Talk:New Creation Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

---

Fact check and POV dispute

I added these templates. The bulk of the article seems to be a diatribe against the teachings of this particular church. This came to my attention when an unlinked section referring to this church was added to the article about antinomianism.

I have no position about whether these claims are true or not, but they seem to be fairly serious accusations. Some sort of verifiable information needs to back up these controversial claims, identifying who made them and when. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I realized that my post had been cleaned up as well, those below is it is a research by a group of university students that is trained to watch from a neutral passive observers point of view. Some of the controversy maybe doctrinal but i think its only fair to inform the public as such. Quotes directly from the pastors themselves are good evidences. I am absolutely neutral and i hold no grudges nor am I affiliated with the church in any way.

I think its good to inform others what is the difference of this particular charismatic church with others, even in doctrinal. If the cleanup continues, there wouldn't be left anything in this section. -Jack

If you want to add content that is of such a nature, you must back it up with specific sources and reference them at the bottom of the article. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that the disputed section be posted here so that people can view them to say the least, knowing it is being disputed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklord 1984 (talk • contribs)

Doctrine

I removed:

Pastor Joseph Prince's main doctrinal focus is on Jesus Christ, His finished work on the cross, the new covenant of Grace created by God as a result of His love for people. He believes in God as graceful, merciful, loving, a bondage-breaker, a healing-maker, a burden-remover and a curse-destroyer. Pastor Joseph Prince claims a special anointing for preaching the grace message. It is said that he has preached about cheap grace, a theory that believers can sin as much as they want and get forgiven by Jesus Christ. However, he explained that there is no cheap grace cause unmerited favor is not cheap because Jesus died for the entire human race. Tthough it is free for sinners cause they can never merit it. He has time and time again said from the pulpit that he is against sin, as can heard from his sermons which can be purchased from the church's link below.

This is unsourced (see WP:BLP ) and reads like a sermon, stating matters of doctrine ("Jesus died for the entire human race") as if they were facts. I really question whether the article has to include this section at all. Kla'quot 17:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not a Christian Wikipedia and those would have little meaning, and furthermore that content would seem like Original Research. This is not a forum. And it's advertising the sermons too, if you noticed. I feel that this text should not be put back onto the page, unless there are some really big overhauls to it. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt this is not a Christian Wikipedia, I believe the purpose is to inform anyone who is looking for info on this church to be able get that information here. And one of the key areas of info would be the Doctrine of the church. My suggestion is to clean up the text to be more factual and objective so that it does not sound too "preachy". However do note that doctrines are matter of faith, not fact. The only factual part of the doctrine is the fact that the church believes in it. :-) Boldeagle 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do. We would like to see the finished product. As no expert on the subject myself, I would leave it to those who could phrase it appropriately. And try to keep it simple, and try to wikilink to articles on Christian doctrines so that you won't find yourself over-elaborating and basically repeating what can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. =) Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the reference to the megachurches, so that it is consistent with FCBC and CHC. However to do justice to other megachurches in Singapore, I will verify the facts first before posting other megachurches in the same list. Toyota1973 06:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added Lighthouse Evangelism, Victory Family Centre and Trinity Christian Centre as megachurches in Singapore from my interaction with friends from these churches. I will try also gather more statistics and may come up with a list of churches in Singapore with more than 2000 people in weekly attendances; maybe in another sub-grouping. (Maybe I will do this as part of my research in my current post graduate studies.) Hopefully this will help. Toyota1973 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to the article and so is deleted. - 202.156.12.10 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the section is unnecessary. The article makes no mention of the church's doctrine or affiliation with any specific denomination. Although the above mentioned paragraph sounds like an advertisement or sermon, the article should mention general doctrine and any areas that deviate significantly from basic Christian doctrine. Comparison/contrast could be drawn between the church and specific, established denominations or sects. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if this part of the wiki should be included? Comments?

Content and style of preaching

The content and style of preaching and teaching in the church are deemed to be controversial by some critics. One such critics, Rien van de Kraats, who leads the Netherlands-based Back to the Bible workgroup, a self-proclaimed "small group of Christians" concerned with "the spiritual climate...in the Netherlands and Belgium" [18] (not to be confused with the US-based international Christian ministry Back to the Bible led by Dr Woodrow M. Kroll) , after he listened to the CD recording of three (3) services [19], wrote in an article dated 1 April 2007 that the senior pastor Joseph Prince "exceeds several times the limits of biblical decency"; "preaches biblical falsities, or rather things that are not written"; "frequently imitates people, who have questions concerning his message...[in a way that is] humiliating for the persons concerned and certainly doesn’t radiate pastoral compassion"; "comes across rather compelling... does this for example by always demanding from his listeners to agree with his message by calling the word amen...also lets them repeat his sentences frequently, as an affirmation that they listen to him and that his message is true"; "is manipulative and works toward a certain climax"; and that "In the message of Joseph Prince the same sound rings through. He only adds something. He adds the prosperity message. He uses the good, biblical term of grace to lead up to his eventual aim: that is material blessings for those who live by grace. This principle occurs in all his messages. From his statements concerning grace he always comes back to prosperity, which should be conferred upon every Christian who lives by grace." The article made this conclusion about Joseph Prince, "We do not think it is advisable to get the dogma of Joseph Prince in the congregation."[19]

Nccwebmaster (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As a user with such a strong conflict of interest you should not be removing this valid criticism. I have therefore reverted your edits. This also included the 19,000 claim - remember that we need a source to quote and the article currently quotes 18,000. Research by the Back to the Bible group has been used elsewhere on Wikipedia and so should not just be removed. This does not add undue weight to the criticism of the article. I have previously cut down some of the section previously but another editor then added it back. I must reiterate to Nccwebmaster that articles about your organisation on wikipedia are not written to suit you point of view. Rien van de Kraats must have some reason to have written this and therefore I think that this section should remain, although perhaps in a reduced form. Smartse (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created a separate section to specifically deal with the matter. My views are found there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanlipkee (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reposted to the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding this here. Smartse (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To whoever it may be concerned

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article New Creation Church (Singapore), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Shona MacCormack 11:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I propose that the information in Joseph Prince be merged into a section of this article. The Church itself seems to be marginally notable, via third-party coverage in major Singapore press. However, Joseph Prince himself, though he is definitely notable in relation to the Church, does not yet seem to be notable enough for his own bio. Judging by how fast the church's congregation is growing, this may well change in the future. But for now, I think that all the information should be maintained in one article about the Church. --Elonka 22:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been expanded and should be ready for a redirect.218.186.9.4 12:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed, thanks for the help.  :) --Elonka 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with Nccwebmaster

I'm having a dispute with Nccwebmaster on the content of this entry. I would like to add the following but Nccwebmaster kept deleting them. I don't know why they want to hide such info from the public. Need help to resolve this:

Controversy with regard to the huge salary being paid to Joseph Prince as a pastor continues to surround him. On 5th October 2008, in an interview with the Sunday Times, he acknowledged that he was well-paid but added that money did not have a hold on him. Mr Prince who is the executive chairman of the church council, also dismissed the rumour in the interview that his salary was $50,000 a month. He said that it could have been $50,000 if he had not voluntarily taken all the pay cuts through the years. Ref - http://erikchua.com/2008/10/05/the-sunday-times-from-stutter-to-charisma

However, on 30th March 2009, The Straits Times reported that a check revealed that the independent New Creation Church paid one employee between $500,001 and $550,000 in its last financial year of 2008. Under the new requirements of the Code of Governance for charities, all charities and non-profit organizations in Singapore would have to disclose the salary bands of their top executives to the Commissioner of Charities. Even though the church did not confirm if the amount went to its pastor, Joseph Prince, but it told The Straits Times that its policy is to 'recognise and reward key contributors to the church and Senior Pastor Prince is the main pillar of our church's growth and revenue'. Ref - http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/21685-singapore-church-leader-paid-s500000-

Matthew Kang, the Honorary Secretary of the New Creation Church further added in a reply to The Straits Times on the 15th April 2009, that the New Creation Church was not a public charity and did not solicit public donations. The congregation gave their tithes and offerings to the church out of a willing heart with no compulsion. Every giver, whether a member or a visitor, was taken in good faith that he would trust the leadership to make good decisions for the New Creation Church which he had chosen to attend. Ref - http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?t=24706

Ahnan (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe this incident at COIN has been addressed sufficiently, and I have closed it there. If anyone disagrees they may remove the resolved tag and address their additional concerns. Mishlai (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Music section

I feel that this section should probably be removed, the only reference provided is to a site selling the music and this in my opinion constitutes advertising. If a better source can be found it might be ok but otherwise I think it should go. Any comments? Smartse (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As there have been no objections in 3 weeks I've removed this section. Smartse (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

SGD

Good question. I have no idea if it's USD or SGD.Mishlai (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to New Creation Church. Aervanath (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

New Creation Church (Singapore) → New Creation Church — No other existing articles could be called "New Creation Church", therefore the disambiguator is unnecessary. Neelix (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are several New Creation Churches in the rest of the world. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are they affiliated to the church in Singapore? If so I think it would make sense to make the article under New Creation Church and then include infomation about the other churches too. I think it is a bit stupid to use brackets in the title when they aren't needed. Smartse (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well to quote the article being discussed here It is not affiliated to any church overseas so it is not likely that they are affiliated. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It doesn't matter if there are any other New Creation Churches unless and until they have articles on Wikipedia. We're disambiguating only article titles. Station1 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Primary if not only topic. Other ones that are not sufficiently notable to be in Wikipedia don't count, and, even if they were, this one would still be the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support In light of this a move seems sensible. Smartse (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticisms on Joseph Prince by Rien Van de Kraats from the Back to the Bible Workgroup

Introduction

The criticisms by Rien Van de Kraats was added by Smartse (Update on 10 June 2009: Smartse has clarified that it was not him but an anonymous editor who added in the criticism section.). It was removed from the wiki article a few times by NCCwebmaster, and was subject to a round of major revisions by myself (Tanlipkee). However, the deletions and revisions were not accepted by Smartse who repeatedly undid the deletions and those major revisions, and put back the original content to the wiki article.

In view of Smartse's persistence, I suggest a compromise be made by adopting the revised version below, which substantially retains the original content provided, but is "enhanced" with additional background information and references provided by me.

Proposed revised content

"The content and style of preaching and teaching in the church are deemed to be controversial by some critics. One such critics, Rien van de Kraats, who leads the Netherlands-based Back to the Bible workgroup, a self-proclaimed "small group of Christians" concerned with "the spiritual climate...in the Netherlands and Belgium" [18] (not to be confused with the US-based international Christian ministry Back to the Bible led by Dr Woodrow M. Kroll) , after he listened to the CD recording of three (3) services [19], wrote in an article dated 1 April 2007 that the senior pastor Joseph Prince "exceeds several times the limits of biblical decency"; "preaches biblical falsities, or rather things that are not written"; "frequently imitates people, who have questions concerning his message...[in a way that is] humiliating for the persons concerned and certainly doesn’t radiate pastoral compassion"; "comes across rather compelling... does this for example by always demanding from his listeners to agree with his message by calling the word amen...also lets them repeat his sentences frequently, as an affirmation that they listen to him and that his message is true"; "is manipulative and works toward a certain climax"; and that "In the message of Joseph Prince the same sound rings through. He only adds something. He adds the prosperity message. He uses the good, biblical term of grace to lead up to his eventual aim: that is material blessings for those who live by grace. This principle occurs in all his messages. From his statements concerning grace he always comes back to prosperity, which should be conferred upon every Christian who lives by grace." The article made this conclusion about Joseph Prince, "We do not think it is advisable to get the dogma of Joseph Prince in the congregation."[19]"

The original version written by the anonymous editor (IP address: 220.253.15.89) time-stamped: 09:03, 4 June 2009, can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Creation_Church_(Singapore)&diff=prev&oldid=294345275

To further help us gauge the objectivity and validity of the serious criticisms levied upon Joseph Prince by Rien van de Kraats, I think it is only fair that we get to see and hear the preacher himself in action. For those who would like to do so, you can do so by viewing the video recordings available on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JosephPrinceMedia&view=videos&sort=d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanlipkee (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Views from both ends needed to provide balance

I personally feel that the criticisms by Rien Van de Kraats represent the views of a single person or at best, of a small group of persons, who hold(s) a highly critical view of Joseph Prince, and should therefore NOT be included in the wiki article.

If such views were to be included, then I believe views of persons or groups who strongly support Joseph Prince should also be included to provide a balance. I encourage other editors/ contributors to add in such contents.

Full disclosure of the background of Workgroup needed to avoid misrepresentation

As I've stated above, I think that if we were to decide to include the criticisms by Rien Van de Kraats in the wiki article, it is necessary to fully disclose (and properly provide the references to) the background of the Netherlands-based Back to the Bible workgroup, which is a small group started in 1994, (which as of Nov 2002, comprised just two retirees as its full-time members, 3 part-time members and 4 supporting members), led by Rien Van de Kraats (who was one of the only two full-time members, the other one being his wife), in order to clearly distinguish it from the US-based international Christian ministry led by Dr Woodrow Kroll. I had tried to do so by revising the content to the version as shown above.

Originally, the anonymous editor who first added the criticisms to the wiki article seemed to have been confused, and stated that the Netherlands-based Back to the Bible workgroup had connections with various international Christian ministries. The author therefore claimed that the views of the group's leader, i.e. Rien Van de Kraat were authoritative. The author did not provide any support for his claim and failed to furnish any direct link to the Back to the Bible workgroup. When I did my check, I realised that the Netherlands-based Back to the Bible workgroup is made up of a "small group of Christians" (comprising not more than 9 members as of Nov 2002, out of which only two were "full-time members" who were retirees) and does NOT have the international reach and influence as its US-based namesake. (see the section 'More background information regarding the Back to the Bible Workgroup' below for more information and source references).

Also, upon further reading of the article written by Rien Van de Kraats, I also found out that his criticisms were based on his hearing of a grand total of only THREE sermon CDs by Joseph Prince. This salient fact (which is clearly stated in Rien Van de Kraat's article) was not disclosed by the author, perhaps due to oversight. I had rectified this omission in my revised version above.

I will leave it to the other contributors/ editors to decide if the criticism by Rien Van de Kraats warrant an inclusion in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanlipkee (talk • contribs) 10:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not add the criticism section, an IP address did: [1]. Smartse (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors encouraged to read the other letters written by Rien Van de Kraat

To help the editors form a better judgment of how credible and objective the views of Rien Van de Kraat are, I would strongly encourage a visit to his website and a reading of his other letters and articles (which are mostly criticisms of contemporary charismatic movements and leaders). The English translation of the articles can be accessed via this link: http://www.backtothebible.nl/english.htm

Tanlipkee (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

More background information regarding the Back to the Bible Workgroup

A little bit more background information on the Back to the Bible Workgroup:

According to the inaugural letter published by the workgroup in 7 March 1995 (read the English translated version here: http://www.backtothebible.nl/Eng01.pdf) , the profile of the group was as follows:

- 7 members and some helpers (exact number not specified)

- theological training varies from 2 to 4 years Bible school (name of school not specified)

- one person attended seminary for 5 years (name of seminary not specified)

- ages vary from 35 to 68 years

According to a letter dated 23 November 2002 (read the English translated version here: http://www.backtothebible.nl/Eng25.pdf), as at the date of the letter, the Back to the Bible Workgroup was made up of:

- 2 full-time members who are retirees (Rien Van de Kraat and his wife);

- 3 part-time members who have their own full-time jobs (identities not revealed); and

- 4 supporting members who help to check the content of the letters (identities not revealed).

According to the letter dated 15 March 2005 (read the English translated version here: http://www.backtothebible.nl/Eng27.pdf), the group only started to have its own website sometime around the date of the letter, when "a brother in Belgium made a website for us" (kindly refer to the last paragraph in the letter).

There has been no further update about the profile of the group since then.

Since the group's establishment in 1994 and its first letter in 1995, the group managed to send out 3 to 4 letters every year. Rien writes in Dutch, and his wife helps to translate the letters into English. During the two years from 2003 to 2004, the group leader and chief writer Rien Van de Kraat was taken ill and the letter writing stopped. The group resumed its letter writing in 2005 when Rien became well enough to write again. All the letters can be assessed at the group's website:

- English translated versions: http://www.backtothebible.nl/english.htm

- Original Dutch versions: http://www.backtothebible.nl/Nederlands.htm

I hope the above information proves to be useful to the editors working on the article here.

Tanlipkee (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tan Lip Kee is a member of NCC

I've come across this site on the net and it appears that Tan Lip Kee is some kind of a group leader in the New Creation Church: http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/117/Half_a_million_dollar_paid_to_pastor_-_some_discussions

I wish to bring this to the attentions of the editors and readers here.

And btw, Tanlipkee, pls stop deleting 203.43.58.221's stuff. He is right to bring up critic's comments about Joseph Prince's teachings. Let the readers decide for themselves...

Ahnan (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure of COI

I don't hide behind anonymity. I am open and transparent. Google my name and you will find information relating to me, locate my facebook account and blogs, see my photos, and find out which company I work for.

I am a member of New Creation Church. I volunteer my time to help with a caregroup in the church. Visit the church website and you will find my name there. As I've stated, I don't hide behind anonymity.

I started to edit this wiki article because I wanted to improve it, so that people who read this article get to know the church. I am not averse to facts that may be deemed to be negative to the church, as can be seen by my readiness to help to keep the section of criticisms against the church within the article, and even including a link to the wiki article on "prosperity theology".

I ask that if anyone wants to judge my level of neutrality and objectivity, please review the history of my contributions: I added in the info box, added in the church logo, added in updated (and verifiable) information about the church, tidied up the references etc. I even helped to edit criticsms that I do not personally agree with to make them grammatically correct and more reader-friendly so that they continue to stay in the wiki article.

I am just starting to learn how to edit wikipedia articles. I am not immune to making mistakes. Nevertheless, I believe I have been as objective as possible with regards my editing work on this article.

