Talk:Great Commission church movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

My proposal

Hi guys,

I've taken some time to organize my thoughts, and I have a proposal for discussion and fixing up the article. Lemme know what you guys think: (these are in no particular order):

1. What ever happened to the info-box at the top? Can we get it back?
2. I think this article could benefit from some nice images. They'd help break the monotony of the endless, poorly (at this point, in my opinion) formatted text. Goodness gracious, there is a lot of text here right now. Would anyone object to some random images being thrown in? What I've got in mind are things like pics of conferences, maybe one of UNC's campus (where McCotter seems to have kinda kicked things off), maybe some pics of the notable GC leaders, etc.)
3. Move the bulk of the "Endorsements and Commendation" section to WikiQuote, leaving only a brief summary of who the people are that endorsed the Movement, and links to the WikiQuote articles with the endorsements.
4. Dead Links. Wow. We've got a lot. There is a list of most of them on my userpage. If we can clean up the majority of the really critical ones, we'll be in alot better shape. Seriously, though, eventually getting at least a legit stub for all of them would help this article and the Wikipedia community as a whole. It would take me through the end of the year to properly do this myself.
5. About the Relevant Magazine article writers. Are those articles archived online somewhere on Relevant's site? How 'bout if they are, we briefly mention that some members of GC* churches have written for Relevant, and just source that brief statement? Otherwise, we need to find some way to cite the source, but listing the people and articles is unnecessary in my opinion.
6. The Counsel of Reference - I think all these folks need to be wiki-fied in order to keep the section as-is. As of this afternoon, only three of them have anything written about them in Wikipedia. All the dead links are gonna make me go blind. Any other suggestions or ideas here?
7. The "Partners" section - What is "Sonlife Ministries"? To what extent are the folks mentioned "Media Partners"? What does that mean? Could we have an explanation? Could we also have an explanation of what it means to have the three schools as "partners"? This section needs some clarification or something...
8. Archive the Talk Page. It's huge and unwieldy. Anyone know how to do that?
9. The Criticism Section. This should obviously remain in the article, as it is encyclopedic, but it's kind of a mess right now. Could the criticisms be organized, and fully cited, please?
10. The Statement of Beliefs... It's a rough read right now... Is there some way to either just link to and briefly summarize this here, or re-format it to be easier to read? It's appropriately word-y for a Christian Organization's beliefs and values statement, but it's too much for an encyclopedic article at this point, in my opinion. I think it's either got to be re-formatted or externally linked.

Lemme know what y'all think. I'm not utterly convinced that the above are the best solution, or an exhaustive list of "to-do" items. Just a good starting point. Lets focus on how we can improve the article in general, and argue the specifics as we go. I'm 100% open to more discussion and suggestions. Nswinton 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. I don't have a single problem with anything you just said and think they are all good goals. Sorry the red links that are killing your eyeballs are all my fault. It made for a good rundown of what there is left to do with different articles, understanding how everything fits together, and what's most notable--but I am definitely removing all dead wikilinks Monday. My first guess is that there is an article for almost every concept on the beliefs section, so they could all be condensed to a paragraph and wikilinked. ClaudeReigns 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. We removed the infobox because, depending on who you ask, the movement was "founded" on a different date. Some some consider 1970 and the "Blitz Movement" as the year it began, some consider 1965 the founding date, and lastly, some consider the founding of GCI (1983) the founding date of the "movement." Gator did not find putting all three of these dates in the infobox acceptable for whatever reason, and rather than have multiple infoboxes, it was removed and we haven't discussed it since. If we do return the infobox, I believe the general consensus is that this page is for the movement as a whole, and not specifically GCI, or GCAC, or GCM. Thus, the date should reflect that. Xanthius 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Good point. What exactly does it take for one to become a "partner" with GCC? Does Rick Warren's ministry being listed as a partner simply mean that they purchased 40 Days Of Purpose from his ministry? A definition of what "partner" means should be added to that section, as it could imply a lot of things. Xanthius 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I archived some of the above (old) discussion. My first time... Was very simple. That's obviously open to discussion and revert too, but I'd like to keep this discussion page tidy. I've gotta run, but I'll respond to you later, Xanthius. Thanks for the response on the infobox. This is considered the article for the entire movement, not a specific part of the organization, correct? Maybe I need to decide now if I'm a splittist or not... Nswinton 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, It would be awesome if you could take some of the redness from my eyes. At the same time though, some of those dead links *are* stub-deserving at the least. I'm going to keep the list on my userpage and try to kill some of them. Xanthius, is it possible to make a "timeline" infobox that can kinda follow the text of the development of the Movement down the page... to kinda solve the infobox founding date problem? I'll email Dave Bovenmyer and ask him for an explanation of "partnership" in the different contexts means. Also, I'm thinking about archiving another good-sized chunk of this discussion page, as it's still almost 90k. Anyone have any prefrences on a cut-point? Nswinton 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason the article is so long and generally poor in quality is because the first primary editor (Xanthius) edited the article from a certain perspective, choosing to emphasize the most negative attributes of GC. Then, GatorGalen got ahold of the article and wanted to take the polar opposite approach. At the insistence of Xanthius, who self-righteouslessly wrapped the Wikipedia flag of sourced material around himself, GatorGalen could only do the opposite by sourcing anything and everything he could find which spoke favorably of GC. Then good ole Claude came along and tried to run interference between the two, making nice with both.

