that Geocities page came from public records (corporate filings, etc.). If you need them sourced specifically, that's definitely workable. Just tell me what needs to be sourced, and I'll get on it. Blueboy96 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Effectively, it would need to be sourced to a reliable, fact-checked or peer-reviewed third party (for example, a newspaper, magazine, or government investigation). An extrapolation someone made that wasn't published in a fact-checked source would not be acceptable, even if sourced directly to the primary sources. We can only take very obvious information from primary sources, not attempt any synthesis at what it means. The synthesis must come from a reliable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

EN and dominion theology

OK, Thelma. I've got a question. If you guys claim not to be into dominion theology, then how do you explain:

• EN churches' participation (as opposed to mere attendance) at Ron Luce's Teen Mania rallies? Specifically, it seems that Tim Johnson, Bethel's senior pastor, is a frequent speaker at Acquire the Fire. And Bethel hosted a Battle Cry leadership summit this past October.
• Ron Luce as a speaker at EN conferences?[2][3]
• Numerous EN leaders (Steve Murrell, Rice Broocks, Brett Fuller) speaking on the topic at EN conferences?

Blueboy96 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear moderator This is meant to be an encyclopeidia rather than an advertorial for Every Nation. The last time I read one I did not see actual oprganisations determining the content of their entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.198.135 (talk • contribs)

AFAIK the last official moderator for this article was 6 months ago (and that was me). I don't believe this article is under moderation at all. This version represents the last moderated version. jbolden1517^Talk 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

It's been requested that I do some informal mediation between the parties here. While I've been involved in some editing, I believe I'm a neutral party here, and would be willing to do that if everyone would agree. (And if not me, I strongly encourage everyone to seek mediation from Medcab or the Medcom.) I would suggest any such arrangements should also take into consideration Victory Christian Fellowship and any other similarly disputed articles (if there are more, I'm betting there are!), as the dispute I've seen there is pretty similar. I would appreciate if everyone involved would respond here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good ... Blueboy96 13:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thelma Bowlen^Talk 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw a note from Thelma Bowlen on the VCF talk page. I agree that the VCF page needs mediation also. Are we going to do the discussion here or will we continue to do so on the VCF page as well?Varsha Daswani 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If everyone is agreeable to mediation, the best bet would probably be to put the discussion on a subpage of this page, so that it can be kept in order, without producing too much traffic on this page or getting tangled up with normal use of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a draft to show how things would go in my userspace (moved to Talk:Every Nation/mediation), provided that everyone agrees. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I go for mediation. Thanks.Chickywiki 08:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Count me in! Pink collar girl 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you just gone against the principals of mediation by removing material before discussing it? Osakadan 09:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you believe I have, you are certainly welcome not to accept me and to instead request someone else from Medcab or Medcom. (Of course, you're also free not to participate at all, mediation is a voluntary process altogether.) However, WP:BLP is one of our most critical policies, and I'm required to enforce it regardless of any other considerations. In this case, these people's privacy appears to be being violated with primary-source-only material, and that is inappropriate. I have made a request on WP:ANI for someone uninvolved to review the matter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have thgought they are public figures and it would be allowedOsakadan 09:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we wouldn't post personal financial information even for someone like Britney Spears, and she's certainly a far more public figure. It could probably be gotten from public records, but it's not really our place to publish such information, and we should generally err on the side of protecting a subject's privacy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So just for future reference, no matter how well-sourced something is, it doesn't belong in if it may violate someone's privacy? Blueboy96 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to my question--on paper, it's a sound principle and maybe merits a guideline page on Wikipedia, if not a notation on the BLP page--and it's something that should apply to ALL articles, not just this one.Blueboy96 15:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's well-sourced, it probably doesn't violate someone's privacy. If a newspaper, for example, had already reported details regarding the person's finances, that information is already publicly reported. The problem here is that it was poorly sourced, and even if the document uploaded anonymously to that website is genuine, it's a semi-public record at best. It also would be a primary source, so synthesis and extrapolation from it would be original research. If reliable secondary sources have reported this information and the conclusion, it may well be acceptable to include. However, we source the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. If you do some research and investigation, and believe it is sound and noteworthy, by all means forward your findings to a newspaper or other reliable publisher. If that source fact-checks the information and publishes it, we can then put it in an article, using that as a source. But Wikipedia is not intended to be an original publisher of novel information or synthesis by its editors. That's already put into policy at WP:NOR and WP:ATT, but all sourcing requirements are held to the strictest standards when a living person is involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable. If the objection is to the sourcing, rather than the content, that can easily be fixed, I think. Would Guidestar be an acceptable source for that 990 information Osakadan put in, then? It's a database of info on nonprofits ... the companies upload the 990s themselves.Blueboy96 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point...the 990 form itself would not be an acceptable source. Only if that exact analysis and synthesis can be sourced to a reliable secondary source would it be acceptable to include. If no sources have seen fit to publish that analysis, we should not be the first to do it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can understand the need to err on the side of caution--being a journalist by training, I am more than familiar with libel laws. And I do believe that WP:BLP should be enforced strictly. Yet, instances like this are why this policy needs to be clarified. Form 990s are prepared under penalty of perjury, and the chances of someone lying on it are somewhere between slim and none. However, given the concerns about privacy, I won't press on the deleted info being included. I will note, however, that references to donations from Malachi were made in two mainstream papers on August 9, 1998--the Florida Times-Union ("An Agent for the Lord") and the Chicago Tribune ("Enis' Agent Says he Goes by Book - The Bible"). The 990s were obvious sources.Blueboy96 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not source it to the newspapers, then? We have a bit different concerns then journalists, as journalists are supposed to do investigative style reporting and original research/interviewing. We specifically don't do that, we just put in what secondary sources have already done. If a reliable secondary source has done the research and reporting, we can source to them. But we don't allow original research even if you're right. There are a few reasons for that. Privacy is a main concern, but noteworthiness is another one. There are a lot of public records available out there, but if a newspaper or other reliable source hasn't even found the information in a given one of them noteworthy enough to publish, how can we know that it's important enough to be published by a general-purpose encyclopedia? And how can we know that anyone's interpretation of them is valid? (For example, I actually looked at that form, and it appeared the original research in this case was inaccurate. The paragraph in the encyclopedia article mentioned housing loans, but when I looked at the form, I saw only an amount of a loan. There was nothing I could see as to their purpose, housing or otherwise, and that appears to be guesswork on someone's part. That type of thing is exactly why we don't allow OR.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have proposed text up tomorrow. --Blueboy96 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not use bad sources

