Wikipedia

Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 10

< Talk:Great Commission church movement
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Dialogue

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Claude

This is John Hopler. I work in the Great Commission Churches office in Columbus, Ohio. I am interested in beginning a dialogue with you about this article. There are some statements in the article that are not accurate. There are some that are out of date. And there is some new information and edits that should be added. Can we interact on this? Jrhopler (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Which statements, specifically? ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Claude,

(I originally made a post...but it posted on the page in a weird way. Here is my second attempt.) There are specific statements that can be corrected. Those can be worked through one by one. However, after reading some of the entries on the talk page, here is my appeal: A re-write of the Great Commission Churches article. Here are my reasons. First, there have been organizational changes in recent years (with GCM in particular.) Second, the article is long compared to other articles written about associations in the National Association of Evangelical (NAE), making the article somewhat cluttered and even confusing. Third, there have been some recent developments with Larry Pile and others who were critical of Jim McCotter that make some of the information outdated. FYI, Wellspring's director Paul Martin (quoted in 1994 in the article) has since passed away--however Larry Pile who was a co-worker with Paul and who still works at Wellspring has since expressed that the concerns he had in the 1990s--concerns he shared with Paul Martin at the time--those concerns he no longer has. The point is, the 1994 statement by Paul is outdated. Larry gave me counsel when I wrote a history of GCC for the GCC website. I asked his input because I wanted the GCC history on the GCC website to be accurate and balanced according to him. Also, as a result of my interactions with Larry, there are other significant statements on the site, including one about Jim McCotter in which we make a distinction between GCC and Jim in the present; one by Ron Enroth which is a positive statement about GCC; and another by Larry himself after we in GCC worked through some reconciliations with people in the past. These can be accessed via the links in the expanded answer to FAQ #15 on the GCC website. Claude, I trust we want the same goal: An article about GCC that gives an accurate but balanced picture of GCC in 2013 while also acknowledging issues from the past. Presently the article gives an unnecessarily negative slant and mischaracterization of the beliefs and nature of GCC in 2013--particularly in light of some of the recent developments. I think that this negative slant could be addressed by making some simple adjustments: Refer to the criticisms from the past in just one section--a short paragraph, which is balanced by a statement about the 1990's GCC Project Care, and balanced also by the statements made by Larry Pile and Ronald Enroth, which resolved their concerns. One last point. I think the Wikipedia article gives too much emphasis to Jim McCotter and too little to Herschel Martindale--particularly in light of how those men are viewed by GCC pastors today. (Again, see the Jim McCotter statement on the GCC website.) So, Claude, what do you think? Would you be open to working on a re-write that would address these issues? Jrhopler (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for letting me know. I'd be pleased to help you. If I understand you correctly, you'd like a rewrite based on the following:
  • You've stated and there is evidence that there have been organizational changes which are important for understanding the changing nature of the Great Commission church movement (e.g.: GCM)
  • You've stated that you consider the article length is excessive compared to other church organizations and it should be less cluttered and confusing
  • You've stated that recent statements from former critics of the movement have bearing on the subject
  • You've stated that the article could benefit from better accuracy and balance with regards to modern developments, consideration of recent statements by former critics and a reduced emphasis on Jim McCotter in favor of more information about Herschel Martindale, for example.