Maybe other pages are edited in this same manner (with a pro person and a con person doing battle) but I suspect most are not. This article has so much stuff in it that is (IMO) largely irrelevent ... the Jim McCotter biography, being banned by a Canadian college 20 years ago, the Maryland political races, the published articles by GC members, the "notable" people of GC (that nobody outside of GC has ever heard of), the "supporters" section, the 80 or so footnotes. I agree with whoever pointed out that nobody in their right mind would want to jump in and edit this page now. Nate, you are not in your right mind  :-) behags 4/2/07

The movement's founder and how he started the movement is irrelevant? I beg to differ. Some of the other stuff might not seem important to someone familiar only with the current movement (such as the paragraph on the Maryland political ordeal) but it definately is notable and encyclopedic, given the amount of national exposure it received.

In response to what you've stated about my edits to this article: When I came to this article, it was pretty much just some text copy/pasted text from one of the organization's websites. Given that this was an organization that was known for half of its existence primarily for the controversy surrounding it (there are dozens of newspaper articles asserting that the movement is authoritarian, cult-like, and worse), I felt adding information about this well publicized controversy was the first step towards an article that more accurately depicted the history of this organization. Obviously current members like the many who edit here would rather not have that in this article, just as Scientologists would rather not have critical information in their movement's article. This has already been discussed with third party mediators, as seen in the archived talk page. Also in my defense, I have added a lot of sourced information on the movement's history and how it was founded, information which should not be considered criticism, and which anyone interested in a complete history of GCA should want included in this article. I also recently adding an additional source (a Tom Short newspaper article) rebutting the criticism of the movement. I wouldn't do this if I only wanted an article full of negative information.

Last, while I can understand the complaint that there are "too many footnotes," the footnotes are generally provided for information which (if unsourced) would be removed quickly. Information has been challenged over and over again on this basis, thus the footnotes abound in this article. I am trying to combine the duplicates whenever possible. Aside from the need to source statements that would otherwise be removed, personally, I would rather have too many sources in a wikipedia article than the far too common scenario of not enough sources. Xanthius 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Behags, thank you very much for you comments. You're very right that I came in trying to bring balance to a ridiculously anti-GC article. There simply isn't much info either way online, and Xan has a lot of sources he's gotten elsewhere. I would like to point out though that Claude is not trying to make nice with both and is in fact biased in the same way as Xanthius. He's merely better at hiding it. When I called him out on a misreading of the rules, he told me I should stop writing! I seem to recall some dictators who tried that in the past. Anyway, I suspect given some correlations that Claude and Xanthius actually know each other in real life, or at least correspond outside of wikipedia. I totally agree that this article is not attractive to outside editors - they'd probably have little motivation anyway. BTW, in response to Xanthius, the Tom Short article isn't really all that positive and seems to be more an attempt at making GCI look bad with their own words. Anyway, thanks for your input behags, a lot of it is valid. Gatorgalen 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please argue about Tom Short at Talk:Tom Short. You'll note that therein is basically an open invitation to say nice things about Tom. I am happy that User:Nswinton has asked for outside opinions. The cleanup tags I put up were meant for the same purpose. I've found with very few exceptions that the edits have been very helpful. While I'm basically thrilled that User:Xanthius did so much research on the topic, I'm not here to shield him from community criticism nor keep silent where my own opinions differ. My hope is that we can finally come to some cooperative agreements, secure a positive rating for the work done here, and move on to other interests here at Wikipedia. User:Gatorgalen, I promised you that I would support inclusion of your PoV once the cleanup was complete (which it seems it soon will be). Perhaps we can find some free use pictures as User:Nswinton suggests, or possibly source some positive facts about the efforts of GCAC within the bounds of accepted attribution. The most important points of the criticisms are present and supported and I don't see any worries that critics will feel that their concerns are not represented. You seem to be expressing that the positive qualities of GCAC are underrepresented. They should most certainly be included. ClaudeReigns 10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Party