An image purportedly of a tax form, uploaded to a free web site provider under a pseudonymous account, has no provenance and cannot be authenticated. We must not base biographical content upon such things. They are not reliable sources and their use is unacceptable. Removing contentious content based upon such bad sources is entirely proper under our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. If you wish to include the financial dealings of these people in the article, you must find a reliable source who has already properly researched, documented, and published, in a way that has been subject to legal and editorial review by other people, those financial dealings. Your own analyses of the raw data in financial records are unacceptable, too. Wikipedia is not a forum for writing exposés based upon primary research. Any editor who wants to do that has come to the wrong place, and should seek an alternative outlet for publication of such research. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, not a forum for investigative journalism. If your content is not based upon what has already been published by an identifiable secondary source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, it does not belong. If no such sources exist, here is not the place for you to create them. Uncle G 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Uncle G's analysis and have full protected the article. Please contact me via my user talk page if WP:BLP concerns exist in the protected version. Durova^Charge! 15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable--like I asked earlier, it seems the issue is the sourcing rather than the content. Would Guidestar be an acceptable source for that 990 information Osakadan put in, then? It's a database of info on nonprofits ... the companies upload the 990s themselves.Blueboy96 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) In light of possible privacy issues, strike that ... --Blueboy96 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Basic information lacking

Is it possible to get some kind of estimated number of the members of this organization? This would help give people an idea of how important it is. Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation subpage

As it appears everyone is in agreement, I've moved the mediation page to Talk:Every Nation/mediation. If everyone will get started on the talk subpage, it would be much appreciated! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)