Does that sound like what you're looking for? ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Where do we go from here? Jrhopler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I understand the spirit of what you're trying to attain, and I will do my best to help you try to achieve it so long as we stay within Wikipedia policy and respect Wikipedia guidelines. Some concerns that I had in trying to achieve these things are thoughts about sourcing and neutrality. With respect to religious institutions, the goals of neutrality as set forth at WP:NPOV do require that we represent secondary source views about Great Commission whether favorable or not, ultimately accounting for how beliefs and practices within Great Commission developed. Secondary sources do outweigh primary sources, with which we are cautioned against interpreting independently. The weight accorded in this article in earlier consensus in this article to Larry Pile, for example, has been close to that of Paul Martin. They have been considered experts, and their statements considered as such wherever attribution was not a question. What we should do is absolutely focus on the content of the article in very specific ways, examine new sources of evidence together, and try to reach some agreement about how the sources should reflect as statements in the article. Where we agree, I'm almost certain that will be sufficient to reach a new consensus. If we might disagree, we should absolutely reach out to uninvolved editors for a 3rd opinion, so as to protect the integrity of the project and minimize any dispute which may arise. Either of us may reach out for third opinions at any time. How does that sound? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


Sounds good. I appreciate you clarifying the ground rules. I am also hopeful that we can reach a new consensus. Towards that end, if you have any questions for me about anything related to GCC--past or present-- do not hesitate to ask. It seems to me the goal is to determine "what is accurate information" and then to present that information in a neutral format that best serves those who read the Wikipedia article. So, I want to make sure you have any information you need to have for this article. I have a question for you regarding Wikipedia guidelines and the contribution by Larry Pile and Paul Martin, who worked together at Wellspring. (FYI, what I am about to write came after a phone call I had today with Larry.) As the writings on the GCC website indicate, Larry and GCC have come to a consensus as to issues in the past. Unfortunately, Paul passed away--otherwise I am confident that we would have come to a consensus as well. My question is: Would not Wikipedia guidelines cause editors to only minimally refer to Larry and Paul’s issues with Great Commission? I ask this question for 3 reasons. First, their statements are out of date. Larry who worked with Paul at Wellspring has publicly communicated that he has no issue with GCC today. If the goal of Wikipedia is to accurately characterize the people in GCC today, then the statements by Larry and Paul in the past are out of date in light of Larry's recent statement. Second, their statements are not relevant since Larry and Paul's primary concerns were with Jim McCotter--a man who has had no involvement with Great Commission for 25 years, as the GCC statement on Jim McCotter indicates. Third, what I am proposing is consistent with what Larry has himself communicated. Larry’s hope is that his words from the past would not be used to unfairly characterize GCC today. (See the last paragraph of his letter on the GCC website.) Larry's goal all along was not to bring a stigma to GCC. His goal was to bring some positive change--which has occurred. If you have any questions about his position, you might consider emailing him yourself at larry@wellspringretreat.org.Therefore, in regard to criticisms, my request is that you write a simple two or three sentence statement that some former leaders from the 1970s (in which Larry and Paul could be referred to in footnotes) raised concerns--- that these concerns were addressed and corrected after Jim McCotter left in 1986 (footnoted to Project Care and the Errors and Weaknesses Paper)--to the satisfaction of the former leaders (footnoted). I think that this would "tell the story" most accurately. Also, this would put the GCC Wikipedia article on the same level as other articles written about church associations that are members of the National Association of Evangelicals. Claude, is my thinking on this right? Am I understanding the Wikipedia policy guidelines accurately? If so, I think you would know how to write this in a clear and succinct way. Jrhopler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Claude. I had not heard from you over the weekend. In the meantime, I thought that since we are in the process of re-doing this article that it would be appropriate to put readers on notice that the neutrality of this article is in dispute and the accuracy of this article is also in dispute. Therefore, a member at my office has gotten on the site as an editor and put a notice at the top of the page to that effect. At the same time, I want you to know that I understand past editors were basing their edits on past information, some of which was in dispute and some of which is outdated. As I stated to you earlier, my hope is that we can come to a consensus on a page that is accurate and neutral. I also asked this same editor to insert information that would balance the slanted statements in the article. Also, I thought I would give you a summation of what I think needs to happen in this article in order to remove the warnings that have been inserted. First, shorten the article, making it similar to other articles written about other NAE organizations. Second, remove inaccurate or confusing information. Third, put more emphasis on Herschel Martindale in the history section. Fourth, remove the negative slant and emphasis of the article in regards to its statements about GCC's beliefs. For example, there is an emphasis on the role of women in leadership and the role of