I'm going to contact some other editors that I've worked with on completely different materials unrelated to GC*, whom I do not know personally and have only interracted with through our user pages and see what their opinions of things here are. In my opinion, we should all look at the goals and vision of the Scientology project, in particular their structure and goals section. "Dry and encyclopaedic is the goal here." I think we all can admit that we bring some level of bias in, which is obvious based on our edit history from this and other articles. Some do a much better job of being NPOV in their writings than others. I'm going to try to not do any edits from here on, because I know I'm in a situation where as a GC staffer myself I think I'm going against Wiki guidelines to even do much significant work on my employer's article, and I'm aware of some of the Movement's less than glorious history that puts me in the uncomfortable situation of either being completely honest or being "protective" and not writing a genuinely good article. So let's all try and maybe find someone that we don't know who we can convince to take a look at the article and discussion page and give some pointers and moderate some of the tension. Sound like fun?

ps, Behags, do you have a userpage? You should get one. Nswinton 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A few other things - I did some reading this morning and found these two guidelines very appropriate for our current situation: Lists in Wikipedia (some good thoughts on "prose in lists") and some good guidelines on editing and revision and assuming good faith. I think it would be great to get some random, uninvolved and uninterested folks in here to dry up this article and get it genuinely encyclopaedic and pleasing to the eye. Nswinton 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I am responding to a request for an outsider's view of this article. No doubt you will have seen the swathes I have cut through the article. I have added little because I have no knowledge of the subject (other than what I have read on wikipedia.) It is not a bad article and is starting to show less of a point of view for either side. Some thoughts: a) Obviously great passion has gone into the writing and kudos to all parties for remaining civil and being honest about their backgrounds. b) I love chocolate fudge brownies, I think they are the best snack in the world and I hate to see a bad thing said about them. This is why I don't edit the article on chocolate fudge brownies on wikipedia. You cannot be neutral when writing about a subject you are passionate about. You can "try" to be neutral. Some might even argue that a truly NPOV is impossible as we all have baggage which affects our editing. I worry about people editing an article with which they are so emotionally attached. c) I would wonder if the main protagonists would care to leave the article alone for a week/month (no sock puppets!) and see how it develops with the edits from the invited uninterested parties. Even if you think it's been "vandalised" out of all recognition, just leave it and see what happens. Hopefully, with outside input, the article will become more encyclopaedic and more neutral. I know this will be difficult and the temptation will be there, but why not give it a shot? d) When we are all dead, barring a catastrophe, the internet, wikipedia, and this article will still exist, we will not be able to change it from the grave so why not step back now, look at the wider picture and let a little bit of time do its work. Apologies for the rant and hope I have been of some little use.Mmoneypenny 09:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mmoneypenny, thanks for your edits. I was the one that invited Mmoneypenny and a handful of others to stop by and bring a third-party viewpoint to things. I just archived another large chunk of this discussion page, and I joined this article with the Christianity Project. Nswinton 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I like the new look of the article. I have a few suggestions for tweaking that I'll put here for you the rest of you to respond to before I act on them. 1)Intro - the sentence "It has been criticised for its authoritarian approach, with local church elders directing many aspects of members lives, and has been described as 'abusive' and 'cult-like' with an out-dated attitude to the role of women in the church." has a few problems. One, and this is a long-term issue with this article, is the need for the article to appropriately reflect majority and minority views. Something that might work better would be something simple like "It was criticized heavily in its earlier years." This would summarize what we actually have in the article well, which was the intention. 2)Intro - the "out-dated view on women" is interesting, but also isn't backed up by the article itself, in addition to being a very POV statement (ask yourself, "out-dated according to whose standards?"). 3)Also, a note onthe women in leadership section - this info is all in the core values statement document, it is a part of that (you have to click onthe link at the bottom of the core values link that's there). So it could be removed, unless we feel there's a good reason to elaborate on just it and not the other core values. 4)Under criticism, "Abusive practices criticized" is somewhat POV, "Practices criticized as abusive" might be clearer. Also, it would be good to note that the book is written by the same guy referred to in the previous sentence. 5)in the intro, "formalised" is british, so I'll change it to "formalized" (it being an american group). 6)history, maryland controversy - the length necessary to explain this seems out of place and not to flow in the history. It's not really an influential or major turning point in the history, so it seems odd to have more than a sentence there. Perhaps a simple statment with references. Thoughts? Gatorgalen 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Criticism of the movement only seems to have abated during the last 15 years or so. One should keep in mind though that criticism of cultic movements in general has declined since the Cult Awareness Network folded in 1994. I think given the sheer number of articles critical of the movement, it's important to mention the decades of controversy in the opening paragraph. Many newspaper articles introduced the movement with phrases like "no stranger to controversy" and similar, as that's what GCI was famous for for a long time. This is a movement became known to the world originally due to the controversy that surrounded it, and thus it's important to represent that.