I have no hidden agenda. My wish is that the editors and contributors can work together to help make this article useful to the readers who read it.

Tanlipkee (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Review of contribution history to ascertain level of objectivity and neutrality

I repeat my appeal for the editors and readers to view my contribution history and decide for themselves whether I have been objective and neutral while editing the wiki article. My full contribution history can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee

I am sure we would all agree that we should just let the facts speak for themselves.

Tanlipkee (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this quote: "New Creation church, with attendances at Sunday services totalling just under 8,000, is one of the best-known mega-churches, and one of the largest in Singapore; characteristically, it complements its brick-and-mortar activities with a web presence that publicizes its activities and events, reinforces its image as a contemporary and media-savvy church" from an academic journal is also worth taking into account. This page has a long history of blatant COI editing e.g. : User:Newcreationcorpcomms User:Newcreationwebmaster as well as the recently blocked User:Nccwebmaster. In light of all this information I am wary of removing what appears to be valid criticism. The church appears to be trying to use this page so that it fits their own POV - Wikipedia should not be used to enhance their image but should provide all points of view so that readers can come to their own conclusions. I don't necessarily agree with the current length of the criticism but other editors who as far as I can tell do not have any COI have added it. I will refrain from editing from now on but will remain watching this and encourage all users to discuss any removal of content before hand. I think this is probably the best way to resolve this dispute. We should perhaps consider requesting comments from the wider community as well. Smartse (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that Tanlipkee has admitted that he is a caregroup leader of NCC, we can now acertain that there exists a COI with him editing the text. The text that was critical to Prince's teaching was deleted a couple of times by Tanlipkee until the wiki admin had to step in to ask him to stop. Hence, Tanlipkee's neutrality and objectivity are certainly in question. Does he has a hidden agenda? His actions speak for himself. I therefore, urge readers outside of NCC to keep a close tab on Tanlipkee's editing here.

Ahnan (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note I am not an admin. Smartse (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Recommended readings for better understanding of wikipedia guidelines

As I've stated, I am here to help improve the article. I have no other hidden agenda.

Therefore, I sincerely welcome all the editors and readers here to:

(a) scrutnise my past contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee

(b) closely monitor my future editing.

I strongly encourage all editors (myself included, of course) to read, understand and adhere to the following wikipedia guidelines:

(i) Neutral point of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

(ii) Verifiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

(iii) No original research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

(ii) Conflict of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

I am doing my best to adhere to the guidelines. I hope others will do the same too. Thanks!

Tanlipkee (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tanlipkee has inserted the following text immediately after the critical text on Prince which was added by others. Tanlipkee's agenda is obvious. He is trying to "soften" and "negate" the critical text on Prince by saying "other critics" are not so critical and are even receptive to Prince's teachings. In the first place, what proof is there to say that these people who are receptive to Prince's teachings were "critics" in the first place? Again, the actions of Tanlipkee, a caregroup leader of NCC, speak for himself.

Other critics though, are more receptive to Prince's style of preaching and theology. According to a report published on 9 March 2009 in the Singapore's Edition of the Christian Post, World Revival Prayer Fellowship Senior Pastor Rev Kenny Chee "recognised the value that [Jospeph Prince's] methodology has in refining and empowering the pulpit ministry in many churches today" and stated that "pastors and preachers can learn from Joseph Prince" [23]. Professor Gordon CI Wong, the Bishop William F Oldham Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Theological College, Singapore[24] suggested that "Prince's theology is generally acceptable - even commendable - except for a few finer points" <:ref>http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/education/701/9%7C16%7C19/2.htm</ref>

Ahnan (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Recommended readings for better understanding of "neutral point of view" and "conflict of interest"

I strongly encourage that we all, as responsible editors, instead of relying on one's subjective point of view, do our best to check and confirm the meanings of words (e.g. the dictionary definition of the word "critics"), and make sure that we double check and get our math correct (e.g. avoid confusing "$500k per year" with "$50k per month"), before we put through any revisions to the wiki article. With regards to this, I highly recommend a reading of the following article:

Verifiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Also, for a better understanding of the meaning of "neutral point of view" and "conflict of interest" according to wikipedia's guidelines, I recommend we read the following articles:

(a) Neutral point of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

(b) Conflict of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Thanks!

Tanlipkee (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Views from both ends to provide balance

Thank you, Tanlipkee for disclosing your COI. I think that the information you added is probably a sensible addition to the page to counter some of the criticism - if we provide two POVs we will be much closer to reaching a WP:NPOV, I'll leave it to you all to decide whether it belongs there or not. Saying that it would be useful if we knew who the "an acclaimed local scholar" was. Ahnan, if you don't mind me asking could I also enquire as to what links you have to the church? You are a single purpose account (as all editors on this page currently are) and I'm not accusing you of violating any guidelines but I think it would help if you could be as open as Tanlipkee has been. It's rather difficult for me sat here in the UK to be able to judge the truth about NCC when faced with editors who each seem to have such strong and conflicting POVs. Please help in creating a neutral article. I will also encourage the IP user to enter this discussion as I think they should also be encouraged to discuss why their POV. Smartse (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Smartse, rest be assured, I'm in no way related to the church. I'm just a member of the public (in Singapore) and a moderator (kojakbt22) of the www.3in1kopitiam.com Singapore's forum site. NCC and Joseph Prince came into the radar screen of the public after the Strait Times of Singapore started writing about him and the church. You see, there have been a number of scandals involving non-profit and religious organizations in Singapore recently. As a result, the laws were changed in Singapore forcing these organizations to disclose salaries of their top management in such organizations. Even though no wrongdoings were observed in Joseph Prince of NCC, his more than SGD500,000 annual salary, as forced to disclose to the public by law, caused an uproar in Singapore. Blogs and forums (including 3in1kopitiam) were abuzzed talking about how a priest could be commanding such a high salary and whether he was working to save souls or to enrich himself. It is in this context that, with the support of 3in1kopitiam's forumers, I added the controversial issues of Joseph Prince into his wiki entry. This would give a more balanced view of this man Joseph Prince. Ahnan (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the accuracy of facts:

1. Joseph Prince is a pastor, not a priest.

2. No law in Singapore has been changed to force community organizations to disclose the salaries of their top management. It was the Code of Governance for Charities that has been revised.

The Code sets out guidelines and best practices in key areas of governance that charities are encouraged to adopt. These are not mandatory legal requirements.

For a full copy of the revised Code of Governance issued by the Charity Council on 26 November 2007, follow the link here: http://bschool.nus.edu.sg/Portals/0/images/CGFRC/docs/Code-20of-20Governance-20for-20Charites-.pdf

I encourage all of us (myself included) to be vigilant in making sure that the things we write here are factually accurate. Thank you!

Tanlipkee (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Further notes regarding the Code of Governance: In a letter dated 4 September 2008 addressed to Joseph Prince of New Creation Church, the Commissioner of Charities stated that that he was “glad that there are systems and processes in place” and New Creation Church "has been found to be largely in compliance with the regulatory requirements and the Code". See a copy of the letter by following the link here: http://www.newcreation.org.sg/aboutus/media_coverage/mcys-governance_review.pdf. For the press release pertaining to the results of the the governance review conducted by the Commissioner of Charities, please follow this link: http://app.mcys.gov.sg/web/corp_press_story.asp?szMod=corp&szSubMod=press&qid=4153. Hope the information provided above proves useful. Tanlipkee (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Smartse. I agree fully with the objective and neutral approach you are adopting.

I wish to clarify that from the onset, to maintain neutrality and objectivity as much as possible, I have deliberately left out the words "an acclaimed local scholar" when I quoted from the Christian Post article. Instead, I chose to only include factual and verifiable information i.e. Professor Gordon CI Wong, the Bishop William F Oldham Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Theological College, Singapore.

Tanlipkee (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tanlipkee, whether you are neutral or objective or not, you don't have to keep repeating it. People have got eyes to see your actions and conclude for themselves. We will be watching you very closely. Ahnan (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To further help us gauge the objectivity and validity of the serious criticisms levied upon Joseph Prince by Rien van de Kraats, I think it is only fair that we get to see and hear the preacher himself in action. For those who would like to do so, you can do so by viewing the video recordings available on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JosephPrinceMedia&view=videos&sort=d

Tanlipkee (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Usuage of the adverb "however"

1. The editor Ahnan insisted that the adverb "however" should be used to link the first two paragraphs under the sub-section "SGD500,000 annual salary paid to the pastor" under the section "Criticisms and controversies".

Since there is no factual contradiction between the content of the two paragraphs, I don't see how the adverb "however" can be seen as suitable. But Ahnan's rationale was that it is "Impt to have the word "However". Shows that what Prince said on 5 Oct isn't true. That is, the rumour was true afterall." and that "it is not a question about $50K or $47K. It is clear that Prince was trying to hide his high pay.". Please see the edit history (with Ahnan's comments) below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Creation_Church_(Singapore)&diff=295769866&oldid=295769601

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Creation_Church_(Singapore)&diff=295997206&oldid=295963084

I seek the views of the other editors regarding the proper usage of the adverb "however" in the context above. Thank you!

Tanlipkee, members of the public (see www.3in1kopitiam.com threads) are enraged by the actions of Joseph Prince. IT WAS reported that he denied receiving high salary when the reporter asked him about his salary on 5 Oct. This is clearly printed on The Straits Times. Are you denying this? hence, the word "However" is entirely appropriate. Ahnan (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If the concern is about "members of the public being enraged by the actions of Joseph Prince" and that "he denied receiving high salary when the reporter asked him about his salary on 5 Oct", please include such statements in the wiki article, and cite the source(s) to support those statements. Tanlipkee (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the question regarding the appropriateness of using the adverb "however" to link the two paragraphs in question, the relevant question to ask is: is there any factual contradiction between what Pastor told the press about his salary (that he was not paid a monthly salary of $50,000) and the actual amount reported (that the annual salary was in the range of $500,001 to $550,000, which worked out to be a monthly salary of $45,833 or less)? If there is no contradiction, then according to the normal usage of the language, the adverb "however" should not be used to link the two paragraphs.Tanlipkee (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2. At 12:09 on 12 June 2009, under the sub-section "Content and style of preaching" under the section "Criticisms and controversies", the editor Ahnan added some new content which started with the adverb "However" (please see edit history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Creation_Church_(Singapore)&diff=295962330&oldid=295928206)

Bearing in mind Ahnan's unique understanding and usage of the word "however", I was alerted when I saw that the new content added by him began with "However". So I decided to check the source. I found out that the new content added by Ahnan has been quoted out of context.

The revised version of the new content, quoted in the proper context, is set out below:

- Start of revised version- According to the same report, the retired first Anglican Archbishop of Southeast Asia, Bishop Dr Moses Tay said that "keeping law and grace together has always been a major challenge for the Church and that the ministry of Pastor Prince, together with that of all the other pastors, are necessary to reconcile the two dimensions of faith". However, he also highlighted that "there was a danger of Christians veering to the extreme of simplistic grace and committing the error of dichotomising the period before the cross and that after and throwing everything of the former overboard." - End of revised version -

ok, I can let this go but I will not give up fighting to include the word "However" with regard to the salary issue of Joseph Prince. In our opinions (I'm not alone in this), Joseph Prince's later disclosure about his salary due to new Govt code of governance (fine, it's not the law) clearly indicates something different from what he has disclosed on 5 Oct to the reporters (that is, he denied rumours of high salaries). The word "However" is entirely appropriate. If need be, we can do a poll on 3in1kopitiam forum with rgd to this issue. Certainly Tanlipkee is welcome to invite all their 18K-19K NCC members to vote too. But we shall see what overall public will say... Ahnan (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If the concern is about some people's opinion that Joseph Prince "denied rumours of high salaries", please include such a statement as part of the content of the wiki article, and cite the source to support the statement. Tanlipkee (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To compare between Ahnan's version and the revised version, please refer to the edit history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Creation_Church_(Singapore)&diff=296001280&oldid=295997206

Again, I ask the opinions of the other editors here to judge whether Ahnan's version or the revised version as of 16:24, 12 June 2009 is more acceptable. Thank you very much!

Tanlipkee (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to further clarify about point 1 above, if we were to assume: (a) the highest amount of SGD550,000 (based on the range of SGD500,001 to SGD550,000 cited by the press) for Joseph Prince, and (b) the full year salary included the minimum of a one-month bonus element (which is normally the case here in Singapore), then the Joseph Prince's monthly salary would have been: SGD550,000/13 months = SGD42,308 per month, which is lower than SGD50,000 per month. Even if we were to assume that no annual bonus was given out to Joseph Prince during the financial year in question, his monthly salary would have been: SGD550,000/12 months = SGD45,833 per month, which is still lower than SGD50,000 per month. Factually, there is no discrepancy between what Joseph Prince told the press about his monthly salary and what the press reported about his annual salary. In other words, there is no factual contraction between the content in the first two paragraphs under the sub-section "SGD500,000 annual salary paid to the pastor". Therefore, in my opinion, it is inappropriate to use the adverb "however" to link those two paragraphs. Tanlipkee (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

HAHA! Tanlipkee, I was waiting for you to say this. I knew that would be the defence of NCC - to quibble over the technical difference of about SGD5,000 per month (ie, 10% difference) and to use this to justify that Prince did not lie when he spoke to the press on 5th Oct, denying the $50K salary rumour. He is just telling a white lie. Whether he is receiving $45K a month or $50K a month, it is still an obscene amount of money that a priest receives a month. Prior to the reporter interviewing Prince, people in public have already been talking about it. People are questioning the intention of Prince. Note that most people in Singapore are not Christians. Hence, the word "However", is entirely appropriate to explain the difference.Ahnan (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Priest and Pastor have the same meaning. Read: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/priest - "a person ordained to the sacerdotal or pastoral office; a member of the clergy; minister." Ahnan (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Content to be based on verifiable facts and/ or supported by cited sources

If there is any verifiable evidence available that can prove that Joseph Prince had told a lie about his salary to the press, please cite the source.

If the objective is to tell the readers that "people are questioning the intention of Prince", this may be done by stating so in the wiki article and providing the relevant source citation to support such a statement.

Wiki articles should be based on verifiable facts and/ or cited sources which are reliable, not on personal opinions (whether one person or many persons). I refer to wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

I sincerely hope that we can all respect and follow wikipedia's guidelines.

The issue in our current discussion on the use of the word "however" here is NOT about people's opinions about the amount of the salary. The issue here is about whether the content of the two paragraphs in question are indeed factually discrepant.

If there is no factual contradiction between what Pastor told the press about his salary that he was not paid a monthly salary of $50,000 and the actual amount reported that the annual salary was in the range of $500,001 to $550,000 (or a monthly salary in the range of $38,462 (assuming a 13th month bonus) to $45,833 (assuming no 13th month bonus), then according to the normal usage of the language, the adverb "however" should not be used to link the two paragraphs.

Tanlipkee (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In the 1st para, it is clear that Prince is trying to avoid revealing the high salary he has been receiving. It's only after the Govt made changes to code of Governance that NCC has got no choice but to reveal the high salary to the public (as uncovered by reporters). Hence, the word "However" is entirely appropriate. How else can you explain the hugh public outcry on Prince's salary when it was revealed by the reporters?

In the end Kang came to Prince's defence by replying to the public essentially saying you donate money to NCC with an open eye. Meaning if any members of the public doesn't like it, don't come to NCC and give money... Ahnan (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I refer to BL's comment below. I agree that we should not lead the reader by the nose. As wikipedia editors, our job is to present (not intepret) the facts based on cited sources. We should let the reported facts speak for themselves. We should allow the reader form his/ her own interpretation and reach his/ her own conclusion.Tanlipkee (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the adverb "however", allow me to illustrate my point with a few examples as follows:

This sentence makes sense: On 3 March 2009, Jeslyn told me that she did not buy a $500 handbag. About a month later, on 5 April 2009, I found out from Jeslyn's credit card statement that the price of the handbag she bought was $423.

This sentence does NOT make sense: On 3 March 2009, Jeslyn told me that she did not buy a $500 handbag. However, about a month later, on 5 April 2009, I found out from Jeslyn's credit card statement that the price of the handbag she bought was $423.

This sentence makes sense: On 1 May 2009, it was reported in the Financial Times that ABC company had denied rumours that it will be retrenching 50,000 of its employees. On 3 June 2009, the Financial Times reported that ABC had retrenched 35,720 employees in the month of May 2009.

This sentence does NOT makes sense: On 1 May 2009, it was reported in the Financial Times that ABC company had denied rumours that it will be retrenching 50,000 of its employees. However, on 3 June May 2009, the Financial Times reported that ABC had retrenched 35,720 employees.

This sentence makes sense: On 10 April 2007, Mr Lee declared to the income tax authority that his annual income for the previous calendar year was less than $5 million. A year later later, on 10 April 2009, the tax authority reported that Mr Lee's annual income for the calendar year 2006 was in fact $4.6 million.

This sentence does NOT makes sense: On 10 April 2007, Mr Lee declared to the income tax authority that his annual income for the previous calendar year was less than $5 million. However, a year later later, on 10 April 2009, the tax authority reported that Mr Lee's annual income for the calendar year 2006 was in fact $4.6 million.

I hope the above examples prove helpful in explaining what I have been trying to say with regard to the appropriateness of the use of the adverb "however" to link the two paragraphs in question. Let's make the issue crystal clear, and not drag in other concerns and become confused over those other concerns, which I believe should be addressed elsewhere separately.121.6.190.104 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Prince is known by the christian community, addressed by the media, and recognised in the public as a pastor and never as a priest. If there is any verifiable evidence to the contrary, please cite the source. Thank you.