seminaries. These positions need to be clearly and accurately communicated. And also these need to be stated in the context of other statements (such as our emphasis on God's grace and salvation being a gift; our ministry to the poor; every member being involved in ministry; our emphasis on strong marriages and families; etc.) Fifth, remove the negative slant of the article by only mentioning the criticisms in the criticisms section. For example, eliminate the reference to the "alleged authoritarian practices" in the opening paragraph. Sixth, place the Criticisms section in the history section after the departure of Jim McCotter and reduce all that is said presently into a summary statement along this line: "During the 1970s and 1980s, newspaper reports criticized churches affiliated with the movement as being a cult. However, these allegations have been disputed by Great Commission Churches as well as one cult expert William Watson. In addition, from 1978 to 1994 former leaders in the movement, including Larry Pile and Paul Martin, and other researchers, including Dr. Ronald Enroth, criticized Jim McCotter and the group for alleged authoritarian practices. After Jim McCotter left in 1986, GC addressed these criticisms through a reconciliation effort called Project Care, which included the writing of the Errors and Weaknesses Paper in which GCC pastors acknowledged and made corrections to imbalanced practices in the past. Both Larry Pile and Ronald Enroth have written favorable statements about GCC today." Let me know your thoughts. Jrhopler (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Jrhopler (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience in waiting. I have requested some specificity with regards to which particular statements need to be altered as well as reliable sourcing to use as a basis for changes to the article. You may be surprised to discover that a letter for Larry Pile reposted on the GCC website fails to meet certain criteria in that: letters in general are not regarded as reliable sources and per WP:SELFPUB sources from the subject which make claims about third parties (in this case Larry Pile) are generally not reliable. Wikipedia has a "fifth pillar" which states that we are free to ignore all rules provided that this makes us a better encyclopedia. However, verifiability has a great deal to do with what we do here. Let's assume I'm game and simply ask you to prove it. If I should get in contact with Larry Pile and, being affirmed that he did indeed write the letter, that doesn't tell me a great deal. It tells me that Larry Pile is a former critic. It doesn't refute or retract a multitude of statements of fact that he has made over the years, regardless of opinions offered. Furthermore, characterization of past practices does not hinge on Pile's work alone. The article cite hundreds of sources from academic papers to newsprint. Some retractions are almost sure to never come where the critics are deceased. I understand that there are certain statements which Great Commission Churches are sure to dispute. This falls under "contentious statements" from primary sources originating from the subject of the article. Larry Pile is definitely a source of some weight. If he were to publish a statement independent of Great Commission, the article would quite simply have to be modified to correct for this.
I am curious about your assertion concerning William Watson and determining 1) what he said and 2) what weight it carries.
I am aware of Project Care. We should definitely collect sources which mention it and describe it in any detail. It definitely has an impact on telling the developing story of Great Commission, a primary goal of any good article about Great Commission. I can't see how eliminating any source one might feel is 'outdated' would serve that goal - rather the continuing story as told with new sources should put everything in its proper perspective. Positive statements by Ronald Enroth, for example, would definitely help that perspective.
Finally, current events in the rewrite will definitely have other recent sources available which have challenging implications with the way you'd like to go with the article. For example, silent protests of GCC board member Tom Short at North Dakota State University acknowledged by the university president in yearly schoolwide communications do not seem beyond the scope of the article - in fact, given the clear relevance of campus activities to the history of Great Commission, they seem very much a part of the story. Other primary sources from within GCC (which we are warned about interpreting for ourselves) may not create content for statements within the article but may provide third party editors sufficient information to sustain past assessments of Great Commission.
And what GCC states about its beliefs is yet another example of a primary source we are cautioned not to interpret for ourselves. What do third parties objectively state about Great Commission beliefs? That has some weight. We favor secondary sources precisely because they are distinguished from efforts at self-promotion. And we caution editors with conflicts of interest to take such matters to heart. Self-promotion is not the goal. We strive to present all of the information as objectively as possible to allow the reader to make up their own mind. But a statement, for example, that GCC emphasizes strong marriages and families is not a doctrine. It is market targeting. But I am open to a clearer classification of Great Commission soteriology, for example. With what sources shall I do so? This talk page does not qualify.
Simply put, each and every one of your assertions should be accompanied with solid sourcing. Page numbers. Links. Something we may verify. Simply saying so or arguing a point is not enough in and of itself. I love a good source no matter where it may lead. The more authoritative the better. I get the broad scope of where you'd like the article to go. Let's talk nuts and bolts. If you need technical help formatting your sources, I can be of much service. All I need is a "what" - I can produce the "how" for you.