2) Actually, there are plenty of newspaper articles critical of the movement's views on women. Perhaps adding those to the criticism section would be appropriate.

3) I think it should be kept because it covers beliefs of the movement that are not "assumed." What I mean is, when we say this is a Christian evangelical movement, it is an obvious assumption that they believe in the Trinity and so on. That is why quoting the Core Values statement is kind of redundant. But, what is probably not assumed is the movement's views on leadership, women in authority, and so on. Secondary issues which make them different from certain other Christian denoms while still a Christian denom.

4) I agree with this.

5) I don't remember what the style rules are regarding British/Americanisms, so no comment.

6) I think this was an encyclopedic event of note, and should be described as it is. It was definitely a big deal at the time, given the media coverage it received. Having it in its own section helps with the disrupted flow a bit.

Xanthius 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "formalized". :D Thanks for playing well together, guys. It looks like you both are handling this well. If I could chime in on the Maryland controversy, it's still the widest coverage of any GC mention in any RS. I'm guessing we'd find that the Washington Post gets more weight most places on Wikipedia that other self-authored, city, regional, and campus sources. Due to more recent 'innuendo', I'll probably be very likely to stick to my guns on that one. On researching Jim McCotter for his upcoming article, the variety of sources claiming he was involved in the CNP tend to magnify the implications of a political ambition, at least under his guidance. My "original research" would also corroborate that it continues in spirit, but that is as of yet unsourceable. Suffice it that I believe that the Maryland incident is representative of those other findinga and experiences and should be included due to the notability of the source. But since current occurance of any political involvement remains unsourced, as an editor I feel this should be treated historically only, despite my PoV. I think the other issues should work themselves out depending on sourcing, and it's definitely advisable to add more sources, seeing as how that edit was (I can only assume) a conclusion drawn by someone never involved with GCC. ClaudeReigns 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1)Yeah, the criticism should definitely be represented. 15-20 years is a long time when taken in the context of the whole history (nearly half), so perhaps something like you're saying with the decades "Through the 70s and 80s it received several criticisms, not gaining widespread acceptance among Evangelicals until the 90s". That would be consistent with the article. 2+3)I don't doubt there are articles critical of the stance on women. That would be fitting in the criticism. I actually would say that as I understand most Evanglical denominations have similar stances (there are differences among protestants). There's nothing really exceptional about it. Most of the "evanglical" community - CMA, Vineyard, EV Free, etc. are the same way, for which they of course are also criticized. The Danvers Statement is an example of a consensus document among evangelicals on this issue (and a great read too). 4+5)great, I'll fix it tomorrow (sleepy) 6)The WP is definitely the best source we have. There's no doubt it should be included, but it doesn't have any real significance in GCC's history. It hasn't affected it in any way. McCotter definitely did/does have a desire to impact govt (see some of the groups he has founded, pre- and post-GCA). It's nice that we have a source for it that's good, but the length just seems unnecessary and out of place. A one-or-two sentence description would suffice, with pointing to the source if people really are interested. The rest of the history section kind of shows cause and effect and the development of the organisation(:)), while this kinda sticks out as "what in the world". Actually, if there was a place not in the history section that would be even better, some have suggested criticism since it really centers around that, I would put it under Trivia if we had that. Gatorgalen 05:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gator, using terms like "widespread acceptance among Evangelicals until the 90s" is simply conjecture and not backed by sources. Not being criticized as much is not the same as "widespread acceptance." Rather than hash out this kind of stuff again, however, I think I would prefer it if we all followed the advice of Mmoneypenny, who said: I would wonder if the main protagonists would care to leave the article alone for a week/month (no sock puppets!) and see how it develops with the edits from the invited uninterested parties. Even if you think it's been "vandalised" out of all recognition, just leave it and see what happens. Hopefully, with outside input, the article will become more encyclopaedic and more neutral. I know this will be difficult and the temptation will be there, but why not give it a shot?