For a discussion on the difference between "pastor" and "priest", I believe it may be useful to refer to the following webpages:

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060613182210AA0byfz

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_pastor_and_a_priest

http://www.babylon.com/definition/Priest_and_Pastor,_Difference_between/English

http://genesis.findfastr.com/learn-biblical-hebrew/in-christianity-what-is-the-difference-between-a-pastor-a-minister-a-priest-and-a-reverend

Tanlipkee (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in response to the "however" matter, the sentences Tanlipkee has given as examples do, in fact, make quite good sense. They also make sense without the "however" though the connotation is somewhat different. Without "however", the statements are unlinked except by the facts and, in each case, the second statement confirms the first. However (and here is a same use of the word), once "however" is introduced, it comes with the connotation of a contrast. Because the bare factual matter is confirmed, the use of "however" implies that there is a level of "truth" or "fact" that is not confirmed. And, indeed, the implication is that, while stating a factual truth, that a salary was not $X, the confirmed number was so close to $X as to be an insignificant difference, and thus made the initial statement, for all practical (as opposed to legal) purposes, untrue. If that is what is meant, and the implication is supported by the sources, which is what Anan appears to be trying to do, though I am not sure his sources are sufficiently reliable that he has succeeded, then the "however' needs to stay. If that is not what is meant, then it should go. In general, I would support that there be no linking word and that the reader should decide for him/herself whether the distinction is material and in what direction. // BL \\ (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi BL. Yes, it is exactly what I meant since I wrote those 2 paras in the 1st place. That is, the intention is to contrast the 2 paras. In my view. there IS a level of "truth" that is not confirmed and hence, we need to use the word "however" to surface the truth. This is corroborated by the public outcry once the high salary of Prince was uncovered by the reporters. Indeed in one of the blogs by NCC members, it was revealed that Prince was highly embarrassed by the incident. He can only be embarrassed cause his attempt to hide his high salary on 5th Oct failed. So, BL, you are right. The implication is that, while stating a factual truth, that a salary was not $X, the confirmed number was so close to $X as to be an insignificant difference, and thus made the initial statement, for all practical purposes, untrue. Ahnan (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BL for the comment. I think you make a good English teacher or a lawyer. I agree with your analysis and conclusion.

Of course you would agree to BL cause he is right now in agreement with you! BL, I urge you to look deeper into the facts. You would find that the word "However" is entirely appropriate. Please take note that Tanlipkee, being a caregroup leader of NCC will be doing his utmost to defend his boss - the Prince! Pls don't fall for his attempt to suck up to you! Ahnan (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact: I am employed by a commercial entity unaffiliated to any church. Fact: I do not work for NCC. Fact: Joseph Prince is not my boss. Fact: I gave a compliment to a fellow editor.

May I appeal for all editors to stick to the facts and refrain from making unsubstantiated claims and allegations against other fellow editors. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Tanlipkee worships in NCC. Fact: Tanlipkee is a caregroup leader of NCC. Fact: Joseph Prince is the priest, oh I forgot, the pastor, of Tanlipkee. You see is as giving compliment to wiki editor, I see it as sucking up, trying to gain more editors to your cause - which is defending your priest, oh I mean, your pastor. Ahnan (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All editors are strongly encouraged to treat each other with consideration and respect, i.e. to observe civility WP:CIVIL, to assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH and to refrain from personal attacks WP:NPA. May we all work together to help wikipedia a pleasant space for one another, and focus our time and effort in helping to improve the content of the articles.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we examine the allegation that Joseph Prince had denied receiving a high pay. Is that assertion supported in the cited press report? I submit to all reading this that the answer is no. In fact, not only did Joseph Prince not deny that he was well-paid, he actually acknowledged to the journalist who interviewed him that he was well paid. "When asked how much he earns, Mr Prince asked me how much I make, then said: 'I'm well-paid.'"http://admpreview.straitstimes.com:90/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2f0e3114209cc110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=016fe84edfbf8110VgnVCM100000350a0a0aRCRD

You see how sneaky this so called Christian guy Tanlipkee is? Let me quote from the same report:

Mr Prince, who is executive chairman of the church council, also dismissed the rumour that his salary is $50,000 a month. 'It could have been $50,000 if I had not voluntarily taken all the pay cuts through the years...

What do these statements in the press report of 5th Oct 2008, tell us? In fact, the 2nd statement is most damning. Prince said "it could have been $50,000" giving people the impression that he was getting very much well below $50K a month. Few months later, because of the new code of governance issued by the Singapore Govt, indeed, it was reported that "someone" (whom later confirmed by NCC's Kang reply to the newspaper that it was Prince) was being paid more than $500K in 2008! Again, the word "However" is entirely appropriate to show the contrast of what was reported in 5th Oct 2008 and what was uncovered in early 2009 with regard to Prince's salary Ahnan (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that using derogatory terms such as "sneaky" to describe others will contribute positively to the discussion here. May I ask that we all learn to respect others and use a neutral and civil tone even if we were to disagree with the view points presented. Let's remember our purpose here is to improve the article, not to attack the people. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't respect someone who certainly has an agenda here trying to shore up his pastor's image. BL and other wiki editors, I've caught this guy Tanlipkee red-handed trying to pull a fast one on us all by showing a partial news report to say Prince did not deny his high salary when later part of the report shows he did! How can we all respect such editors like Tanlipkee in our midst! Ahnan (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All editors are strongly encouraged to observe proper etiquette WP:EQ, and be reminded that wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground WP:NOTSOAPBOX - this applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Tanlipkee (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, let's compare the amount denied and the actual amount to see if the difference between the two amounts was in fact so insignificant that, for all practical and legal purposes, it would render Joseph Prince's denial of a $50,000 salary as an untrue statement or even an outright lie. Depending on the different assumptions regarding (a) the annual salary amount (which was reported as being in the range of $500,001 to $550,000) and (b) the bonus payment, the actual monthly salary for Joseph Prince could be as low as $35,714 per month (assuming the annual salary was $500,001 and a 2-month bonus) or as high as $45,833 per month (assuming the annual salary was $550,000 and no bonus was paid). Compared with $50,000, the montlhy difference in absolute dollar amount would be $14,286 or $4,167 respectively, or in terms of percentage, 28% or 8% respectively. Under the generally accepted auditing guidelines, a 5% difference is usually considered sufficiently material to warrant the attention of a reasonable reader of a set of financial statements. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tanlipkee, you are making things worse by trying to explain the discrepency in accounting terms. The point is, this is not an accounting exercise. The public is enraged by the huge salary Prince is getting when he "denied" it on 5th Oct 2008. Thanks to the change of Code of Governance, his salary was unconvered! Otherwise, the public would have been "fooled" by his denial as reported on 5th Oct! Ahnan (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that here, Tanlipkee, your conclusion is a synthesis of available information and, as this is original research, it is not permitted. Even though it appears to say that you have changed your mind about the significance of the disparity, you cannot use the calculations for anything except your own satisfaction. As I have said below about the "huge public outcry", WP cannot do its own accounting: we don't count the numbers of forum entries and we don't calculate percentages. And we certainly don't declare some percentages to be more significant than others, not even with GAAP as our guide. If, having done your calculation, you are now committed to finding reliable sources for the "outcry", I encourage you to do so. // BL \\ (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tanlipkee is backtracking cause as can be seen, he will do whatever it takes to safeguard the "integrity" of his boss Prince. There is definitely a conflict of interest with this guy Tan trying to wipe the NCC's dirts from the wiki entry! Ahnan (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would like to appeal for a neutral and civil tone be used for the discussion here. Let us stick to the facts and refrain from making assumptions and from using an accusatory tone against others.Tanlipkee (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BL. I agree with you totally regarding the point about not using original research, but purely relying out the presentation of information contained in cited sources considered to be reliable. The calculations were meant only for our discussion here. I presented the calculations to address the point your raised regarding the significance of the difference in amount. I am all for letting the facts speak for themselves. Tanlipkee (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To the NCC people objecting to the use of the word "however" and giving analogies why it should not be here, let me paraphrase a quote from a visiting pastor in NCC "what you said is true but is NOT the truth". If you read and think critically about it, Prince's denial about his real income was not merely to deny that he earns SGD50,000 month. Rather it was to deny that he earns a high income at all. He is just using a true fact to distort the truth. NCC is just playing with words. In view of this context, I think a better illustration would be:

"I suspected that my staff stole $50,000 from me. He denied that he stole $50,000 from me and swore by it. I foolishly took his word for it. Later I found out that he was indeed telling me the truth. He did not steal $50,000 from me. However, he stole $45,000."

By no means am I saying Prince is a thief. But when truth is distorted by true facts, the word "however" is totally relevant and important. I hope I have made that crystal clear to NCC. Hallelulard (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallelulard (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, Hallelulard! Do continue to contribute cause I'm running against a bunch of NCC fellas here. We should safeguard the public interests by revealing any dirts that these NCC fellas are trying to hide... Ahnan (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

May I ask the more experienced wikipedia editors whether the approach adopted by Ahnan (i.e. decidedly anti-NCC) is contrary to the principle of NPOV? Tanlipkee (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

May I also ask whether the approached adopted by NCC caregroup leader Tanlipkee by trying to discard and undermine all negative views of Joseph Prince, is contrary to the principle of NPOV? Ahnan (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let us stick to the facts. It is inaccurate to allege that I have been "trying to discard and undermine all negative views of Joseph Prince". As I've stated before, and I now state it again, I ask that my contribution history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee) be thoroughly scrutinized by all to ascertain the facts of the matter. Thank you.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tanlipkee, are you trying to deny that you are not together with the New Creation Church Web Team? Please do not lie as a Christian. Ahnan (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A response to the allegation that Tanlipkee is collaborating with the NCC web team

Tanlipkee is not a personal friend of or a colleague with the 'NCCwebmaster' who was involved in editing the wiki page. Tanlipkee has never collaborated with 'NCCwebmaster' in any editorial work or any kind of endeavor.

Shortly after starting to help edit the wiki page and having studied the contribution history of 'NCCwebmaster', Tanlipkee became suspiscious and curious about the real idenity of the 'NCCwebmaster'. Tanlipkee felt that the editorial approach adopted by 'NCCwebmaster' did not appear to be very professional and doubted if 'NCCwebmaster' is really the official person behind the church website. Therefore, on 10 June 2009, Tanlipkee sent an email and asked a personal friend (who is a full-time staff with the New Creation Church) about it. However, due to the lack of detailed information, the friend whom he pose the quesiton to was not able to provide him with any deifinite answer. Therefore, as of today (i.e. 17 June 2009), Tanlipkee is not even sure whether the 'NCCwebmaster' is truly the webmaster in charge of the website of NCC.

In response to a request by Smartse to help provide photographs of the church to improve the wiki page, on 14 June 2009, Tanlipkee submitted an online request through the church website (http://www.newcreation.org.sg/contact_us/contact_info/contact_info.htm) to ask for permission to use of the photographs available in the website. As of today (i.e. 17 June 2009), Tanlipkee has yet to receive a reply from the person in charge of the church website.

Other than the online request as disclosed above, Tanlipkee had no contact with, and has not been working together the person(s) behind the New Creation Church Web Team. Tanlipkee (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A few of the IP addr was traced to NCC. You may deny to be in cahoot with NCCWebmaster but certainly, there is no denial that Prince is your priest and you are here to defend him, are you not? Ahnan (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask that all editors here refrain from using adversiary and accusatory tones when addressing other fellow editors. Please do not accuse fellow editors of having an agenda that is contrary to the policy and guidelines of wikipedia, being in denial of doing wrong, or being "in cahoot" with someone, without support of any relevant factual evidence.

Surely, one can draw a conclusion that NCC members coming here to edit Joseph Prince's entry are working in the interest of safeguarding Prince's reputation? This is what I meant by "being in cahoot" Ahnan (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to engage in any argument with Ahnan. I would rather focus on the content. For questions on the alleged COI infractions committed by me, I would ask the other editors who may be following this to read the on-going discussion between an independent editor and Ahnan regarding Ahnan's editorial approach and conduct, in Ahnan's user talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#New_Creation_Church Tanlipkee (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, just to add that at the end of my user talk page, the independent editor thanked me for doing something supportive for this NCC wiki entry Ahnan (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is evidence that an editor has done something improper that is contrary to the policy and guidelines of wikipedia, please follow the proper conflict resolution procedures, resolve it through civil discussion, enlist the help of other experienced editors, and if necessary, escalate the matter to the adminstrators.

It's already been done. That's why wiki is sending an independent editor here to monitor. Ahnan (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I reckon that by an independent editor, Ahnan is referring to BL, who has been in discussion with Ahnan about his editoral approach and conduct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#New_Creation_Church Tanlipkee (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, just to add that at the end of my user talk page, the independent editor thanked me for doing something supportive for this NCC wiki entry Ahnan (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of neutral and objective words when dealing with fellow editors in this talk page is much appreciated. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a free-for-all discussion forum, but a free-to-edit encyclopedia project. Thank you.

I would appreciate it if Ahnan could specifically list out the IP addresses that were traced to NCC, AND establish a link between those IP addresses and the accusations levied against me. Also, I would greatly appreciate it if Ahnan could spell out categorically the facts (not his opinion) to support the accusations against me that I am here not to improve the quality of the article as I've stated, but with an agenda to defend my pastor.

Here's one IP address - 58.185.110.126. This is traced directly to ISP NEW CREATION CHURCH, 3 TEMASEK BOULEVARD #04-001, SUNTEC CITY MALL, Singapore 038983.

There is no need to link any of the IP to you because you have already admitted that you are a caregroup leader of NCC and so, are linked to NCC.

The issue here is not Tanlipkee's COI status as a person affiliated with the church. This is clear cut and is already on record. The issue here is Ahnan's allegations that Tanlipkee had committed COI infractions. For an independent editor's take on Ahnan's allegations, and his advice to Ahnan, please refer to Ahnan's user talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#New_Creation_Church Tanlipkee (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And indeed, the independent editor thanked me for doing something supportive for this NCC wiki entry. Pls see the end of my user talk page. Ahnan (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a caregroup leader of NCC. Common sense tells us that whatever you write, you would be on the side of Prince, your spiritual leader. This is what "COI" is all about. I have yet to see a single negative you write about Prince. Is Prince faultless? Surely no cause he is only a human. So, until you start writing something negative about Prince, I can't say you're here trying to be a neutral and objective writer.

Ahnan (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to Ahan's attention wikipedia's policy against 'Personal Attacks' WP:NPA and recommend that he reads the sub section "What is considered to be a personal attack". Please know that "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" and "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" and are types of unacceptable comments and they constitute acts that amount to personal attacks which are not condoned by wikipedia. I hope Ahnan will respect wikipedia's policy. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... let me quote the whole full part for you with regard to NPA - "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." NOTE: POINTING OUT AN EDITOR'S RELEVANT COI AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND IS NOT CONSIDERED A PERSONAL ATTACK. There is no need to speculate your identity cause you have already confirmed your identity. Ahnan (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahnan can go ahead and continue to speculate and make accusations about my alleged COI infractions. I will not try to defend myself but let the editors and administrator draw their own conclusions based on the facts.Tanlipkee (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The "however" is also an editorial comment presenting an opinion, which is not NPOV. If there is a relaible source that say something like "Prince told the truth but not the whole truth" then we can quote that source. Otherwise, we put down the facts. "He denied making $50,000 a month. He was reported to have made between $500,001 and $550,000 per year.", if those are the facts. That's the way WP works. The reader does not have to be led by the nose. Some will think his statement acceptable; some will not. It is not WP's job to say what the reader should believe. What Hallelard says above may well be true, but it is not within the mandate of the encyclopedia to make such an interpretation. This is both a strength and a weakness of WP; it is, however, unshakeable policy.// BL \\ (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BL, I don't think we are trying to lead readers by the nose as we are reporting events factually. Certainly, if you factor in the public outcry (by the way, the whole of Singapore knows about this and people are talking about it), the word "However" is entirely appropriate. If you look at other wiki entries, the word "However" does have its place. Ahnan (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BL's point. We should not lead the reader by the nose. As wikipedia editors, our job is to present the facts based on cited sources. We just present. We don't interpret. Let the reported facts speak for themselves. Let the reader form his/ her own interpretation and reach his/ her own conclusion.Tanlipkee (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes BL, unfortunately you may be correct. It amuses me that Prince, who preaches grace over law, should use a legalistic loophole to get around the tricky issue of his pay. He is actually innocent on a technicality. Hallelulard (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It could have been settled if Prince would just come out and make a public statement and admit to his mistakes in denying his high pay in the 5th Oct interview. Instead, we see NCC sending their hitmen coming here trying to hide and change info.... this is disgusting.... Ahnan (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope we bear in mind that this is an online encyclopedia. Our key objective as editors here is to help improve the quality of the article by contributing useful content supported by reliable sources. I believe the quality of discussion here (and the quality of the article itself) will improve if we could remember that we are here as editors, and our discussions should be focused on and based on the research and study of reliable material.

how can you be an editor when you are constantly championing to remove all negative views of Joseph Prince when they are in fact backed by facts? You and NCCwebmaster (same person?) were deleting all the negative stuff from wiki until I made a complaint to wiki admin about the COI of you guys Ahnan (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of facts: NCCwebmaster and Tanlipkee are two different persons. Tanlipkee is not employed by NCC or remunerated in any way by the church. He volunteers to help lead a caregroup because he believes in volunteerism and caring for his friends in church. Tanlipkee was not engaged in "deleting all the negative stuff from wiki" as alleged. Please review Tanlipkee's contribution history here to form an objective assessment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee. Thank you.