I hope I have not disappointed you too much with my response, but I think it best that I be honest about our obstacles as I see them so there are no misunderstandings. Are you okay with that? ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Claude, for getting back to me. In regards to your response, I do affirm the importance of reliable sources. I had a few questions for you. First, in regard to Larry Pile's statement, he wrote this (as you can see in the first paragraph of that statement) with the intention of publicly posting it--most notably on a site that is critical of GCC. (The GCM warning site.) That statement was posted on that site a year or so ago. No one disputes that Larry wrote this statement, in my understanding. Does that make a difference in how this statement is viewed? Would not Larry's 2011 statement be looked upon in the same way as the other statements or papers that he sent out years and decades ago? This seems to be an important issue in making sure that the article is both factual and neutral, particularly in light of your statement that Larry's past statements affected how this article was originally written. Second, you asked about the William Watson statement. This was posted in response to other statements made in the article. He is an expert who is also a third party-- who questioned the reliability of statements made about Great Commission by newspapers years ago. Does that make sense? Finally, I have a question about the selection of "characterizing" statements that affect the neutrality of the article. A good example of this is the statement made in the first paragraph: "Between 1978 and 1994, the movement attracted criticism for alleged authoritarian practices and a high degree of control over members (see Criticism)." Although I could see how a statement like this is appropriate in the history section of the article, my question is whether the selection of this statement in the introductory paragraph slants the entire article in a certain direction, and therefore it is not consistent with the Wikipedia standards of excellence in regards to neutrality. My appeal is that this summarizing statement be eliminated in the introductory paragraph, and reserve it for the history section. This would seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia's highest standards of neutrality. Would you agree? Jrhopler (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It was established by previous consensus that GCM warning is also not in-and-of-itself a reliable source. Certain third-party published works are linked here, but the site does not have the creedence to warrant an "external link" of its own here. Thus its links are only good to provide access to those works published elsewhere. Larry Pile is an acknowledged expert and Wellspring has a website just as your organization and a critical site do. Another editor with no connection to this matter has stated: "If a statement of opinion about GCC was published in a reliable source independent of GCC, I think that the retraction of that opinion should also be published in a reliable source independent of GCC." diff His opinion, offered with no argument on my part with regard to reliability or unreliability, was based upon WP:COI, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY with regard to statements on the GCC website regarding letters from Enroth and Watson. I don't think it's an uncommon way of looking at things around here. A self-published source by the topic of an article which makes claims about others simply holds no weight. Why is there not a clear retraction in Watson's dictionary's further editions? Does Moody print retractions? I can sympathize with the situation. But then again, we do not rely on Watson as a reliable source for the article anyway. That he would originally base an assessment seemingly on an opinion column in a single college paper hardly seems like due diligence. I don't know how bringing him up seems worthwhile. Enroth is far more weighty. His expertise is underscored by more than just one publication, or even his writings alone. If Enroth has stated what your site states that he has stated, that is very important. The problem is that it's your site stating it. We need a better source.
What's worse is that the argument to compare GCC to other NAE organizations as a basis for neutrality is not a neutral argument, but a criterion quite arbitrarily devised which favors GCC by comparing it with new organizations joining regularly with no appreciable history. Wikipedia already has a criterion for article size: it is a function of the subject's representation in reliable sources. Wikipedia already has a criterion for what is summarized in the lead paragraph: it is a function of summarizing what reliable sources have stated about the subject in proportion to what they say. And sources do not expire. You are free to disagree with me. I don't intend this to be the end-all statement about how the article should go, I definitely recognize that consensus does change, and I most certainly do not own the article. At this point, given the counsel of another editor about the reliability of sourcing given for recent statements added to the article, it looks as though a reversion is in order. According to WP:BRD at this point, you may find it helpful to offer some sort of compromise. I think my best bet is to continue to seek community involvement so there's no appearance that I have a personal stake in derailing an improvement to the article. We need to come up with solutions which will satisfy all our standards. I hope we can find something that lets us tell the whole story, and not leave you with the impression that we have left out any citation of sufficient authority to tell the whole story, which would depict positive changes and a better sense of who Great Commission Churches is. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Claude. In regards to the Watson statement and the Enroth statement, I maintain that both are legitimately sourced according to Wikipedia standards. First, my understanding is that information about an organization from a third party placed on an organization's website is not to be considered invalid automatically by Wikipedia--or am I mistaken? There is no fixed rule that would demand that these statements be removed--is there? Although it is true that having the Enroth statement (for example) posted on an independent website would be preferred, it is not required. Is that correct? But also consider this: When someone makes a negative statement about an organization like Enroth made and his opinion then changes due to changes in circumstances, it is customary in our culture for the person who made the original statement to write a public statement in the format of "To whom it may concern"--and send it to that organization...and then rely on that organization to publish that statement. This custom is particularly common between Christians and Christian organizations. The person making the statement is dependent on the organization to distribute the change of position, since it most affects that organization. Similarly, in the case of Watson, he followed the natural custom of submitting a statement to the organization (GCAC) and entrusted to GCAC the distribution of that statement to the public. In light of this custom, it is not to be expected that these statements would be posted on independent websites. Therefore, to require an independent website to post these would be to omit information that is quite important for telling Wikipedia readers the story of Great Commission Churches. Therefore, I would maintain that a reversion would not be order nor in the best interests of Wikipedia's overall purposes. My appeal to you is that these sources be maintained for the reasons I stated above. ALSO, I think it would be good to present one other point concerning the Watson statement. It was inserted in the context of statements made by newspapers that Great Commission was a cult--a charge that has been disputed. His statement is significant because he was a bona fide cult expert who stated that GCAC was not then nor ever was a cult. When considering this statement against charges made by individuals in newspaper articles that are not experts, it would seem like to delete this statement would not be consistent with the spirit of WIkipedia, which is to provide balancing statements to promote a neutral article. Overall, as I mentioned before, my concern is not so much with the sourcing...it is with the neutrality of the article overall. In many of the sources (including Dr. Enroth's book) positive statements are made about Great Commission...but those statements are omitted in the Wikipedia article whereas negative statements about Great Commission are selected from the same source. From reading the Wikipedia guidelines, those sources should be quoted neutrally--giving both sides from the same source. Bottom line, my appeal is that this whole article be re-written, with extra effort made to present a neutral, balanced picture of the movement. Does that make sense? Jrhopler (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you explain this to the community at the reliable sources noticeboard? There's also a noticeboard for neutrality. I don't think I'm explaining the community standards in a way that you're getting, so I think it's best that you reach out to them. I have every confidence that involving more editors can bring positive results. At least whatever answer you get, you can be assured that it was not just a difference between you and I, but truly a community decision. Some of your ideas seem fine to me, but I find that I am not the only person who questions the edits made so far. I don't think I could verify the statements that were made in any other way than by contacting the people cited. Is this what you expect from us? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Claude. Thanks for the suggestion to reach out to the noticeboard. If we cannot come to an agreement, I will take that step. Also, fyi, I certainly would not expect an editor to contact Dr. Enroth or Watson in this situation. So you raise a good question: What should be done in a situation like this, where a person not affiliated with an organization writes a public letter about an organization that he intends to be distributed publicly by that organization...and where he is relying on that organization to do so, rather than posting the letter on some independent website --should Wikipedia accept this letter published by the organization as a reliable source? Is there any precedent in Wikipedia for this? Common sense would say that that it would be appropriate, according to WIkipedia standards, to accept the letter as a reliable source. As I mentioned above, this is a common practice. And if these kinds of communications were omitted automatically from a Wikipedia article, it would omit some important information that Wikipedia readers would want to know. And the spirit of Wikipedia is to err on including information, even if it is an allegation. (I might note that so much of the article presently is made up of negative characterization made by people in newspapers that are simply allegations that have not been verified or proven to be reliable.) Another reason Wikipedia should include a statement like the Enroth statement is this: It would be quite a reproach on the organization if that organization published a bogus letter--and the individual then revealed that it was bogus. The organization could never be trusted again. If an organization had the audacity to do such a fraudulent act, there is such a freedom in our country to make public a fraud like this--and that would be a strong deterrent against that organization even considering publishing a fraudulent statement. Of course, in this situation, Dr. Enroth did write this statement. I know you are not questioning that. You are dealing with the issue of how this ought to be treated according to Wikipedia standards. So, I understand your point. How about this for a solution? What do you think about the wording of this insertion: "Posted on the GCC website is a statement GCC says it received from Dr. Enroth which states that Dr. Enroth no longer has the concerns he had in the past." This statement is verifiable--GCC has posted it on its website--.and it also bring out your point that it was posted on the GCC site, not an independent site. Do you think that this is a good solution? Jrhopler (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's closer to what I would perceive as a neutral presentation of what there is to cite. When I think of neutrality, I think of it as being rooted in proper attribution. When a statement is made by an accepted source, we say who says it and in what context so that the reader has the resource to make up their own minds. The online presentation of the Watson letter is a more acceptable rendering of what it should look like if we were going to accept letters published by GCC. My understanding is that when the letter came forward, it was decided that while it wasn't sufficient sourcing to warrant inclusion in the article, it did cast enough doubt on the book it refers to as to make that source less authoritative for inclusion. The letter appears in full and bears a