I wasn't happy with all the edits he made either, such as the removal of Paul Martin's quote or the section on mental breakdowns, however I am trusting that as an uninterested third-party, he is able to step back and view the article in a different light than the rest of us, and bring us closer to NPOV grounds. I'd prefer for us all to not return to the edit wars of the past, which will undoubtedly happen if the GCA members resume editing the article with the intention of painting the movement in a certain light. Let's just see how this article develops in the next few months, especially now that it is a part of the Christianity project. Xanthius 16:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I did in fact step back for over a week and let the other editors do their thing. As I said earlier, I think it was overall a good part so far. It seems to me that moneypenny in particular has completed his first revision, and I would like for us to discuss further tweaking. Which is what I put there. Notice I haven't made any edits, only comments. I honestly don't think understand how any of those six I put should be all that controversial, there's no need for an edit war. I also don't understand how "widespread acceptance among Evangelicals until the 90s" would be conjecture - agree with it or not, that's what the sources say. The NAE, ECFA, EFMA, and IFMA represent (FYI, note that the NAE now displays GCC on its site). They represent the vast majority of evangelicals. Then you have Samaritan's Purse, Campus Crusade, etc. etc. who all support GCC. You're right that abated criticism doesn't equal acceptance, but coupled with the acceptance of all those groups i think anyone, even Paul Martin, would say that GCC is widely accepted among Evangelicals. Whether they should be is an entirely separate question. Gatorgalen 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are some RS that draw that same conclusion, I don't believe it's appropriate to suggest it. Just let the sources speak for themselves. Since GCC is a member of the NAE, and that is mentioned in the article, others can draw that conclusion for themselves based upon that source. Skeptics could simply draw the conclusion that the NAE has lowered its admissions standards. Either way, let's just let the sources speak for themselves and try not to interpret them. That is what I am trying to avoid. If you want an alternate interpretation to yours regarding the NAE, membership in the NAE seems to be a fairly automated process nowadays. See this link: [1] You fill out your organization's info, pay your membership dues via credit card, and check the "Agree with statement of faith" check box. That you pay as you sign up suggests that membership in the group is not difficult to achieve. Xanthius 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, taken alone the NAE membership could be dismissed. However in summarizing what we currently have in the article, namely that GCC is a part of the four major "accrediting" organizations among evangelicals (NAE, ECFA, IFMA, EFMA) and the lack of any current outspoke critics, it should be pretty obvious and simple to summarize it as that. I'm going to take WP advice and "be bold" and go ahead and make that edit and a couple of others. BTW, sorry for my recent abscence, I've been traveling. Gatorgalen 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Untag and Pictures

Way to go with the cleanup--asking permission to remove the tag I put up. We should try to scavenge for pictures. There's guy on my favorite source (Flickr.com) who has posted copyrighted Faithwalkers pictures which could easily be relicensed to Creative Commons 2.0 (just search the tag "faithwalkers" there and sort by most interesting) We should try to make a checklist of important sites, too, so free use photos can be found/taken. ClaudeReigns 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[2] would be one great source. There's about a billion pics from the Rock at Iowa State here (is this where you got the one from Curtiss Hall?) You'd have to contact the user that uploaded the pic probably, to be on the safe side, but if they aren't too keen on the idea lemme know and I'll talk to them. Nice job on the first pic and your edits today, ClaudeReigns. Nswinton 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

GCI Logo?