So, you never discuss and talk to NCCwebmaster at all in your course of editing this? Ahnan (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On 9 Jun 2009, a person who calls himself 'Joseph' sent me an email via the Multiply.com personal message box to thank me for helping with the wiki page. He did not state if he was the 'NCCwebmaster', but from the content of the email message, I suspect that he could be. Other than warning me to be extra careful about checking to the source before removing any words, he did not talk to me about how I should be editing the wiki page. That was the only email I recieved from this 'Joseph'. If anyone is interested in the content of the email, I am prepared to fully disclose it.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let us not treat wikipedia as a platform for the expression of personal opinions and emotions. For that purpose, there exist many online forums out there. I hope we can all respect the philosophy and ideals of wikipedia.Tanlipkee (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many negative things said about Joseph Prince. The public are also enraged. I'm here to point out the negatives of Joseph Prince as supported by facts. Am I doing anything wrong here? Ahnan (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors should understand that wikipedia is not about winning or losing, or about being proved right or wrong. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox or a battleground WP:NOTSOAPBOX. To include any content as part of a wikipedia article, editors are to cite WP:CITE sources that are reliable WP:V.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My purpose is to expose some of the negatives of Joseph Prince, as supported by reliable sources to "balance" the overly positive views of him here which you and your NCC gang are trying to paint here. It is you and your NCC gang who are trying all means and ways to suppress the negatives of Prince, even though they have been supported by facts. Do you see me removing any of the postive stuff you and your gang wrote about Prince here? Ahnan (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for unsubtantiated accusations against other editors to cease

Even after rounds after rounds of clarifications, explanations, and appeals to review the factual evidiences, I have been subject to repeated allegations and accusations that I have been working together with the so-called 'NCC gang' to 'suppress the negatives of Prince'. Again, I appeal to all editors to review my contribution history to ascertain if those allegations and accusations are in fact true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee

Fine. There is no way I can prove that you are in cahoot with NCCWebmaster. It's just your words against my words. But one thing is certain. Prince is your Priest and spritual leader. Common sense will tell anyone that you will be doing your utmost to defend your leader. Ahnan (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I refer to WP:NPA, and highlight the sub section "What is considered to be a personal attack". Note that "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" and "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" and are unacceptable comments in wikipedia. Tanlipkee (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And again, let me highlight the part you conveniently left out - "NOTE: POINTING OUT AN EDITOR'S RELEVANT COI AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND IS NOT CONSIDERED A PERSONAL ATTACK." Ahnan (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not about Ahnan pointing out Tanlipkee's relevant COI and its relevance to the discussion. This is clear cut. Tanlipkee has disclosed his COI in the article's discussion page and in his user page. To state that Tanlipkee is a caregroup leader of NCC is to point out his COI. To speculate that because Tanlipkee is a member of NCC, therefore he must be "in cahoot with NCCWebmaster" and must be doing his utmost to defend his pastor, is to accuse him of committing COI infractions.

The issue here is therefore about the allegations that Tanlipkee had committed COI infractions. For a take on this issue by an independent editor, please visit Ahnan's user talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#New_Creation_Church Tanlipkee (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm just pointing out Tanlipkee's relevant COI to other editors and readers here so that they can draw their own conclusions. Ahnan (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the editors and readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions based on facts. Let us be respectful and civil WP:CIVIL, keep good faith WP:GOODFAITH, refuse to indulge in speculations about or accusationa against anyone but focus our efforts on improving the article's content.WP:NPA. Tanlipkee (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to highlight once again that wikipedia is not a platform for the airing of personal views and debates WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and that wikipedia does not condone incivil and disruptive behaviours, which include: 'Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views' and 'accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence'. Please refer to wikipedia's policy on 'No Personal Attack' by following the link here: WP:NPA.

I ernestly request that all the editors here do our best to focus on improving the content of the article itself, instead of insist on making allegations against or attacking our fellow editors. Let us work together in good faith WP:GOODFAITH and make wikipedia a pleasant place to work in. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You stop removing the negatives on Prince which are supported by facts and we'll see how we can work together in good faith.Ahnan (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope Ahnan appreciate that good faith WP:GOODFAITH is a fundamental principle on wikipedia. Regardless of how the other fellow editors may behave, even if they were to cast doubt on their own good faith, we are to continue to assume good faith ourselves. By assuming good faith, we will be able to remain civil in our dealing with one another, and to patiently follow dispute resolution processes, rather than resort to attacking others.

Ahnan seems to be under the impression that I have been been involved in the removal of material and significant content from the article. I would greatly appreciate it if Ahnan could produce factual evidences to suport such an accusation.

Well, since you ask, just go to the history section and search under 203.43.58.221. You have been deleting his stuff until I believe one of the wiki editors stepped in. Do you "remember" now? Ahnan (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I refer to the search results here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.43.58.221. All I see are edits done by the anonymous user with IP address 203.43.58.221, and there is no way to tell which edits were done by Tanlipkee. For Tanlipkee's contribution history, which I have referred to many times in the past, please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee. I would also like to refer to BL's comment regarding Tanlipkee's editorial work in Ahnan's user talk page, where BL wrote and I quote,"he has not inserted anything without a valid source that I have seen or deleted anything with a valid source. (If you know otherwise, with respect to the current material in the article, then please speak to that instance.)" and "As far as I can tell, Tanlipkee was not a party to the COI infractions, nor can I find any such infractions in the current article. (Please do direct me to specifics if I have overlooked something": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#New_Creation_Church Tanlipkee (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to your deletions of the "Rien van de Kraats" commentary provided by 203.43.58.221. In your contribution history, your record of deletions of 203.43.58.221's entries has also been recorded.Ahnan (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And with rgd to your COI infractions, even thought BL didn't find anything, another independent editor found something. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanlipkee

I have reported you to the conflict of interest noticeboard here : Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#New_Creation_Church_.28Singapore.29 you are welcome to comment in the discussion. Smartse (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And you admitted: Thank you Smartse, for highlighting the matter for my attention. I have taken the time to read through the relevant policies and guidelines and I endeavor to abide by them.Tanlipkee (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahnan (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As editors, we should know that wikipedia does not forbid, but allows an editor who may have a conflict of interest to continue editing, as long as he complies with the relevant guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest. In fact, because of wikipedia's particularly cautious stand on biographies of living persons WP:BLP, poorly sourced materials that are potentially libelous can be speedily deleted by editors - including those who may be deemed to have COI. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests. Having said that, editors should not be too quick to delete any content they diagree with, but must be diligent in making sure the content is indeed poorly sourced and libelous according to wikipedia's standards. Tanlipkee (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not condemn or block a new and inexperienced editor just because he was involved once or twice in the deletion of some content. Rather, a new editor is to be given the benefit of the doubt WP:GOODFAITH and be subject to gentle reminders and proper guidance. Wikipedians are to treat new comers with kindness and patience WP:NOBITE.

As pointed out by the independent editor (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#New_Creation_Church), Tanlipkee was not involved in the COI infractions that had resulted in NCCWebmaster being blocked. Also, because he does not commit such infractions in the current article, he is allowed to continue with his editorial contribution. If anyone were to disagree and believes that Tanlipkee has committed COI infractions and should be blocked, please highlight the matter for the adminstrators' attention.

As editors, we should be aware that under wikipedia's behavorial guideline, "using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. Please be reminded to focus on improving the content, instead of attacking the editor. Tanlipkee (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated so many times, I encourage all editors to thoroughly scrutinize my contribution history to ascertain objectively whether Ahnan's accusation against me is supported by the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I've said, you can say whatever you like. Nothing is going to change the fact that you are a caregroup leader of NCC and Joseph Prince is your priest, I mean, your pastor, your spiritual leader. As such, whatever you wrote, I will have to think carefully about your intentions. It's called COI and the rule says, "POINTING OUT AN EDITOR'S RELEVANT COI AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND IS NOT CONSIDERED A PERSONAL ATTACK." Ahnan (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no issue with Tanlipkee's COI status as a person affiliated with the church, as this is already on record early on. The issue here is Ahnan's allegations that Tanlipkee had committed COI infractions. For an independent editor's advice to Ahnan's regarding his allegations, please refer to the discussion in Ahan's user talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#New_Creation_Church Tanlipkee (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

tanlipkee, your appeal for neutrality is contradictory at best and hypocritical at worst. Ahnan may be decidedly anti- NCC, but you are also decidedly pro- NCC. So I don't think you should even be taking this route. Actually all these would have been prevented if NCC did not choose to delete everything negative from the wiki and keeping only those that exult Prince. The webmaster from NCC has arrogantly decided that since the wiki is about NCC, he can do as he likes and go about deleting things he has no business deleting. I understand he has been rightly warned.

Quite right, Hallelulard. As you can see here, I don't go around boasting that I'm neutral unlike somebody here. I come out in the open to state my stand that I choose to expose the negatives of Joseph Prince (supported by facts, of course) as I felt that after the public uproar of Prince's pay when it was uncovered by reporters, the wiki entry here on him was still painting a very good picture of him. As a mod of a public forum (www.3in1koptiam.com), I felt that it is my duty to balance this overly positive view of Prince painted here in wiki. Hence, my participation here. Ahnan (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Far more damage has been done to NCC through these actions then anything Ahnan can post. I was not even aware of this dispute in wiki until I read about it in a very popular free forum. Prince has said on a few occasions that he "does not give a zip" about what people say about him. From what I have seen here, apparently he is not telling the truth again. Hallelulard (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he "does give a zip" to what people think about him or otherwise, he won't be so "deeply embarrassed" by The Straits Times' exposé of his salary. This was reported in a blog by one his NCC members. Ahnan (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Neturality WP:NEUTRAL and verifiability WP:V are the core principles of wikipedia. Regardless of the personal views of the editors, such principles are to be adhered to. Editors who disagree with the principles should find another platform other than wikipedia to make their editorial contributions.

I personally disagree with the editoral approach taken by NCCwebmaster (i.e. simply deleting entire content without considering the possibility of compromise). As evidenced by my contribution history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee, I have been adopting a very different editorial approach from NCCwebmaster. I have been willing to accept, and even helped to improve the readability of, certain content, even though personally I did not think that the source was reliable and I personally disagree that inclusion of the content would make the article more neutral. Given my COI WP:COI status, I have chosen to respect the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and have deliberately refrained myself from deleting content from the article, and restricted myself to making only minor revisions.

So, you do admit that you and NCCwebmaster are working as a team then since you are obviously in communication with him? Ahnan (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All editors to appreciate and respect wikipedia's behavoural policies and guidelines

Editors are to refrain from making allegations against or attacking other editors, but to focus on improving the content of the article. Please read up on and gain an appreciation of wikipedia's behavoural policies and guidelines: WP:GOODFAITH, WP:NPA,WP:EQ. Thank you.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think it is vitally important that we all bear in mind that wikipedia is not about the airing of personal views WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but all about the providing of encyclopedic content that is verifiable WP:V. Tanlipkee (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Tanlipkee, while we may not agree with certain issues, I have to admit that your approach is different and better than NCCwebmaster. Hallelulard (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Er...Hallelulard, I don't think they have a choice but to change the approach. I think NCCwembaster has been banned already?Ahnan (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia believes in and enforces strict editorial and behavoural standards, including neutrality WP:NEUTRAL, verifiability WP:V, and civility WP:CIVIL. Those who choose to persistently violate or ignore those standards will soon leave this platform. Those who choose to respect and adhere to those standards will stay on and continue to contribute. May we be counted among those who will continue to contribute to the cause of wikipedia.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Big words indeed...we shall see how you are going to behave. In view of public distrust and anger on Prince, I will be finding and adding more negatives on Prince here. Of course, they will be supported by facts. Let's see how you maneuver yourself to remove them. Until you behave, I can't say I trust you, bearing in mind that you are here to obviously defend your spiritual leader, Joseph Prince.Ahnan (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I sincerely welcome all the editors here to thoroughly scrutinize my contribution history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanlipkee) to see whether Ahnan's accusation against me is supported by the facts, and more importantly, to highlight to me the parts of my past edits that are considered to be inappropriate and therefore needed to be rectified. I am a new wikipedian and I understand that I might have made mistakes here and there, so I am willing to learn. Thank you very much. Tanlipkee (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's supported by facts. Just look at your "contributions" page starting from 6 Jun. You have been vigoriously deleting the "Rien van de Kraats" commentary provided by another editor. The "Rien van de Kraats" commentary is highly negative to Joseph Prince. You did it without any consultation or whatsoever. You only stopped when wiki editors came in and slapped your hand. Ahnan (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be accurate and just stick with the facts. The criticism was deleted by me one time, when I was still unfamiliar with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially the ones pertaining to COI. Even then, my deletion was not without any basis - I believed that personal views were obtained from a source I did not consider to be reliable, and therefore should be deleted. I have clearly stated the reason for the deletion in my edit summary. After I understood more about wikipedia's policies and guidelines, having read through them more than once, I changed my editorial approach. It was not because my hand has been slapped by other editors, as you claimed, but because I agreed with and respected wikipedia's philosophy and ideals. For an independent editor's take on my conduct as an editor, please refer to Ahnan's talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahnan#New_Creation_Church Tanlipkee (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah.... finally, an admission from you that you DID delete a good contribution from another fellow contributor. I am glad to see that there is still some honesty in NCC members. I always like to work with honest people :)And I'm glad that you are changing your editorial approach after the incident.

And with rgd to your COI infractions as highlighted by one indendent editor, in case you didn't see it or may have forgotten about it. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanlipkee

I have reported you to the conflict of interest noticeboard here : Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#New_Creation_Church_.28Singapore.29 you are welcome to comment in the discussion. Smartse (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahnan (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is important for editors to understand that as long as the relevant wikipedia guidelines are complied with, an editor with COI status is still allowed to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest. In fact, when it comes to materials relating to a living person WP:BLP, even COI editors are allowed to remove unsupported or poorly sourced postings that are potentially libelous or defamatory. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests. Nevertheless, no editor should delete any content based on his own personal definitions of what is poorly sourced and libelous, but must always defer to wikipedia's standards. Tanlipkee (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If Tanlipkee is believed to have committed COI infractions, he should be blocked. A new and inexperienced editor who has deleted some content is not immediately deemed to have committed COI infractions by wikipedia and be subject to blockage. Wikipedia treats new comers with kindness and patience, not hostility and accusations WP:NOBITE.

All editors are reminded to focus on improving the article, rather than on attacking the editor, bearing in mind the Wikipedia's behavorial guideline which states that "using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Public outcry when Joseph Prince's obscene salary was uncovered by reporters

To wiki editors, allow me to present to you a sample of blogs and forums on the net showing the outcry and shock of the public when Joseph Prince's obscene $500K salary was finally uncovered and revealed by the reporters:

http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/archive/index.php/t-67106.html

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/archive/index.php/t-2320035.html

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/archive/index.php/t-2319956.html

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=18854

http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=18317

http://www.arofanatics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366228

http://mediacorptv.sg/English/forums/thread/249328.aspx

http://chekyang.com/musings/2009/04/01/a-growing-disquiet/

http://www.christelquek.com/qhq/Blog/Entries/2009/5/24_SHOULD_CHURCH_CHARITY_LEADERS_BE_PAID_HANDSOMELY.html

http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=3000

http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2636682

http://www.mycarforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t2636682-100.html

http://www.wallstraits.com/wsforum/printthread.php?tid=2032

http://www.bob.com.sg/forum/archive/index.php?t-63911.html

http://forum.jobscentral.com.sg/showthread.php?p=8290

http://www.mingspot.com/index.php/financial-matters/about-christianity/81-its-on-the-news-500000-pay-for-new-creation-church-leader-

http://gleechoo.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/236-church-pastor-paid-500-per-year/

http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/361344?page=1

http://ping.sg/item/New-Creation-Church-Employee-s-Pay-500k-year

http://philosophyofjoel.xanga.com/697346786/joseph-prince-paid-500000-this-year/

http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/03/income-fit-for-a-king-joseph-prince-and-the-pastors-pay/

http://thelogicalchristian.blogspot.com/2009/04/love-letter-or-warning-letter.html

http://justenoughlight.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/as-poor-as-a-church-mouse/

http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/joseph-prince-pillar-of-church-growth-and-revenue/

http://cwnewz.com/content/view/686/71/

http://cwnewz.com/content/view/686/68/

http://uptowngal.org/2009/04/12/of-false-prophets-who-prosper/

http://squareberry.moi-nonpl.us/?p=785

http://www.fcbc.org.sg/fcbc_mediacenter_009.asp

Etc. Etc. Etc.

On 5th of Oct, in his interview with The Straits Times, Joseph Prince refuted the rumour that he was receiving $50K a month in salary. Sure, the exact amount may not necessarily be $50K but reading the article, it was clear that there were already murmurs about Prince receiving high salary (otherwise, it wouldn't be termed as a rumour). The reporter mentioned a figure of $50K which Prince conveniently denied. However, the point is, acting on public sentiments, the reporter was trying to acertain if Prince was indeed receiving any high salary, something which the public is not expecting a priest to be getting. By saying no, Prince was giving the public the impression that he wasn't receiving any high salary at all. Hence, when the reporters finally uncovered Prince getting a high salary later, the public was shock as can be seen in the responses of the above blogs and forums. Hence, my point of using the word "However" to connect the 1st para to the 2nd is entirely appropriate.

Tanlipkee, as a Christian yourself, seek your own heart - what do you think the reporter was really asking on 5th Oct when he asked Prince about his salary? And Tanlipkee, should I put these refs into the article too showing the strong public outcry against Prince?

Ahnan (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a typical response from the public:

Nathalie, on April 17th, 2009 at 3:49 pm Said:

Hi, I can’t agree with you more.

I have read too many arguments over the internet regarding this topic and I am really getting tired of the self-justification made by NCC people.

Though no one is perfect, and church is no exception, it’s just sad to see NCC keep denying their weakness and don’t let go and move on. They become defensive and irritated, simply put, they are too opinionated to take any suggestion or feedback.

I found this quite common in the mega churches in Singapore. They think all things they do is right, and can’t bother to take any feedback or doubt from the outside. I can’t help but wonder, do they defend for God or just the pastor and church leaders? Looks like the leaders in church is far more important than God Himself. It’s just sad and disappointing.

Ahnan (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is even a Christian Facebook group created to pray for pastors tempted by wealth: http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/church/2206/section/1.htm

The creator of this Facebook took issue with the fact that most of the money comes from tithes and offerings of church members and paying obscene salaries to the church leaders is akin to stealing GOD's money.