signature. In the case of the Enroth letter, this does not appear in full. So not only could it be said that Enroth may not have written the letter, it may be entirely possible to perceive that the letter is excerpted, and the excerpt showing only the most favorable points. I would not have a problem citing such a letter in this particular case where it is reproduced in full, but I think the community may have a problem with it still. The precedent makes it easier for organizations of all kinds to 'create' opinions for the benefit of sourcing here, then remove it posthaste from their self-published site to avoid repercussions. I don't think they'd enjoy having to judge such sources in articles they normally edit. So, no, I don't think the precedent exists in any prevalent way here. It is much more oriented towards WP:PROVEIT than taking the topical organization at their word about these type of things. Again, you are more than welcome to test the waters on various noticeboards. I think it would be very positive to create as wide of a dialogue as possible. But the realist/producer in me thinks it might be more constructive to simply pull a string and request that a reporter or author or even the original sources publish these or simply make reference to them for themselves. It's your business how you want to handle this, so it may sound very presumptuous of me. I apologize if that's the case. It's just that I see far more possibilities for creating the traction for the changes you'd like to see by doing that instead of seeking to change what I perceive as a widespread community standard here. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Claude. Just to clarify, do you think my suggestion solves your concerns? Or is more needed? (FYI, the statement from Dr. Enroth is the entire statement.) What would be the consequences if nothing more was done in regards to the Enroth statement? (Thanks for your counsel.) Jrhopler (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to speak of consequences because it's not just my decision. The Watson letter is a strong citation in my eyes because it displays the actual letter rather than relates its contents as in the case of the Enroth letter. Hope that helps. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: GCM split

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

It has been proposed that Great Commission Ministries has sufficient notability to warrant its own article. The article has been developed at User:ClaudeReigns/GCM and is the product of research by User:ClaudeReigns with the help and at the suggestion of User:Chris.ridgeway, communications director for GCM. Since it is especially important to avoid conflict of interest and respect the communitarian spirit of Wikipedia, I hereby request an evaluation of the notability of Great Commission Ministries by the Wikipedia community by uninvolved parties, as well as discussion of any issues which might be of consequence in such a split. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Split, with caution The nature of this split is tricky. It could be argued that since being evaluated by Larry Pile that GCM was created as a subsidiary of GCC that nothing has changed. It should be noted that Larry Pile appears to be a former critic of the Great Commission church movement. No retraction of this statement, to my knowledge, has been printed. In my opinion, the split itself does not hinge on whether GCM is a subsidiary, associate company, or whether these NPOs form a group of any kind. I believe that GCM has established some notability of its own, and the nature of references to the NPO is in stark contrast to the nature of references to the church movement as a whole. It was also argued that the function of the organization is markedly different. It may be argued that the parent organization would as a result deserve its own article, which I think now in the future should be evaluated by notability alone. The new article gives a basis for understanding the past history of the movement and organization, but a search for sources related to criticism from reliable sources was performed and came up absolutely empty. Therefore, the organization ought to stand on its own, regardless of any complications the split may cause with regard to classification of individual entities or any precedent for promoting POV splits in other subtopics. In my opinion, this is not a POV split, just a content split, pure and simple. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. I received an invite from FRS. I have never been involved in this page, or anything related to it or any related anything, before. Possible COI: I'm a Catholic cleric. I see the points of both ClaudeReigns and (the name slips my tongue) the poster below, and, in a spirit of caution, weakly oppose the split for the time being - I do not believe it passes GNG, although I believe it could be developed to do so. It is not as notable as Claude saith; and it is not linkspamming, as the main (and somewhat virulent) opponent saith. My views are in line, I believe, with those enunciated in the few sentences put forth from ReformedArsenal. Keep developing the article and come back in two weeks. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 16:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The specific reason for requesting comment at RFC-econ is that the non-profit organization to be split has been previously evaluated as a subsidiary of the main organization, has a common board member, and has its own EIN - one basis for the split proposal. Obviously, this should also have the attention of RFC-religion if it is accepted. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The only third part WP:RS that I found was the Christianity Today article that is already linked as a source in this article. Are there more third party sources that I'm missing, if that is the only one (and it is only a single line in the article, not the primary topic of the article itself) then I'm not sure how I can support a split into its own article. Do you have other sources for us to consider? ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. The article contains sources from Baylor University Press, Christian Post, Christianity Today, the Orlando Sentinel, and a publication by Focus on the Family. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that, but the articles treat them as part of the same broad organization and there isn't any that I saw that give GCM enough individual attention to warrant its own article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, so should new statements and sources be merged into this article?