Did GCI have a logo? Does anyone have a pic of it? That would go perfectly in the Great Commission International Background section. Nswinton 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Don't take this the wrong way guys, but the Dennis and Dave Bovenmyer pictures are way too recent! The sections they supposedly represent (the 1970s and the Blitz Movement time period) should ideally have pictures from back then. I have seen pictures in newspaper articles of Blitz members and they were very young, even McCotter. To show a grey haired Bovenmyer next to the "Blitz Movement" section is a pretty big juxtaposition in my view! Anybody have ideas on how to get pictures taken during the actual time period they are supposed to represent? Xanthius 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and I think it's valid. Do you think the current images should be removed immediately, or left as placeholders till better ones can be found? I'd really like to maintain a decent number of images here and work towards getting this article up to GA status. Does anyone know where some older images could be found? Also, no need for "!", Xanthius. I respect your opinion :) Nswinton 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just didn't want to offend anyone with the idea that Dave and Dennis were "too old." I just laughed when I saw a grey haired Dave Bovenmyer representing what a group of mostly 20-something evangelists did during the 1970s. Xanthius 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, yea, I understand where you're coming from. Dave's grown his beard out just in the last few years, I think. I remember when I first started coming to his church in Ames, IA before he had the beard, and I think he looked quite a bit younger. It shouldn't be too hard to at least find an image where he doesn't look as formal or... advanced in years. Nswinton 11:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

What happened to the infobox? Smee 07:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Ha ha, good question. Drop by me and Xanthius's talk page and let us know what you think. Nswinton 13:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion which developed proposed infobox

• Copied from User talk:Nswinton

Great Commission Churches

File:GCC Logo.png
Founded	1965 with no official name 1970 as The Blitz Movement 1983 as Great Commission International 1989 as Great Commission Association of Churches 2005 as Great Commission Churches
Founder	Jim McCotter
Type	Evangelical Christian Church Association
Focus	Planting and building churches
Location	Columbus, Ohio
Origins	Plymouth Brethren
Area served	International
Members	43,000 (2005)
Official language	English
Key people	Herschel Martindale John Hopler Rick Whitney Dave Bovenmeyer Tom Short Mark Darling Brent Knox Chris Martin
Website	http://www.gccweb.org/

I think this shows the history using just one factbox and is graphics lite. Notable diffs: founder (click the link on founder, it is informative), focus and slogan, both taken from the homepage, international area served with room to list, and number members, thanks GG. Also note: McCotter not included in Key People. ClaudeReigns 06:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, that "founder" link is automatically there? Someone is gonna take offense there cause it will hit too close to home! I don't care, it made me laugh. Anyway, I think this new version looks fine. If I had to be picky, I'd re-word "planting and building churches" so it doesn't sound like a missions group that goes places and literally builds new church buildings (it's very close to a description of a mission trip to Mexico that a few friends went on where people just built new church buildings). How about "Church planting and growth"? `Nswinton 13:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, or perhaps just "Church planting". no need for an and. Otherwise looks fine. Gatorgalen 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, that sounds good to me, too. Nswinton 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Church planting and growth" is a direct quote from the homepage in reference to the word "focus". Wasn't paraphrasing or doing OR. You can always ask them to change the homepage if you want to simplify. :D ClaudeReigns 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