Ahnan (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a public poll conducted by a neutral site asking people if they think that an annual of $500,000 a year is too high for a religious leader? http://community.jobscentral.com.sg/node/1064

462 people voted and guess what, 89% say YES! Remember, all these activities happened after the reporters uncovered Prince's high salary.

Ahnan (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope we have all read and understood the guidelines of Wikipedia. Wikipeidia's key ideals are neutrality and verifiability. Wikipedia is meant to be a platform that consolidates facts and provides objective and useful information for readers. This sets wikipedia apart from normal forum pages where people would simply express their emotions and offer their diverse opinions. I hope we all understand that, and not turn this particular wikipedia article into something wikipedia does not stand for or represent.

I suggest that if there are editors here who wish to highlight that some people are unhappy the salary and to point readers to those forum pages where debates took place, this can be done by adding a statement in the wiki article, something like: "The press reports on Joseph Prince's salary generated much debates and iscussions among some people active in the online community in Singapore.", and provide proper reference or references to point the readers to the relevant forums.

I hope my suggestion proves helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.190.104 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will definitely be adding all these info to highlight the fact that the high salary received by Prince has caused much unhappiness and shock in public. That's why it is a controversy. Prince has been reported by some NCC members that he was "embarrased" by the whole incident cause public opinion is against him! Ahnan (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One question I think we should all ask ourselves: Why do we get ourselves involved in editing the wiki article here? Do we see ourselves as editors trying to present verifiable facts and objectively allowing both sides of the story to be heard, or do we regard ourselves as advocates trying to impose a certain POV?

Another question to ask ourselves as editors: Do we behave objectively or emotionally when we edit the main article and when we engage in discussion with other editors in this discussion page?

Let's remember to stay neutral and objective, and allow the verifiable facts and proper citations of reliable sources (instead of the emotions or opinions of ourselves or others, however strong those emotions or opinions may be) to affect our work here as editors of wikipedia.

Stay restful and joyful. Tanlipkee (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tanlipkee, you asked a very pertinent question, "Do we see ourselves as editors trying to present verifiable facts and objectively allowing both sides of the story to be heard, or do we regard ourselves as advocates trying to impose a certain POV?". You have revealed to us that you are a caregroup leader in NCC. So are you a neutral editor or an NCC advocate trying to impose a certain POV? The fact speaks for itself... Ahnan (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View - according to wikipedia's guidelines, not personal opinions

I sincerely welcome other editors here to correct me and help me improve in my editing skills. If there are factual evidences to prove that I am NOT acting objectively and neutrally as an editor, please produce them and help make me aware of my mistakes, and I will humbly make the necessary changes (if those have not already been made).

Whether or not an editor is neutral should be judged by what he has done in his editing work and to what extent his contributions have adhered to wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality, NOT by his affiliation with any organization.

I encourage all wikipeidia editors (myself included) to learn and respect wiki's philosophy and ideals. Let us not insist on our own personal interpretations of the meaning of 'conflict of interests' and 'neutral point of view', but let us take the time and effort to really read up on, and learn to agree with the guidelines as laid out by wikipedia itself: Conflict of Interests (COI): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest; Neutral Point of View (NPO): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV Tanlipkee (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In order to present any information about the nature or degree of public response, WP cannot do its own research. Blogs are not reliable sources, and even counting the number of blogs and forums or blog entries is WP:OR and thus not permitted. If we can find a reliable source that speaks of the public response, then we can quote or refer to its findings. If there is such a huge outcry, then there must be acceptable newspaper or television reports about it. For example, on-line polls are not reliable sources, but a reliable source quoting a poll might be. Arguing amongst ourselves about what is or isn't true is a waste of effort. WP doesn't much care about what we think. Find the reliable sources and quote them exactly. Then there is nothing to argue about. // BL \\ (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Straits Times did publish a couple of letters attacking Prince's high salary (obviously, ST can't publish all) reflective of the sentiments of the public. Can these be counted? Ahnan (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding questions on the kind of content that is allowed in wikipedia and what kind of sources are considered reliable, all editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with the three key guidelines as set out below:

(i) Neutral point of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

(ii) Verifiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

(iii) No original research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Tanlipkee (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec)According to WP:BLP#Sources, opinion pieces in a newspaper are are like blogs. They are essentially just statements of personal opinion by an individual. The writer has no necessary qualification in the subject matter and the editorial oversight exercised by the paper is not likely to extend beyond matters of profanity. Opinions are not subject to any external truth test and most newspapers specifically disavow any responsibility for the opinions declared to escape any charge of libel. (WP has no such "out" clause and WP is not in the crusading business.) This alone makes the material i "letters to the editor" unacceptable for WP:BLP purposes. Did no reporter do any article? If this is a big a matter as has been suggested, then surely there are news reports on the controversy. // BL \\ (talk)

:::Some relevant information from reliable sources for consideration

I did some further research and found a couple of things that Ahnan may find useful. First, an article from the online The Christian Post (Singapore), where a retired Bishop opined that the Civil Service rather than corporate sector should be used to gauge the pay for pastors. The relevant portions are extracted as follows: "In response to those who feel that the remuneration of church leaders should match that of CEOs in the corporate world, the retired bishop answered that the nature of church ministry is different from that of the aims of a business organisation: which is to generate profit for the individuals constituting it. Therefore, the civil service sector would offer a better gauge of where ministers' salaries should be pitched at. This too, however, is not without its attendant problems, because the Singapore government believes in rewarding its civil servants especially on the higher end in a manner which competitively matches salaries in the corporate world so as to attract top talent with top pay." and "Even bishops and moderators don't get that kind of [salary]," the retired bishop expressed, noting that the church leader's salary was around five times that of a normal denominational or church leader in the local context." Read the full article here: http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/church/2208/12%7C22/1.htm

Second, the webpage of the Singapore Administrative Service (which employs the top civil servants in the country) where it states that "The annual pay for a mid-career candidate with 3 years of experience is approximately $70,000 – $100,000. Your actual salary will depend on your work experience.": http://www.adminservice.gov.sg/JoinUs/Rewards/ Tanlipkee (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if the opinion of the retired Bishop will be considered relevant according to WP standards. But I think Ahnan will find this paragraph in The Christian Post article: "Retired bishop Dr Moses Tay's comment was made in light of the furore and controversy surrounding the comparatively exorbitant salary of the leader of an independent congregation, which was recently publicised and sensationalised by the local press." useful to support his claim that there was a "public outcry". I will allow Ahnan to figure out how to incorporate the information into the article.Tanlipkee (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"However" Part the Second

Tanlipkee has left an edit summary saying that using "however" in this instance is technically incorrect. That is not technically correct. It does, however, establish a point of view that is not neutral. See the long discussions of its use in the section above ([2]). Please continue to discuss this change on the talk page. As we are talking here of a living person, great care is necessary before any point of view can be given weight. It is not our opinion, but the facts stated in reliable sources that will determine the acceptable language use. // BL \\ (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my full comment was "Based on the facts presented in the cited reports, it is technically incorrect to use the adverb "however" to link the two paragraphs".

I used the phrase "technically incorrect" in reference to the following response to BL by Halleluard in the talk page: "Yes BL, unfortunately you may be correct. It amuses me that Prince, who preaches grace over law, should use a legalistic loophole to get around the tricky issue of his pay. He is actually innocent on a technicality. Hallelulard (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)"(note: emphasis mine).

I admit that I may not have been accurate in my understanding of the exact meaning and proper use of the phrase "technically incorrect", and I am prepared to withdraw that particular comment. I fully agree with the principle that it is not our opinion, but the facts stated in reliable sources that will determine the acceptable language use.Tanlipkee (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, the facts are already there. On 5th Oct 2008, in a report, Prince denied having high salary (don't just literally take the $50K figure). Subsequently, as reported to the authorities, Prince's salary in 2008 was high (ie, more than $500K the whole year). So, using the word "However", ties the 2 paras nicely together. What's wrong with it, BL? Ahnan (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"High" is still a judgement call. This is not something editors can do on WP. If you have reliable sources that say so, that is a different matter, and we may be able to quote the sources. Even if I had some fictional "Guide for Amounts to be Paid to Pastors", based on the revenues generated for the church, for example, I could only say what the numbers were, and not make a judgement call about high or low, too much or too little. If the pastor is paid by the congregation out of the funds of the congregation then it is the congregation's business, subject to any applicable laws, and not yours and mine, to say what is the correct amount and to pay the man accordingly. If we are reporting on people's reaction to the amount, then we have to go back good old "reliable sources". There is also a difference between "high" and "too high" which is also a judgement call and not one we can make here. The amount of the Pastor's salary may be "high" or "too high" to you. WP doesn't make such judgements. Find a reliable source that calls it that directly, and not just by inference, either "high" or "too high", and we may have the beginnings of a quotable comment. I believe the man said he was "well paid". If he did say that, and the sources quote him, then we can report that. (And just for the sake of an international reference, that $SD500,000~ equates to about $US343,000, which would be a very modest amount to pay the head, and principal revenue generator, of a multi-billionmillion dollar corporation. However, that is neither here nor there.) Locate the sources for the Pastor's wage being "high" or "too high" and then find where he has been reliably quoted as denying this, and you are off to an excellent insertion. // BL \\ (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, BL, I've looked through the newspaper report on Prince again and let me rephrase my proposition:

On 5th Oct 2008, in a newspaper report, Prince dismissed the rumour that his salary is $50,000 a month. Subsequently, on 30 Mar 2009 almost 6 months later, The Straits Times uncovered Prince's salary to be between $500,001 and $550,000 a year ($41,667 and $45,833 a month). Hence, using the word "However" to tie the 2 paras together sounds fine. Won't you agree, BL? Ahnan (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have said several times already, Anan, no, I don't agree. (While I appreciate the figures, I had done the math myself.) $42,000 and $46,000 are not $50,000, and are several orders of magnitude off $50,000. One of the things you have not considered, I think, is that not everyone knows what they are paid on a monthly basis. (If he is paid monthly, then perhaps he does, though if he is like most of my former colleagues, we know what we take home, which is considerably less than what we are paid, due to taxes and the like. I am not defending the man but I am saying we cannot invent a point of view to satisfy our own opinion and then use it to qualify, directly or indirectly, what the man has said.) If I were rounding his salary number, the first is "about $40,000" and the second about "$45,000". None of this matters to WP. You cannot by use of "however" cast doubt on the first part of the statement, which states that he doesn't earn $50,000 a month. Casting doubt by way of "however" is your opinion, and so far that opinion is not back up by reliable sources. WP does not permit the insertion of opinions of its editors or of others that do not have reliable sources. I don't know why this should be such a contentious matter here on WP. If there isn't a news story prepared to say whay you want said, then perhaps it is because what you want said borders on libel. You must be very careful even on this talk page. The rules about WP:BLP are quite clear and quite strict. // BL \\ (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

BL, I think you need to see this incident in its proper context. When the question was posed to Prince, the main issue was not about the exact amount he is paid. Rather, it was about a religious leader being paid an extremely high salary. Hot on the heels of a financial scandal about a charity organization in Singapore, high salaries was a sensitive issue then. So if you look at it in its proper context, his high pay rather than the exact amount was the main issue the reporter was trying to bring across. $50,000 was used simply because it was the rumored amount.

To you $42,000 or $46,000 is "several orders of magnitude off $50,000" but to many Singaporeans, it is not. Regardless of $42,000 or $50,000, most Singaporeans probably deem those figures too high for a religious leader. Much has been said about Prince acknowledging that he is paid well in the original interview. But how does one define "well paid"?. To many Singaporean readers, SGD10,000 - 20,000 is already considered very well paid, especially for a religious leader. I believed that when Prince was asked that question about his pay, he knew the point the reporter was trying to bring. I also believed that he considered that when he gave his reply. As I have mentioned before, Prince was telling something true without actually telling the truth.

Actually, this only sounds contentious because of the high amount ($50,000). If we use a drastically lower figure of $5000 and he was later found to be earning only $4200 or $4500, it would not have caused such a controversy. HOWEVER, the essence would still be the same. In this example, he would still be guilty of hiding the truth while innocent on a technicality. Hallelulard (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't argue with you about what was meant, or what pastor Prince knew or didn't know, or even about the context of the interview in terms of current events in Singapore. I have understood the point being made from the beginning. If I hadn't, then the "however" would not have concerned me in the least. You may well be perfectly right in every respect. Being right is not enough, however, for WP; being verifiable, through reliable sources, is. No one says anything directly in a reliable source and no one has found a challenge to his statements in a reliable source. Why that is, I don't know. I could guess, but about half my guesses might well be libelous and they would still be just guesses. I will caution again that we cannot say that things are "so", whatever "so" may be, anywhere on Wikipedia when the subject is a living person unless we have sources to back up our allegations. We shouldn't even do it if the subject is an organization or a person long dead, but the standards are often less strict in such cases. The talk pages are not exempt from the rules. For this reason, I would suggest that some of what you have written about Prince and truth should be reconsidered, and not stated as if it were fact.

We keep going over and over the same ground making the same points. If the WP rules change so that we don't need reliable sources, then all the blogs and forums can come into play. Until the rules change, nothing should go into any article on any living person that is not sourced and nothing negative should be included unless the sources are stellar. I have no remit to protect anyone; we all have a job to protect the integrity of the article by writing it in accordance with the rules. // BL \\ (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ok BL, can I then say that the uncovered salary of Prince is at least 8 times of the median household income of a Singapore family? I'm using the min $41,667 to calculate. The median household income in Singapore in 2008 is $4950. Ref: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/op-s15.pdf Ahnan (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is deemed relevant, you could, in my opinion, add that the median monthly household income in Singapore was SGD4950 for the comparable time period, if that is what the source says. You have a reliable source here certainly and you would be making statements, not drawing conclusions. Remember, WP doesn't do the math. We can't give the "8 times" number; that would have to be left to the reader. I believe the information would be reverted, however, on the grounds that it is not really relevant. If the wage earners in the "median family" also ran operations generating about SGD55million per year, and were themselves the most important factor in those earnings, then the comparison would be significant. If you were comparing Prince's remuneration to that of other equivalent church leaders in the area, that comparison would be relevant. (And that's a number you might be able to find, though you would need revenue, membership and salary.) Even if you were comparing his salary with those of business leaders managing the same size organization with similar revenues, that would be relevant. (His membership might find relevant a comparison between his salary and their average wage, but until a reliable source runs the numbers, WP can't use them. As I understand it, his membership is wealthier than the average.)

I am curious about editors here who seem determined to spotlight this salary, and then to underscore it in a negative manner. The number itself will be enough if there really is a problem. WP does not editorialize; it presents verifiable facts. If there is such a huge public outcry, why is there nothing in the news part of the local papers? If this is really out of line, then there is a story here but no one is reporting the story. Without a story, WP has nothing to report, either, except the unadorned facts as presented in reliable sources. It is a boring refrain, I know, but it is what WP is about. // BL \\ (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi BL, of course the public outcry was reported. In fact, the reporter himself was a member of NCC! He reported it on My Paper which is a supplementary that goes with The Straits Times. http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asian%2BOpinions/Story/A1Story20090324-130641.html So, BL, shall I report this on wiki then? Ahnan (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the site and the "About" section where it says "AsiaOne is a free-access, one-stop information mall." It is the "free access" that likely makes the website not a "reliable source". Anyone can join and write up their own opinion, as far as I can see, that's why it's called "My Paper" I think. Perhaps we might include this site and this opinion in the list of materials I am suggesting below that we submit for another view on their reliability. // BL \\ (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify for BL's sake, AsiaOne is one of the online portal of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). SPH produces print versions as well as online versions of the various newspapers circulated in Singapore. With regards the English language papers, the circulation of The Straits Times (ST) and The Business Times (BT) are subscription based, whereas My Paper (MP) is distributed free of charge to the public. Nevertheless, all the three papers (i.e. ST, BT and MP) are considered to be traditional press, the content over which professional editorial oversight is exercised. The AsiaOne online discussion forum though, is open to all and sundry. Hope this helps.Tanlipkee (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; this is very helpful. As you have gathered, I don't know the local papers. (I was in Singpore in 1985 for a week, but don't recall reading newspapers then.) I shall review the artcile to which Ahnan linked, though this is still the subject of one of the draft questions below. // BL \\ (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the Bible Workgroup

Up until this point, I have just being looking at the controversy surrounding the Pastor's salary. Today, I looked at most of the rest of the article. I am quite disconcerted by the extensive use of a self-published "letter" from the Back to the Bible Workgroup, commenting quite negatively on many church leaders, but, as we are here at this church, on Prince. I can find no third-party commentary or reporting on this information, so, unless this opinion is from a person of known substance and authority within the larger community of charismatic churches, I cannot see why WP woulsd include this material. It is one person's opinon, published on a private website. This makes it almost the very definition of NOT a reliable source. Perhaps it is my lack of knowledge about this specific church community, but I cannot see why WP should give this individual's view any article space whatsoever. (WP:NPOV doesn't mean that there has to be both positive and negative points epressed. All point can be factual, unbiassed, neutral.) What other information is available about additional sources for the substance of these criticisms? Absent better sources, this should go. WP doesn't reproduce criticism for the sake of having criticism. The points must be validated by third-party publication. Even if a person's opinion is important to the subject of the article (as the Pope's might be, for example, on the preaching style of a Catholic priest), then there has there be some explanation made as to why this person's point of view should be listened to. I am not seeing it. // BL \\ (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think as the Back to the Bible workgroup is based in Netherlands, there may be limited information about it in English or what links this workgroup has with any churches in Singapore and so far there does not seem to be any. Although someone has to write the article, it does not seem to be based on an individual's opinion. The article when expressing an opinion, uses "we" which imply that the article is written based on the understanding of the entire workgroup's analysis of Joseph Prince's sermons. The article is pretty well written btw- it provide proper substantiation on how it came about with its conclusions. The workgroup has also revealed their credentials which sound like a group of people whom I can rely on to conduct analysis of sermons.