Conditional oppose.
ClaudeReigns, first a personal note: you've done sterling editorial service on the GCC article, as I see from the nuanced and considerate treatment you've given the various issues you've uncovered, and I'd like to thank you for your care, as this is what makes Wikipedia useful to others.
Now, to our onions: like the editor "St. John Chrysostom" above, I've had no prior involvement with this organisation or this article, and only came here in answer to an FRS message; but unlike that editor, I'm not a cleric. Further, I have little to no interest in Christian missionary or church organisations as such, not being of that faith nor much affected directly by it. I'm actually more interested in spirituality than organised religion, except as its activities impact on both individual freedom and mass psychology.
Like the editor User:ReformedArsenal, I find the lack of sufficient third-party reliable sources sufficient reason to consider the GCM organisation "non-notable" (or, as I think better English would have it, "unnoteworthy"). However, if new third-party reliable sources can be found - and I haven't uncovered any - that talk specifically about GCM, then there would be a prima facie case for notability - as you doubtless know! But failing that: it's only a footnote to the GCC article.
By the way, the aspect of GCM which I personally find most interesting (given my general indifference to Christian organisations noted above) is that they are an active missionary organisation providing services, according to their member Chris Ridgeway whom you've been speaking to on your user page, to a network of modern church organisations rather than to any sects or other hierarchically-divided groups; with adequate sourcing, this would seem to me a notable development in the organisation of faith communities in the early 21st Century CE.
And it occurs to me that some of their "client" church groups may have published suitable reference material crediting GCM with particular influence or effect on their own experience as faith communities; for example, a GCM client website may have published some unsolicited testimonial to their contributions; so perhaps Chris Ridgeway could furnish a list of client organisation website links for us to examine - dispassionately, of course! yoyo (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC) The GCM does not pass the acid test for stand-alone notability. Having IRS 501c(3) designation is not a notability point of it's own but it does to some extent aid in that assessment. Nearly everything redirects to GCC (1st redirect). The main GCLA (2nd redirect) article has a space about Other_affiliates including the GCM which you can expand if you wish.
...Latin American outgrowth of Great Commission Ministries (3rd redirect) founded in 1974 by Daniel B. Sierra,
I can't support this and I'm stopping just short of flatly labeling this Spamdexing and link farming. Same product in a different wrapper. This would introduce even more unnecessary ambiguity.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 12:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Eliminating confusion between GCM, GCM churches and GCC

Some confusion between these organizations has existed, and can be identified as erroneous is college neworg publications. Some college campus missionaries, having been briefly trained or consistently supported by GCM through their fundraising function, self-identified as GCM though it appears they reported directly to GCC church elders. This can be detailed as needed. The reason for this confusion was identified as a "branding problem". There is no reliable source that actually comments on this confusion. It is, however, definitely a consideration in deciding which content would belong with which article. Any precedents or policies which may be pointed out are certainly welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Great Commission church movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Commission_church_movement/Archive_10&oldid=1136775437"