not sure where that's at, I do see "church planting, youth events, leadership development, and church growth" on the GCC site. In retrospect, it makes more sense to include growth because some of GCC's churches weren't planted by GCC in the first place. So I'm fine with that, and maybe also adding in leadership development and/or youth events. Gatorgalen 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is still the unused "Methods" field and youth events could probably get mention there in some form. ClaudeReigns 23:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great Commission church movement began in 1970 with a focus on planting and building churches that are devoted to Jesus Christ and fulfilling the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age," (Matthew 28:19, 20). [3] ClaudeReigns 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice. I would still prefer it if GCM was also represented in the box, since it's such a big part of the movement, but I am okay with using this one with a few changes. Key people is missing Dennis Clark. Who is Chris Martin? As for 'Focus': "planting and building churches" is slightly inaccurate, since as of 1991 (according to Kane Associates) the movement had not built a single church building. I think the focus would be more accurately described as "Evangelism," maybe. Xanthius 05:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris Martin is on the GC board, (see gccweb.org) but I have no idea how noteworthy he is. I am not sure I've heard of him personally, and his face isn't familiar to me. You're right about missing Dennis Clark for sure. Should we replace Chris with Dennis, do you think? Nswinton 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying--the focus is not real estate development. I don't think any of us actually think of GC as an intrepid group of Amish carpenters, daily erecting sturdy wooden buildings on the frontiers of evangelism, but it might appear that way to outsiders as worded. Organization development is a more appropriate translation of that, and so I propose that we retain the wording but link accordingly, especially since

• we've already delineated GCC as evangelical
• the church building article reads as an architectural piece.
• we are infoboxing GCC as a non-profit organization
• the Wiktionary definition of the verb build[4] includes 6 infinitive disambiguations including:
  • "to construct" exists but discounted here with the Kane Association citation
  • 2 examples of "to form" already covered in planting.
  • 2 instances of "to develop" and another of "to increase or strengthen" seemingly corroborated by the idea of "organization development".

Just as with the Slogan field inherent in the infobox, all organizations including non-profits seemingly have a certain sovereignty to self-definition in the form of mission statements and the like. This is how I found the word "focus" used at the GCC official site, and for anyone else to define such a vague parameter as "focus" for the organization but the organization itself wouldn't be appropriate IMO. Additionally, the organization should definitely retain its right to re-define itself as well, and so if the word focus is used differently at the official site, Wikipedia would need to change accordingly. I know that additive reasoning is WP:OR but I hope *pant pant pant* I've presented a subtractive case for this definition that might satisfy the urge for balance, clarity, and objectivity for all editors. ClaudeReigns 07:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So which one are we going with then? You lost me. Nswinton 11:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Truly you have a dizzying intellect." --from The Princess Bride

Ok, gotcha. In summary, I'm calling a focus of "church building" organizational development -- but only as a link and not as the wording -- so as not to confuse "church building" with church architectural or construction pursuits. It's reflected in the current draft. ClaudeReigns 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So you plan to have it read, "Planting and building churches"? Nswinton 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, I have the infobox to the right currently marked up as such. ClaudeReigns 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, no word yet... should we refer it for consensus on the GCC talk page? ClaudeReigns 18:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, go ahead and put it up on the GCA article talk page. If no one has a problem in a few days I think you should go ahead and put it on the page. Nswinton 03:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting consensus on new infobox

• Comment. I am submitting this because I believe it represents the best efforts from all points of view to produce a quality infobox about Great Commission Churches. Please include a For or Against below and your reasoning for your position. If you have a reason for not taking a side, then feel free to Comment anyway. ClaudeReigns 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• For as per ClaudeReigns suggestion (at this point it looks like the best version I've seen) Nswinton 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add your reasoning, for the reference of future editors. You can always just say "as per ClaudeReigns" :D ClaudeReigns 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• For as per ClaudeReigns. (Would it be possible to capitalise the P in planting?) All the best.Mmoneypenny 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

revised as per Mmoneypenny :D ClaudeReigns 12:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• For as per ClaudeReigns. Would also request Dennis Clark be added to the key people list. Xanthius 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• For with Reservations as per ClaudeReigns. Specifically, I am still uncertain as to the accuracy of saying it was founded in 2006 as GCC. Could someone find a source? Also, we had a discussion long ago about Jim McCotter being called the founder - he shouldn't be listed as the sole founder. Gatorgalen 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Noting your reservations. I can't actually even find any reference to suggest that GCC is anything more than a public relations alias for GCAC, rather than an actual 501(c)(3) entity in its own right as we are implying. I was also able to find a source which reliably demonstrates its existence as early as 2005, so changing accordingly. [5]

As for Jim McCotter, however, numerous secondary sources cite McCotter as founder based on activity up through the mid-eighties, while secondary sources supporting others as co-founders are still lacking. If you click the link to "founder" in the link box, you will note that at the template level it links to the article for entrepreneur, a word many RS's ascribe to McCotter and yet none of the other co-founders which GCA now purports for the early movement.