On the other point, I can understand why the article may have not been cited by others. Being on the sensitive topic of religion, pastors generally do not criticise one another. Also, I noted that others have also come to similar conclusions independently about Joseph Prince's doctrine (but phrased in a less forward language) which helps to reinforce the general view of the doctrine of Joseph Prince which is towards prosperity theology/teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.227 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors are not to insist on their own definition of what is considered to be neutral or reliable or acceptable by wikipedia, but are to defer to wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, especially those relating to the biography on a living person: e.g. WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLP#Reliable sources,WP:GRAPEVINE,WP:REDFLAG, WP:SPS. Editors and contributors are strongly encouraged to take the time to read up on and to familiarized themselves with those relevant policies and guidelines, including the one on libel WP:LIBEL. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Making the Article Neutral

Having now read further, I feel that almost every commentary, pro and con, has come from sources that WP would feel either are not reliable or are self-serving. In the former category would be the BttBW letter and in the latter are the New Creation website (except for purely factual information where there would be no advantage to misrepresent) and the one for the church with the disgruntled ex-members. There are also references using this talk page as a source and that is definitely not acceptable.

I know that a lot of people have worked hard on this page and that, in spite of, or even perhaps because of, that involvement, there has been and continues to be dissent. It is not the church that calls up the dissent, but the Pastor, and the article should about the church. That the Pastor is a key figure in the church is obvious, but he is not the church.

In a first attempt to eliminate both the self-serving and the poorly sourced, I propose something like the following, after the sources have been redone at the bottom of the page, of course. I have made no changes to the article itself yet, as I think such a wholesale approach needs to be discussed first. Aside from removing material where the sourcing may be deemed suspect, I have tried to eliminate duplication of information and re-organized some of the text for what I hope is more coherence. I would appreciate comments from everyone, of course, but especially from those who have worked long and diligently on this article already. Of course, if the text I have removed can be replaced with content that meets the "reliable sources" test, then it should be seriously considered for re-insertion.

START

New Creation Church is megachurch in Singapore. It was founded in 1984 and has a membership of 18,000 as of February 2009. While it is charismatic in practice, it considers itself non-denominational and is not affiliated to any church overseas. It is a member of the National Council of Churches of Singapore.

Missionary Work

According to the church's website, it has been involved in missions throughout the Asian region, and has sent pastors and leaders to countries such as Russia, China, India, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia.

The church services are broadcast to Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa and Australia on various cable television and satellite networks.<:ref>http://www.josephprince.org/broadcast/schedule/broadcastschedule.htm</ref>

The church spends 10% of its annual income on missions. In 2007, it spent US$4 million.

Facilities

The congregation currently worships in the Rock Auditorium in the Suntec City Mall. A new building, called the "Civic, Cultural and Retail Complex (CCRC)" is being planned by Rock Productions, the business arm of the church, together with CapitaLand in Buona Vista. The church will rent space owned by its subsidiary, Rock Productions, in the complex for Sunday services. The building is envisioned as a "futuristic complex with restaurants, shops and a 5,000-seat theatre", and will cost nearly SGD1 billion.

The church was reported to have raised SGD19 million for its new cultural and entertainment complex within 24 hours in 2009 It had raised SGD18 million in one day in 2008. In total, the church has raised approximately one third its SGD500 million share of the new building's cost. The New Creation Church's income was reported to be SGD55.4million for the financial year ended March 2008.<:ref>http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/BgSty_277387_1.html Church's Income was SGD55.4million for year ending March 2008</ref>

Senior Pastor Joseph Prince

Joseph Prince, born in 1963, is one of the founding members of New Creation Church. He was born to an Indian father and a Chinese mother. He spent his primary school years in Perak, Malaysia. He eventually came back to Singapore and followed an aunt to church. He was then a young man dabbling in the occult but he said that 'supernatural experiences' opened his eyes to Christianity. He attended Commonwealth Secondary School in Singapore and went on to finish his 'A' levels at a private school, Our Lady of Lourdes.

In 1984, Mr Prince, then president of a youth ministry in a traditional church, with a group of friends, was asked to leave the church, which didn’t agree with their style of worship. They founded New Creation Church. Before he became a full-time pastor in the New Creation Church, he was an IT consultant. He changed his name from “Singh” to “Prince” and his undisclosed first name to “Joseph”. He is married to Wendy Prince and they have a daughter.

He has a publishing house, and releases books, CDs and DVDs. As a speaker, Prince is invited to many international events such as those sponsored by the Hillsong Churches.

Criticisms and controversies

Content and style of preaching

The content and style of New Creation’s preaching and teaching have stimulated some controversy. According to a report published on 9 March 2009 in the Singapore's Edition of the Christian Post, World Revival Prayer Fellowship Senior Pastor Rev Kenny Chee "recognised the value that [Joseph Prince's] methodology has in refining and empowering the pulpit ministry in many churches today" <:ref>http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/education/701/9%7C16%7C19/1.htm</ref>. Professor Gordon CI Wong, the Bishop William F Oldham Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Theological College, Singapore<:ref>http://www.ttc.edu.sg/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=30</ref> suggested that "Prince's theology is generally acceptable - even commendable - except for a few finer points". <:ref>http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/education/701/9%7C16%7C19/2.htm</ref>. However, according to the same report, the retired first Anglican Archbishop of Southeast Asia, Bishop Dr Moses Tay, in reference to the emphasis placed on grace by Joseph Prince in his preaching, said that "there was a danger of Christians veering to the extreme of simplistic grace and committing the error of dichotomising the period before the cross and that after and throwing everything of the former overboard."

Remuneration paid to the senior pastor

On 5 October 2008, in an interview with the Sunday Times, Prince, acknowledged that he was well-paid but added that money did not have a hold on him. He dismissed the rumour that his salary was $50,000 a month, saying "It could have been $50,000 if I had not voluntarily taken all the pay cuts through the years. There was a system of payment that would actually enrich me greatly but as the church grew, I refuse to accept that system of payment." On 30 March 2009, The Straits Times reported that a check revealed that the New Creation Church paid one employee between $500,001 and $550,000 in its last financial year of 2008. Even though the church did not confirm if the amount went to its pastor, Joseph Prince, it told The Straits Times that its policy is to 'recognise and reward key contributors to the church and Senior Pastor Prince is the main pillar of our church's growth and revenue'.<:ref>$500,000 pay for New Creation Church leader</ref><:ref>Singapore church pays princely sum to leader</ref>

During the same time period, Prince was the Church's chief executive and also served as chairman to the Church's six-member board, an arrangement that was not in line with the revised and updated recommendations of the Code of Governance issued by the Charity Council of Singapore on 26 November 2007. Prince’s church responded that it believed the senior pastor being “ordained by God to lead the church...is the best person” to head and guide the board.<:ref>http://www.newcreation.org.sg/aboutus/media_coverage/media-responses.htm#m1</ref>

END

I look forward to seeing lots of suggestions. // BL \\ (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please use the new section below for comments as this one is getting very long.

Comments on Draft

Suggested revision #1

BL, thank you for the efforts put in to help clean up and tidy up the article.

With regards the last paragraph under the sub-heading "Content and style of preaching", may I suggest adding a few words (see portion in square brackets below) to help make things clearer for the readers:

However, according to the same report, the retired first Anglican Archbishop of Southeast Asia, Bishop Dr Moses Tay said, [in reference to the emphasis placed on grace by Joseph Prince in his preaching], that "there was a danger of Christians veering to the extreme of simplistic grace and committing the error of dichotomising the period before the cross and that after and throwing everything of the former overboard." For your consideration, please. Tanlipkee (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The insertion helps explain the comment which is otherwise a little esoteric. Why don't you just put it in the draft pending other comments? I am assuming that the words are either in the text, or it is very clear that this is what he refers to.

And just as a "by the way", especially in light of Ahnan's legitimate concerns, I have no problem with either the criticism of the Dutch group or the idea that there may be a flap in Singapore at large about the Pastor's salary being included again as long as there are reliable sources that make the matters substantive. In that vein, has anyone checked sources in languages other than English? They are permitted when appropriate and as long as we can get a reasonable (uninvolved) translation or one agreed among the speakers of that language who may be working on the article. That's a source I can't check. I am, sadly, limited to English and modest French. // BL \\ (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will go ahead with the insertion in the draft then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanlipkee (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested revision #2

Under the section "Senior pastor Joseph Prince", I suggest revising the last sentence in the draft to read: "Prince as a speaker, has been invited to many international events such as those sponsored by the Hillsong Churches." (The original draft reads: "Prince is speaker invited to many international events such as those sponsored by the Hillsong Churches.")Tanlipkee (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was "Prince, as a speaker," (as opposed to "as a delegate"), so that was sloppy of me. I will change the order now for greater clarity. As it is well after midnight where I am, I am going off-line now. I will look in again tomorrow. // BL \\ (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the Bible Workgrouop's criticism

I feel that the criticism from Back to the Bible Workgroup should be retained. The workgroup has credentials (with one of them being trained for 5 years at a seminary on top of various years of experience) although it is small. The author of the article has explained clearly how his conclusions about Joseph Prince have been derived with thorough analysis of Joseph Prince's sermons which is rare but which also unfortunately happened to be negative. There also does not seem to be any conflict of interest by the workgroup since they are based in Netherlands. As an observation, it is more likely for pastors to praise one another than to criticise due to the sensitive nature of the topic- religion. Also, the type of sermons that Joseph Prince/ church adheres to should also be included. As at the moment the webpage is still being modified quite frequently by various users (quite a few which are conflicting), it would be better to leave the page as it is as and only to rearrange things when things has settled down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.227 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 218.186.10.227 Ahnan (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the fact that the conclusions are negative. I do have a problem with the fact that the letter/report is original material, by a person with no provable credibility outside his own group. Neither he nor his group have a presence on the Internet, though that is not the sole test. Can you uncover some some sources that have commented on the letter, so that it is no longer using first-hand materials? Even better, can we find commentary from credible sources on the individual as having stature in the broader church community? The problem, quite aside from the fact that the only source so far is not credible as defined by WP, is that it may be a little like a Catholic priest in South America, say, saying he didn't approve of Prince's preaching. So what? Why should any attention be paid to those not belonging to the same affiliated groups? Now, if Prince has agreed to adhere to some style or system of belief as established by, or represented by, or even joined by, the Netherlands group, that would be different; then their commentary on his preaching might be significant. As it is now, it appears to be one set of believers being critical of those who believe (and thus preach) differently. This is hardly world news. We have quoted the range of opinions from those in Singapore who have commented in reliable sources. If that isn't sufficient, then we still have to apply the "reliable sources" test to anything else. That's a basic requirement, made more significant by this being a WP:BLP matter, and no article concensus can change the requirement. We need better sourcing, or other commentary from reliable sources, as defined. I asn't suggesting that there was a conflict of interest, but that it may be considered "self-serving" for a low-profile group (BttBW) to criticize a high-profile preacher (Prince) if only to bring traffic to their website, absent any other connection, barring the broad category of religion, between them.

As for waiting for things to "settle down", it will settle when the article is as neutral as possible and it is then easy to supervise for further neutral comment.

If Prince's "style of preaching" can be described neutrally, then of course it can, and likely should, be included. // BL \\ (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have written another paragraph above which you all might have missed and I am putting it in here too:

I think as the Back to the Bible workgroup is based in Netherlands, there may be limited information about it in English or what links this workgroup has with any churches in Singapore and so far there does not seem to be any. Although someone has to write the article, it does not seem to be based on an individual's opinion. The article when expressing an opinion, uses "we" which imply that the article is written based on the understanding of the entire workgroup's analysis of Joseph Prince's sermons. The article is pretty well written btw- it provide proper substantiation on how it came about with its conclusions. The workgroup has also revealed their credentials which sound like a group of people whom I can rely on to conduct analysis of sermons.

On the other point, I can understand why the article may have not been cited by others. Being on the sensitive topic of religion, pastors generally do not criticise one another. Also, I noted that others have also come to similar conclusions independently about Joseph Prince's doctrine (but phrased in a less forward language) which helps to reinforce the general view of the doctrine of Joseph Prince which is towards prosperity theology/teaching.

There should probably be materials from other websites based in Netherlands on the activities of the workgroup and the problem is probably language. The author may have a reputation in Netherlands but the webpages are probably in Dutch. About BL's comment that "Why should any attention be paid to those not belonging to the same affiliated groups?", as the church is non-denominational and has no affliation with other churches, BL would then be implying that no one would have the capacity to review the church's doctrine unless that person comes from NCC which obviously bring the issue of conflict of interest. The workgroup has clearly made available its credentials on its website and in the analysis everything is backed up clearly on all the statements made in it. Furthermore, the conclusion made about Joseph Prince is in line with what other pastors said about the doctrine of Joseph Prince- therefore it does not seem that the analysis is unreliable. Also, BL suggestion that "it may be considered "self-serving" for a low-profile group (BttBW) to criticize a high-profile preacher (Prince) if only to bring traffic to their website" sounds pretty far fetched. There is no proof of the workgroup trying to bring traffic to its website by writting such an article and I find it offensive for BL to suggest such a thing and just because a group has limited English articles on its website does not mean that the workgroup does not have the capacity to review other church pastors' doctrine. As suggested by BL that it may be "self-serving" for a low-profile group" to "to criticize a high-profile preacher (Prince)" seems to suggest that only a high profile group has the right to criticize a high profile preacher which seem to suggest that credentials of a group is less important than whether a group has a high profile or not- does this still sound right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.227 (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To gain a clearer understanding of what wikipedia defines as reliable sources, it will be useful for all editors and contributors to read up on the relevant policy WP:SOURCES and guidelines WP:RS. Thank you. 121.6.190.104 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To respond to the concerns of 218.186 (and may I call you 218?): I know I didn't say anything about limiting anyone's "right" to criticize NCC or anything else, for that matter. I hope I did not even imply something so restrictive. I have a "right" to criticize, as do you, as does the group in the Netherlands. What we don't have a right to do is to put such criticism into an article on Wikipedia. Even if you or I have a website, and a group of people who claim to be clergy are also named on the website as supporters, and even if the academic credentials and experience all can be proven (and those are important qualifiers), we don't have a "right" to put our opinions into an WP article unless those opinions have appeared somewhere in a reliable source. That requirement is not going to go away. It is also the same reason why I am suggesting a lot of what is on the NCC website be eliminated from the article. It, too, is not a "reliable source" in WP terms except in respect of what it says about its own aims and goals, and even that tends to be "self-serving", too, though self-serving may have its uses.

What we might consider doing, and I would like an informed, outside opinion on what I am about to propose as to its acceptance in both a WP:BLP and WP:RS terms before we do it, is to add one sentence to each of the of salary and preaching sections. For salary, it might say: "As a consequence of the Straits' interview, many negative letters appeared in the paper on days following the revelation.(Put here a link to a couple of the dates and pages)" In the preaching section, it might say: "Stronger criticism came from foreign clergy unhappy with aspects of both Prince's style and the content of his sermons. (Put here a link to the Dutch site.)" I don't think this will work as we are specifically enjoined not to link to material that would otherwise not pass muster if used directly. While I don't personally think the Dutch criticism is relevant at all, though the local ones are, I do have some concerns that there might be a need to show that there was shock in the local community about the magnitude of the salary.

I propose writing a question about (a) whether the newspapers' letters’ sections and/or the blogs and/or the Dutch website are reliable sources in the context or not and (b) if they are not, can westill link to them to show (a) weight of concern in the community with respect to the salary and (b) concern outside the immediate community with respect to the preaching style. I will place the question here before I take it anywhere else, and we can first agree on the wording amongst those of us at this page. I would then take it to an admin with lots of experience dealing with controversy. My first thoughts are either Rockpocket who has done years of work keeping "Animal Welfare" topics from erupting, or Less Heard who has handled business editors with conflicts of interest. (I have worked with them both to be clear about my possible conflicts, though not with Rockpocket on Animal Welfare.) If anyone has someone else to suggest who meets the qualifications, we can go there instead. I suggest we agree on one person, otherwise we are "forum shopping", continually looking until we get the answer we want. I will draft a question to put on one talk page and put it in a new section below so that we may all be agreed on its neutrality before we ask anyone else. It is now about noon my time; I don't know what the UTC will say when I sign this post, but don't expect to see anything more here for about 10 hours after I sign. Over to you . . . // BL \\ (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BL. I've checked out the user pages of Rockpocket and Less Heard. Based on what I've read, both of them seem to be competent and committed wikipedia administrators. However, it appears that Rockpocket has become less actively involved in wikipedia recently, so perhaps Less Heard will be better choice for our case? I'll leave it to you to make the final decision, since you are the more experienced editor here. Thank you. 121.6.190.104 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When we have agreed on the text of the questions, I will enquire as to the availability of Rp and Less. Yours is a good point. // BL \\ (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by User:Rees11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanlipkee (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the patience to review all the arguments in this case but I do want to make a couple of comments about sources in general.

Saying something like "many people object to X" and then using a bunch of letters to the editor as your source is wrong, in my opinion. The letters themselves are primary sources, and citing a bunch of them to back up your claim is original research.

The Dutch web site is problematical too. I would consider it a primary source, but citing it is not original research so it's not as bad as the letters to the editor. Personally I don't think criticism of preaching style or content has any place here. Churches are faith based. Members' beliefs will always seem strange, even bizarre, to a non-believer, whether it's the New Creation Church or the Catholic Church. Belittling people's religious beliefs has no place on Wikipedia.

I realize that feelings can run high on religious matters. People on both sides are eager to prove a point. But if you can't find a reliable secondary source, you have to consider the possibility that what you are trying to say, although true, simply isn't notable enough to include. Look how long this article is already. Is it really justified? I suggest letting the facts speak for themselves. All you really have to do is say "Pastor Prince is paid $500,000 a year" and let the reader come to his own conclusion about whether that is reasonable. In some ways this is more powerful than trying to prove a point with questionable sources. {Comment added by User:Rees11 at 8:855 on June 19]] User did not sign. This attribution added by // BL \\ (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

6 editors asked to help with reviewing the draft

Please be informed that I had left a note on the user talk page of 6 editors to ask them for help in reviewing the proposed draft by BL. The 6 editors are: Rees11, Smartse, Vegaswikian, Ariedartin, Mishlai and Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvary. The way I selected those 6 editors was I simply went through the edit history page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Creation_Church&action=history) and picked someone:

(i) who has a user name, i.e. who is not anonymous;

(ii) who has, in the past few months, contributed to the article on New Creation or left me a note on my talk page, i.e. shown interest in the subject matter; and

(iii) whose contribution history indicates that he or she is an experienced editor, i.e. not a green horn like myself.