So now having heard from all the main editors, having adjusted accordingly to consensus comments, and having received no comments against, adding infobox and acknowledging need for a final source for foundation date and actual legal status of GCC entity. I'll archive this RfC on Monday to give time for further discussion. ClaudeReigns 09:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

From a recent email from John (Hopler?)->"As to Jim McCotter, I would not refer to him as THE founder, since there was always a plurality--a group of men who were working together at the beginning (Herschel, Dennis, Jim, etc.) Jim, though, was the primary leader of the group."

This is sincerely a sticky subject, and I/we need to all be careful that we're not A) trying to wiggle GCC away from significant association with McCotter or B) trying to over-emphasize his involvement, as he has not been formally involved in over two decades. I will confess that I'm not the biggest fan of having him referenced all over this page, but at the same time I know that it's an encyclopedia article, not a PR campaign. If this is going to continually be a sticking point, I'd suggest adding at least Hershel Martindale and Dennis Clark to the "Founder" section, or else removing that part altogether. The origins of the organization are clear in the article, and I'd hate to lose the infobox on the basis of this point. Nswinton 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopler is a primary, not secondary source. His emails absolutely have no place on Wikipedia. Find a reliable secondary source (media from that point in history or a reliable secondary historian) and we will add any other founders. The secondary sources currently all point to McCotter as the founder, and without those sources as of yet unfound, anything else is dubious revisionist history on the part of the primary source. ClaudeReigns 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Claude, I agree, the email is not a good source for adding info to the article, it's possible you missed my point. My point is that it's a "sticky situation", and we need to be sensitive about it. I wouldn't dream about citing an email from someone as a source on wikipedia :) I was only illustrating a point. Here's an (imperfect) analogy: Some foreign exchange student takes a US History course and asks, "So, George Washington founded the US?". George Washington was a huge figure at that time, and played a critical role, and is often refered back to, but there were a large number of other very significant contributors that history refers to as well. He did not stand alone. Honestly, I'm not as comfortable fighting hard against having McCotter listed as the founder, because I agree that everything I've read says he was the primary person. It's easy to say "well, things were informal back then, so it's hard to point at one man, but if they would have been formal, he'd have been the formal leader. Nswinton 13:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

GCC leaders emailed today may wish to distance themselves from his name to this day due to the controversy surrounding him, but I have scores of newspaper articles which label him as the 'founder'. McCotter denied this to newspapers back then, but former members (and leaders) who left the movement were quick to identify him as the founder and primary leader of the movement during its early history. It's going to take a whole lot more than an unsourceable email from a current leader with a vested interest in distancing the movement from the controversial founder to change that. Xanthius 18:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius, did you read my last comment? Partiularly, "Honestly, I'm not as comfortable fighting hard against having McCotter listed as the founder, because I agree that everything I've read says he was the primary person. It's easy to say "well, things were informal back then, so it's hard to point at one man, but if they would have been formal, he'd have been the formal leader." or "I agree, the email is not a good source for adding info to the article". I'm not trying to change the article at all, I'm just trying to make the point that it's a "sticky situation". Let me avoid further confusion: I BELIEVE THAT MCCOTTER CAN BE CONSIDERED THE FOUNDER OF THE BLITZ/GREAT COMMISSION MOVEMENT. My point was that we all need to watch our POV so that we don't over or under-emphasize that fact. Does that make sense? Nswinton 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Nswinton! I didn't look at where I was placing my quote. I didn't mean for it to appear to be directed at you. I was just putting in my two cents when it came to what the anonymous editor wrote. You and I agree. Xanthius 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to refer to it as "currently known as GCC" or something, that's what I was trying to say, not sure we can say it was founded as GCC at any time. I agree with nswinton's suggestion regarding the founder section and his reasoning. Gatorgalen 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GCC Logo.png

Image:GCC Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)