I did not bother to check their views or opinions on NCC or the pastor. Among the 6, 2 of them seemed a little unfriendly to me: Smartse had reported me to the COIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanlipkee#You_are_being_discussed), and Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvary had sent me a note to warn me about COI and NPOV (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanlipkee#June_2009). In any case, I believe all 6 to be neutral and independent. If any of you know of any reasons to believe otherwise, please highlight them to me, and I will ask them not to get involved. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft Explanation and Questions on Reliable Sources

This is a draft of what I propose to ask. It is here for review.

To_____:

The editors on this article have been wrestling with the problems of “reliable sources” arising from two current controversies: (a) the salary and (b) the preaching style and content of the church’s senior pastor, Joseph Prince. The problems are magnified because there are also WP:BLP issues here. We can’t deal with the issues of what to include and how much weight to give it until we are clear on what constitutes a “reliable source” in this situation. These controversies are not much covered in the traditional press [CITE the References we have used here: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asian%2BOpinions/Story/A1Story20090324-130641.html; http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/education/701/9%7C16%7C19/2.htm, either on TV or in newspapers.

In respect of the matter of the salary, there appear to be many blogs and “letters to the editor” exclaiming concern about the amount of Prince's salary and about whether his explanation of his comments (http://admpreview.straitstimes.com:90/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2f0e3114209cc110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=016fe84edfbf8110VgnVCM100000350a0a0aRCRD, http://www.tmc.org.my/documents/pjp.pdf) was sufficiently truthful. There is only one source we can find that speaks to this outcry, except for the blogs and letters to the editor, though those WP editors who appear to live in Singapore make a case for it being a current topic of note.

Question 1: Is it permissible to quote directly from any of the blogs or letters to the editor as shown here [ADD links to no more than 5 of the examples Ahnan has presented: http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/archive/index.php/t-67106.html, http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/archive/index.php/t-2320035.html, http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=18854, http://www.arofanatics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366228, http://mediacorptv.sg/English/forums/thread/249328.aspx].

::Question 2: Is this site [LINK to “My Paper”: http://www.mypaper.sg/about_mypaper.html] a reliable source as defined by WP?

Question 32:Is this column [LINK to column where interviewer from NCC writes of the controversy on My Paper: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asian%2BOpinions/Story/A1Story20090324-130641.html] whose by line is the same as that on the original interview [LINK to original Straits’ interview here: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_348208.html, http://www.straitstimes.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bd98403cd71ff110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=cf70758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD] a source that a controversy exists of significant numbers, even if it is not a source for content otherwise? Is this column [LINK to column where interviewer from NCC writes of the controversy on My Paper: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asian%2BOpinions/Story/A1Story20090324-130641.html] which makes reference to the original report in My Paper [LINK to My Paper report here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lXd7FpfMmr4/Sbd2pGUm_9I/AAAAAAAAADI/dw-kScod-rE/s1600-h/mypaper+article+on+one-north.jpg] a source that a controversy exists of significant numbers?

Question 43: If the blogs and letters to the editor are not themselves reliable sources, it is permissible that the number of them can be used as supporting evidence of a “public outcry”?

The last two questions involve criticism of the pastor’s preaching. Quotations from local clergy appear in the article. There is no intent to modify that text. There is a question about the report made on a website from the Netherlands of the Back to the Bible Workgroup [Link to home page of website: http://www.backtothebible.nl/] written by Rien van de Kraats [Link to exact report: http://www.backtothebible.nl/Eng_1-4-07.pdf]. We can find no mention of this report except on the website.

Question 54: Is this website a WP:RS?

Question 65: If it is not a WP:RS, is it permissible to link to the article either in the Controversy section or in External References at the bottom of the article?

I thought at first to drop this on an administrator’s talk page, after we had agreed on the text, but anyone good, and both of these admins are good, will want to come here anyway to make sure they are not running about in a minefield.

Please add your comments or changes. My objective is to make the questions as neutral as possible and to act based on the responses. I have not asked about the relevance of any of the content of the sites. That is not something an admin would likley be prepared to comment upon without becoming deeply involved.. If we still need to discuss that aspect, and cannot agree among ourselves, then a “Request for Comment” might be appropriate.

Anyone passing may comment, of course, even if we direct the questions to the specific attention of one of the named administrators.

I am hoping someone else will do the links in the places shown above; I hate doing them. All your comments will be appreciated. // BL \\ (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Links done up

I've tried to do up the links as requested, but I am not too sure about the links referred to in question 2 and question 3 - seem to me to be the same. Would someone else please help? Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now corrected the link for question 2 to point it to the My Paper website. For question 3, I've cited the link pointing to the AsiaOne commentary written by Joy Fang (who is a member of NCC, and who was responsible for the report in My Paper regarding the $19m raised by the church). I hope I have provided the correct links. Tanlipkee (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on question 2

For question 2, My Paper is definitely a newspaper of reliable source. This is a new biligual (English and Chinese) free paper launched by the Singapore Press Holdings (owner of The Strait Times) 3 year ago. See it's press release http://www.sph.com.sg/article.display.php?id=341 and read this too: http://www.mypaper.sg/about/index.html Ahnan (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is definitely reliable. Smartse (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, that My Paper should be considered a reliable source.Tanlipkee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Here is a link to the actual My Paper report written by Joy Fang: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lXd7FpfMmr4/Sbd2pGUm_9I/AAAAAAAAADI/dw-kScod-rE/s1600-h/mypaper+article+on+one-north.jpg. I don't remember seeing this article being referenced in the article. Maybe it should? In any case, this article in My Paper reports only on the fund raising event itself and does not mention anything about the controversy. The controversy, which happened after this first report was released, was reported in another article written about a week later, also by Joy Fang: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asian%2BOpinions/Story/A1Story20090324-130641.html, which is the subject matter in question 3.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to delete question 2 and rephrase question 3

In view of the above, may I suggest that we delete away question 2, and rephrase question 3 to read as follows:

Question 3: Is this column [LINK to column where interviewer from NCC writes of the controversy on My Paper: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asian%2BOpinions/Story/A1Story20090324-130641.html] which makes reference to the original report in My Paper [LINK to My Paper report here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lXd7FpfMmr4/Sbd2pGUm_9I/AAAAAAAAADI/dw-kScod-rE/s1600-h/mypaper+article+on+one-north.jpg] a source that a controversy exists of significant numbers?

What do you think? Of course, if we were to delete question 2, then question 3 will become question 2, and the rest of the questions will also need to be re-numbered.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll make this change as we are agreed on the reliability of the source. I've used strikeouts for now so that the change are clear to everyone. I will tidy it all up before we ask for a formal review.// BL \\ (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on question 4

For question 4, my take is that in this new online age, the activities in blogs and forums are definitely a form of measure of the "temperature" of a public issue. The more controversial the issue is, the greater are the public discussions. Ahnan (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately whilst it may the true, unless there is mention of it in a reliable source it can't be included. Counting the number of blog and forum posts would constitute WP:OR too. Smartse (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reviewers: User:Tanlipkee noted that User:Rockpocket is less available now according to his User page than he has been in the past. While that is true in my own experience of the time he spends on WP, I did ask him for a review of another matter, of some complexity involving historical and academic sourcing and he replied (seeTalk:Blanche Parry with 24 hours. (And for "full, true and plain disclosure", he notes his view that I was being unduly strict in my interpretation there.) // BL \\ (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Senior Pastor

Is this an official title that one would always leave in front of the person's name? i.e. like Doctor. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  13:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. It is a title of respect, certainly, and one that goes with the job, but unlike "doctor", it is not an academic or licensing designation. It does not require capitalization, as far as I can tell, and it is not necessary to use it always. // BL \\ (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tags on three sections

I added the tags after heavy additons today of what I am assuming are good-faith edits, adding material straight from websites on topics here that are controversial. I hope this will encourage newcomers to come to the Talk page first and propose additions and discuss sources before making changes. If you have a problem with this, let me know. // BL \\ (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi BL, thanks for leading me into this Talk page for further discussion. The article looked rather skewed to me so I tried to find material from websites and credible sources (e.g. The Straits Times and other newspaper articles) to provide a balanced point of view. Let me explain my proposed additions:

1. Adding a new section on “community giving”

Much of the focus seems to be on the income of the church, the funds it raised, its building project and the salary that Joseph Prince has received. It may be worthy to note that the church has also made significant financial contributions to various causes. E.g. The Straits Times has reported that the church gave S$581,500 to various groups and charities from Apr 07 to Mar 08. Channel NewsAsia also reported that the church contributed financially to help the cyclone, earthquake and tsunami victims. Other beneficiaries were listed on the church’s website.

2. The fact that the church has passed the COC’s governance review

Again, with the current strong focus on the finances of the church, it is important to state that the authorities have conducted their due checks and found the church to be aboveboard in its practices and management. These are facts that have been reported in The Straits Times, a credible source. I included the three areas that the COC reviewed, so that it is clear that the church has been cleared on these counts.

3. The fact that Joseph Prince had requested to go on no-pay

When The Straits Times broke the story on Joseph Prince’s pay, they included the point that Joseph Prince had actually requested to go on no-pay, but his request was turned down by the Church Council. Early this year, he has repeated this request, which the Council is still deliberating. The Straits Times provided both sides of the story in their report, so similarly, we should include this point here in order to provide a balanced view. The current article seems to present Joseph Prince as someone mercenary, something which is not true.

The current article mentioned that there are criticisms of Joseph Prince’s pay. I searched and found at least two readers of The Straits Times who held a different view. To me, it is only fair to state that while there are critics, there are also supporters.

I trust I have explained myself sufficiently. My intention is to provide a neutral point of view and help to make this a balanced article. Thanks!

Event24 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"My intention is to provide a neutral point of view and help to make this a balanced article."? Event24, perhaps you should disclose a bit more about yourself so that we know where you are coming from? As for me, I've already disclosed myself and my reason for being here. I'm a mod of a public forum (www.3in1koptiam.com). There have been tremendous public outcries on Prince and NCC after his salary was uncovered by reporters and disclosed to public. Initially, when I came to take a look at the NCC's wiki entry, I did not see any references made to it. Hence, my purpose was to balance the overtly laced positives in the entry when I first came here. There is no point for me to focus on Prince's positives since there are already many NCC members lurking here doing a good job out of it. I, hence, would focus on the negatives. Fair? Ahnan (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Event24, thank you for your contributions. They are much appreciated. Nevertheless, please bear in mind that wikipedia is not a battleground WP:NOTSOAPBOX, so the adding of new positive content with a view of trying to balance out the negative ones should not be the driving motive for us as editors. We should first and foremost be concerned with the core principles of neutrality WP:NEUTRAL and verifiability WP:V. Bearing those principles in mind, information obtained from NCC's website may be deemed to be promotional or self-serving in nature. Also, even though they were interviewed by the press and quoted in the news reports, comments by individuals who are not notable or authoritative should not be included as part of the wiki article. Please understand that wikipedia is meant to be a platform for presenting encyclopedic content, not a platform for exchanges of opinions or battle of views. Be accurate with the facts. Avoid getting emotional. Stay neutral. I hope you understand where I am coming from. Happy editing. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Event24, please know that the editors here have already proposed a revision of the article's content to make it neutral (see proposed draft here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Making_the_Article_Neutral). Kindly discuss the changes you wish to make here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Comments_on_Draft, instead of making them directly in the actual article. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a detailed review of Event24's changes and then ran into edit conflicts with Ahnan (and your "fair" isn't fair, as no one should be single-minded on this article) and Tanlipkee. In order to "rescue" my comments, I had to copy the whole section, Event24's comments, with mine added to them. I have dropped it below, with Event24's text in italics. I have to say that I am discouraged. The more we see of single purpose accounts, of voices apparently from nowhere that have a full grasp of WP editing conventions, citing methods and controversies, the less likely this will ever be anything less than a battleground. Life is too short for this foolishness.

Explanation

:Hi BL, thanks for leading me into this Talk page for further discussion. The article looked rather skewed to me so I tried to find material from websites and credible sources (e.g. The Straits Times and other newspaper articles) to provide a balanced point of view. Let me explain my proposed additions:

I hope you have looked at WP:SPA and WP:COI and considered the suggested constraints before you launched into these controversies. It is unusual for an editor with no previous experience to come straight to an article that is contentious, to step immediately into the points of contention, and to have an exceptional and instantaneous grasp of citiations and sources. Your credibility is apt to suffer under such conditons. // BL \\ (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:1. Adding a new section on “community giving”

Much of the focus seems to be on the income of the church, the funds it raised, its building project and the salary that Joseph Prince has received. It may be worthy to note that the church has also made significant financial contributions to various causes. E.g. The Straits Times has reported that the church gave S$581,500 to various groups and charities from Apr 07 to Mar 08. Channel NewsAsia also reported that the church contributed financially to help the cyclone, earthquake and tsunami victims. Other beneficiaries were listed on the church’s website.

Thank you for coming here to discuss your changes. Usually, when an article is contentious, we discuss first and then make the changes. The fact that you have reverted back to text that was removed because (a) the part referenced to the church's web site is unverifiable, web sites not being, in general, reliable sources, and (b) almost promotional in nature, is not helpful, however. A note about the community giving might be appropriate, using the Strait's source, but a full paragraph and a list is out of balance with the significance of the text. I am changing the text to the single line that is verifiable in the Straits, and request further input from other editors about the rest, if appropriate sources can be found. If the truth be known, and this is entirely OR, a charitable organization that distributes barely 1% of its income (581,000/55,000,000) on community giving might be more embarrassed than pleased if that low number were broadcast, I would think. // BL \\ (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have noticed some of the "quirkiness" of NCC. It's a very "generous" organization, isn't it? Raised $55.4 million but barely gave 1% to charities. HOWEVER, AS EMBARRASSING AS IT MAY SOUND, IT IS STILL A FACT! We cannot hide such information from the public. All truth should be told. BL, I hope you are not losing your neutrality and taking sides now..... that will certainly be a shame. Hence, I say such info should be included. Afterall, this wiki entry is trying to describe NCC as much as possible, including the good, the bad and the ugly Ahnan (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:2. The fact that the church has passed the COC’s governance review

Again, with the current strong focus on the finances of the church, it is important to state that the authorities have conducted their due checks and found the church to be aboveboard in its practices and management. These are facts that have been reported in The Straits Times, a credible source. I included the three areas that the COC reviewed, so that it is clear that the church has been cleared on these counts.

The first article referenced does make the statement you have quoted from it, but the next sentence, which is an important qualifier, has been omitted: "But it said more measures can be put in place to manage problems that may arise, such as formalising a conflict of interest policy." If we are going to quote, only picking the flattering parts is not recommended. The areas of governance are not listed in the article and to include them could be viewed as WP:OR The statement about the ways in which a xcahirtable might be different for purposes of governance was not, as far as I can tell, made after the review, but before it. The second article [3] used for the same material does not say quite the same thing. A "clean bill of health" is not the same as “the review . . . found that they 'generally' have proper systems and processes and 'largely' comply with regulatory requirements.“ Even if all this weight is acceptable, the slanting of the text to reflect only the least critical statements, is not. The text referenced to a letter to the Editor from the church's web site is also not a relaible source and the last sentence is without a refernce and clearly promotional.

:3. The fact that Joseph Prince had requested to go on no-pay

When The Straits Times broke the story on Joseph Prince’s pay, they included the point that Joseph Prince had actually requested to go on no-pay, but his request was turned down by the Church Council. Early this year, he has repeated this request, which the Council is still deliberating. The Straits Times provided both sides of the story in their report, so similarly, we should include this point here in order to provide a balanced view. The current article seems to present Joseph Prince as someone mercenary, something which is not true.

The current article mentioned that there are criticisms of Joseph Prince’s pay. I searched and found at least two readers of The Straits Times who held a different view. To me, it is only fair to state that while there are critics, there are also supporters.

As has been discussed many times, "Letters to the Editor", regardless of the view expressed, are not reliable sources and will thus be removed. This is a matter of policy, not concensus, or balance. The Matthew Kang letter is addressed to the editor as found on the church's web site and thus is also not acceptable as a source. // BL \\ (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, I believe Kang's letter was first published in The Straits Times. I think NCC essentially archived the same copy on their website for ref purpose. I believe the original letter can still be found on The Straits Times' site. In any case, I feel that under certain circumstances, "Letters to the Editor" might still be considered relevant especially if the letter comes from the said party in the topic of discussions inside the wiki entry. For example, if the wiki entry is about a historical famous person, then certainly all his published quotes including those in letters published on reputable newspaper can be considered for inclusion. Ahnan (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

:I trust I have explained myself sufficiently. My intention is to provide a neutral point of view and help to make this a balanced article. Thanks!

Event24 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(See more detailed comments following each section above.) It is my strong belief that there is much too much detail in the whole of this article and much of it is "tit for tat". I am recommedning (see sections above, with draft) a serious cutback to all sections. The changes I am making in respect of my comments immediately preceding are all to be in line with my other proposals. Perhaps there will be less pressure to include minutiae if we develop a proper weight for all the materials. // BL \\ (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Event24I know you are new and may feel overwhelmed by the information overload. Please know that the more experienced editors are not here to bite you but to guide you. I strongly encourage us to agree with BL's approach which I believe is in line with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Let's refuse to get involved with the "tit for tat" approach, which is not helpful at all for the improvement of this article. To make meaningful process, I strongly suggest that we agree to use BL's proposed draft as a fresh starting point, and work from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Making_the_Article_Neutral. 121.7.42.98 (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all again. When I first read the article on NCC, I found it rather one-sided. Therefore as mentioned, I’m coming in here as a neutral party hoping to contribute to make this article neutral. I’m grateful for the reminder that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and indeed, I have no intention whatsoever to fight any war here.

Really? Did you know that until I made a complaint to Wiki about NCCwebmaster, the wiki entry on NCC/Joseph Prince was one-sided? All negative comments on Joseph Prince were deleted without any consultation. Ahnan (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I note and concur with Tanlipkee’s comment that “adding of new positive content with a view of trying to balance out the negative ones should not be the driving motive”.

You have just contradicted yourself. You said that you "found" this article "rather one-sided" and you want to make it "neutral". So, isn't your wish to make it "neutral" driving you to come here to edit now? At least for me, I'm honest enough to reveal my intentions. I'm not so hypocritical. Ahnan (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I also note Ahnan’s comment that he is here to “focus on the negatives”. I agree with BL that this is not fair as this approach is also not in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines on being neutral. Having read some of the discussions, I question Anan's motive for focusing on the negatives. I have to admit that the thought of whether he is here to ride on the coattail of controversy to drive traffic to the forum which he has mentioned a few times has crossed my mind…

HAHAHA! A dangerous comment from you... indeed... First of all, please check thru the whole discussion thread before you open your mouth to accuse me of trying to drive traffic to my forum site. When Tanlipkee came onboard, I did a google search and found him to be connected to NCC. So, I asked him point blank to confirm his background and indeed, he has confirmed that he is a caregroup leader of NCC. I've asked you the same question but looks like you are dodging it. It's ok if you choose to remain quiet about it but your actions will show. For example, some of the writings you have contributed suggests that you do have an intimate knowledge of NCC.

Following Tanlipkee's revelation, the independent wiki editor asked me the same thing which I gladly complied and answered that I'm a mod of the 3in1kopitiam forum and that I came to edit the article purely to do a public service. After Prince's salary was uncovered and reported by ST reporters, there was a public outcry (I'm sure you are well aware of it). All the Singapore public forums, including 3in1kopitiam, were abuzzed with shock and disbelief. As observed in the forum postings, most Singaporeans were critical of NCC and Prince. Yet, reading the NCC article on wiki then, I found it only laced with charms and niceties. It is against this background that I came here to do a public service for Singaporeans - to highlight all the controversies that surround NCC and Prince. The public has the right to know the truth.

Back to your accusations, no, this has got absolutely nothing to do with driving traffic to my forum. If I really want to, I should be highlighting my forum in the main article where the public can see, and not here in the discussion page where I have to deal with people like your kind here. Ahnan (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Event24, please know that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on wikipedia WP:GOODFAITH. We are reminded to be respectful when expressing an opinion on a fellow editor's contribution (focused on the editing, not on the editor). Explain the basis of our opinion by using facts presented in the proper context. Don't insinuate. Speculating on the motives of a fellow editor is tantamount to a personal attack which is frowned upon on wikipedia WP:NPA. Let's help to improve the quality of our discussion here, bearing in mind our ultimate aim is to improve the quality of the article based on wikipedia's standards. Thank you. 121.7.42.98 (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving on, I am for the idea of using BL’s proposed draft as a fresh starting point, with everyone bearing neutrality in mind. I will spend some time to look at the draft and comments on it, and will provide my own comments.

And I will be monitoring what your comments are and to ensure that they are "balanced". Ahnan (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I just wanted to end my post by referring to Ahnan’s earlier comment that people have been discussing if Joseph Prince’s purpose for ministry is to save souls or to enrich himself. I feel that since Joseph Prince had requested more than one time to go on a no-pay scheme as reported in The Straits Times article, including this point from the article will give a more well-rounded picture of the whole controversy surrounding Joseph Prince’s salary.

Event24 (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad that you have noticed that Prince's salary has indeed generated much controversy in Singapore. At least you are honest about this point. As far as the public is concerned, he can continue to request going on a no-pay scheme (much like a kid crying wolf). It's the actions that will determine a man, not his words. As long as the money is going into his own bank account be it in the form of wages, commissions or fees etc, people are intelligent enough to tell if this is a no-pay scheme or not. Looks like you are very eager to "save" the reputation of Prince here too... LOL! Ahnan (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Event24, maybe to Ahnan NPoV is not neutral point of view but negative point of view. But personally I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'm sure the administrators are fair and will know what to do. --euphimist 10:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphimist (talk • contribs)

Yes, the public have got eyes. They can see for themselves what I'm trying to do here. I can tell you bro, given the public infuriation over Prince's salary, even if I'm being banned for expressing negative points about Prince, there will easily be 10 other Ahnans who will dare stand up and take over from me... do not underestimate the power of the net... the truth shall prevail! Ahnan (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we stay away from commenting on the editor and move to commenting on the content, please? Almost every editor on this article is a WP:SPA, with an agenda. That one agenda is more openly avowed another does not make it any more appropriate.

Well, Event24 made a "stinging" remark that I'm here to promote my forum. I'm merely retorting back defending myself. Ahnan (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "truth" but about verifiabiity. What we believe here is of little significance. What we can verify in reliable sources is.

If it is really the truth, it will always be verifiable. Otherwise, it would not be the truth :) Ahnan (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Banning does not arise because of a negative (or a positive) viewpoint, but because an editor is disruptive to the purpose of using verifiable, relible sources for article content, or to the purposes of applying appropriate weight to what is verifiable.

So far, as you can see, when I put up a point, I always back it up with something verifiable. Ahnan (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors may be blocked or banned for persistent attacks on other editors, for persistent reverting and/or reinserting of inappropriate material or for WP:BLP violations. I remind all of us that there is no "free pass" on WP:BLP violations just because this is a Talk page and not an article. // BL \\ (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If others attack me, insinuating that I'm here to promote a forum which is complete nonsense, don't I have the right to defend myself? Ahnan (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

About 8o% of this page is finger-pointing, name-calling and rehashes of history. It is time to move on. (Unless someone is named, my comments are pointed to all of us.) Materials recently added that did not meet WP's tests of verifiability and reliable sources have been removed, and will continue to be removed, regardless of who inserts it. As for "truth" always being verifiable, it certainly isn't the case with Wickipedia's internal defintion of "verifiable", and that is the one with which we must work. What is nonsense to one is truth to another, but neither counts here unless verifiable in WP's terms. // BL \\ (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Road to Stability and Neutrality

Thank you to everyone who keeps working on keeping the article stable while we work through possible changes here. This is the best of teamwwork. The worst is when yet more single-purpose accounts, and new ones at that, pop up at every change and try to squeeze something else in or out that doesn't meet either the neutrality or the "reliable sources" requirements. It is just more of that childish "tit for tat" we hope stays firmly away.

Over the next three days (rememberng that I am about 12 hours behind you and when I am working during the day, most of you are sleeping - and vice versa, of course), I shall (a) ask one of the reviewers to look at our amended questions on sources and (b) "swap out" the current article for the stripped down one I have proposed as the skeleton of a new one. I may do some re-arranging at the time to better organize the information we have. I will add an "editor at work" to the article while this is going on. I would ask that everyone respect that notice and stay calm. The purpose is not to avoid other input, but to avoid edit conflicts until the new version is entirely in place. I will take the "under construction" notice down as soon as I am finished. The time period should not be more than a couple of hours, and I doubt it will be as long as that as most of the work will happen off line. I will be looking for help checking that I do the refs correctly as it is not either my liking or my strength.

Once this is done, and it won't be today, anyone who has not yet commented on the draft, or whose comments are not complete, or who feels that their concerns are not in the draft, should come here, to the Talk page to propose further changes. (And I hope someone can teach me to type "article" and "references" correctly, each and every time.)

Thanks to everyone who is of a mindset to help us move forward. // BL \\ (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the proposed draft and the discussions. Firstly, I agree with BL that while the pastor Joseph Prince is a key figure in NCC, this article should focus on the church. I also agree with Ariedartin JECJY who said that this is not a Christian Wikipedia. Boldeagle also made a good point that “doctrines are matter of faith, not fact”. As such, I feel that it is not appropriate to dwell on the content and style of Joseph Prince’s preaching in this article. In any case, can “style of preaching” ever be described neutrally by any one person without injecting his personal view? I don’t think so. If this is the case, we will be better off sticking to stating plain facts with verifiable sources.

With all these in mind, for the review of the article on NCC for its neutrality, I have also looked at articles for a few other megachurches in Singapore and Australia for reference. I note that there’s one common thread of information found in these articles, i.e. history, beliefs, services, leadership and ministry, among others. Taking these as reference, I propose to add the following basic information about NCC after the first paragraph in the draft.

========================================

Mission Statement

The church’s mission statement is “to see Jesus in all the loveliness of His person and the perfection of His work, and to make Him known through the preaching of the gospel.”

- Taken from the church’s website, but I believe this is, like BL said, “purely factual information where there would be no advantage to misrepresent”. http://www.newcreation.org.sg/aboutus/mission_corevalues/mission_statement_corevalues.htm

History & Leadership

New Creation Church was founded in 1984 by a group of believers in Singapore. The church grew from an initial attendance of 25 to 150 by 1990, and around 2,000 by 1997. As of February 2009, the church has around 18,000 members.

The church is led by its senior pastor, Joseph Prince, and has a team of 15 other pastors.

Weekly Services

Today, the church holds weekly services in English, Mandarin, Hokkien and Korean. Since May 2009, it also started a monthly Indonesian service in partnership with Tiberias Church Indonesia. In addition, it also has services for youths and children, including a class for children with autistic spectrum disorders.

Ministries

The church has several ministries where its members may serve, such as in the area of community services, logistics, performing arts, video and sound, etc. The church also has a music ministry which writes and produces its own music albums.

I agree with the suggestion to add the above information into the main article.Tanlipkee (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

========================================

My other comments:

Remuneration paid to the senior pastor

There is a statement that “Prince was the Church’s chief executive and also served as chairman to the Church’s six-member board”. Can we confirm the accuracy of the statement that Prince was the church’s Chief Executive? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think no reliable source can be found on this. On the other hand, I checked the church website which only states Joseph Prince as the chairman of the Council. I believe the church website can be taken as a reliable source for this “purely factual information”? This is why I edited that part to say, “During the same time period he was the Chairman of the church’s board while on the church’s payroll.” Is it ok if we note this edit in the draft?

On the same note, for the issue on the above arrangement not being in line with the Code of Governance, can we also include the following in the draft:

========================================

On this issue, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has acknowledged that for religious charities, it is not always practical to “require the separation of spiritual leadership from leadership of the board”.[24][25]

========================================

BL, I saw your comment that “The statement about the ways in which a xchairtable might be different for purposes of governance was not, as far as I can tell, made after the review, but before it.”

I could not locate a source to say that COC made this acknowledgement about religious charities being different before the review, would you be able to point me to it? In any case, I’m not sure what the implications are, whether the acknowledgement came before or after the review. Appreciate if you can enlighten me. Thanks!

Joseph Prince’s request to go on no-pay

Actually, as this is an article on the church, my take is that the salary of its pastor should not be featured. This brings me back to BL’s earlier comment that while Joseph Prince is a key figure in NCC, the focus of the article should be on the church.

The church is started by Joseph Prince. NCC and Joseph Prince are synonymous. People pay tithes to the church and out of that amount, Prince draws a controversial salary from it. Straits Times have already reported it and the source and refs are on the article. It is of interest to the public to know what's going on. Are you saying that you're ashamed of highlighting Prince's salary? Ahnan (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case, if we maintain the section on his pay, I’d just like to reiterate my point that since Joseph Prince had requested more than one time to go on a no-pay scheme as reported in The Straits Times article, including this point from the article will give a more well-rounded picture of the whole controversy surrounding his salary. These are facts, we can just state it and let people make their own judgement if they want to. The Straits Times did just that by providing “both sides of the story”.

In fact, I would very much welcome that. It only shows how hypocritical Prince is. Hence, I have no objections highlighting his "empty" talk. HAHA! Ahnan (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the suggestion by Event24 to include "both sides of the story" as reported by The Straits Times. Tanlipkee (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the church has passed the COC’s governance review

BL pointed out that “a clean bill of health” may not be the same as “the review…found that they ‘generally’ have proper systems and processes and ‘largely’ comply with regulatory requirements.” So then let’s state it as it is, that the church has passed the review which “found that they ‘generally’ have proper systems and processes and ‘largely’ comply with regulatory requirements.”

I agree with the suggestion by Event24 to include the conclusion using the exact words as they were reported. Tanlipkee (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on this point, I just read that the CNA article “Seven major charities in Singapore pass governance review” (currently source #25 in the main article) stated this, “The Commissioner of Charities (COC) has given a clean bill of health to seven major charities in Singapore”. Therefore, my suggested edits to this part of the draft are as follows:

========================================

During the same time period, Prince was the Chairman of the church’s Council while on the church’s payroll, an arrangement that was not in line with the revised and updated recommendations of the Code of Governance [19] issued by the Charity Council of Singapore on 26 November 2007. Prince’s church responded that it believed the senior pastor being “ordained by God to lead the church...is the best person” to head and guide the board.[20]

On this issue, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has acknowledged that for religious charities, it is not always practical to “require the separation of spiritual leadership from leadership of the board”.[25][26]

The COC had conducted a governance review of seven charities, including New Creation Church, and has given them a clean bill of health.[25] The Straits Times reported that these charities “ ‘generally’ have proper systems and processes and ‘largely’ comply with regulatory requirements”. [26]

========================================

Event24 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to modify on point 2:

On this issue, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has acknowledged that for religious charities, it is not always practical to “require the separation of spiritual leadership from leadership of the board”. The Commissioner of Charities (COC) thus asked the groups to come up with measures to manage potential problems arising from this 'conflict of roles'.[25][26]

Ahnan (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Community Giving

Noted comments about the giving to local community being one per cent. Well, I don’t think the church has cause to feel “embarrassed” about this, because as a non-profit organisation, it is dependent on the charity of their attendees for income to support its operations.

It doesn't matter if the church feel "embarrassed" or not (obviously, it does not). Put this fact in and let the public decide for themselves what kind of church NCC is, ie, giving only 1% of tithes to those unfortunates but yet going around bragging about it! Again, I'm for putting this info in. Ahnan (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As reported in The Straits Times dated 11 Sep 09, the church's income largely comes from tithes and offerings to the church (reference: source #25 in the current article — ST article titled “Charities review of seven religious groups”). Any amount given out of its income which is dependent on the giving of others, even if it appears meagre in anyone’s eyes, is a demonstration of its contribution to the local community.

Again, put it in and let others decide how they want to see it. Reminds me of the story of Mother Teresa when she started out in India. In the first year, she had to go round resorting to begging for food and supplies. She was already so poor herself and yet, she was willing to give whatever meagre food and supplies she had to others. What a contrast! Hey BL, can we put it Mother Teresa as a contrast to Prince? I'm sure it will make the Prince's character clearer to everyone? Ahnan (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As such, I propose to still include this line:

The Straits Times reported that New Creation Church has given S$581,500 to groups and charities from April 2007 to March 2008.

I will include is as such:

The Straits Times reported that New Creation Church had an income of S$55.4 million from April 2007 to March 2008 but only less than 1% of it, amounting to S$581,500 was donated to charities by NCC.

Ahnan (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Event24's proposal. If having a one-liner section in the article is a concern for editorial or whatever reason, we may consider merging the section with the Ministries section, and naming the section "Ministries and Community Giving". The "1%" calculation is considered original research, and according to wikipedia's policy, should not be included in the article WP:ORTanlipkee (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. In that case, BL, I request that the 55.4M income should be put together with the 581,500 donation as a contrast. We are showing nothing but the truth, as verified by the Strait Times source. This will give a more complete picture of NCC's "generosity" to others. Ahnan (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the Bible Workgroup

Like BL, I’m really not sure they can be considered a verifiable or credible source as the only form of reference is from their own website. I would suggest not to include the portion on them.

That’s all from me for now. Thanks!

Event24 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There have been numerous fights on this already. I'm with the other editors that this info should be included. It is a credible source (obviously, NCC people would want to throw this out for obvious reasons). Ahnan (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the views expressed Event24 above and the comment by Rees11 (under the sub-heading "Comments by User:Rees11" in the "Comments on Draft" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Comments_on_Draft) regarding the apparent lack of verifiability and credibility of the Back to the Bible Workgroup. I also note and support BL's decision not to include BttBW's criticism in the first draft. Tanlipkee (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that users/editors who have a conflict of interest here should not influence the contents on what's to be added or removed which includes the discussion here- refraining from editing I feel is not sufficient. I noted Event24 has suggested to bring some balance in the contents on Pastor Prince's attempts to get the council to allow him to go on no pay. I believe that this should be completed in the same sentence that Joseph Prince is also the chairman to the council to bring some proper perspective to the reader. I also noted that Event24 did not answer how he is connected to NCC. About the suggestion on whether Joseph Prince details should be deleted since the webpage is about the church itself, I feel that given the significant achievements made by Joseph Prince to the church which the church has acknowledged, it would be better to move things relating to Joseph Prince to a new page than to completely delete the section off. Just in case someone asks, I am not affliated with NCC in any way and only learned about NCC when Pastor Prince salary was reported in the local papers which led me to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.248 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention Joseph Prince is the Chairman of the council. This, I believe is also verfiable. If it's a verified fact, why the need to hide this info? Perhaps Event24 care to explain? Ahnan (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I’m not proposing to delete the statement that Joseph Prince is the Chairman of the Council. What I have a problem with is the statement that Joseph Prince is the “the Church’s chief executive”, which is different from Chairman of the Council. I don’t think there is any source to say that Joseph Prince is the “chief executive”, chairman yes.

BL’s current draft says:

“Prince was the Church’s chief executive and also served as chairman to the Church’s six-member board”

I’m proposing to change to:

“During the same time period he was the Chairman of the church’s board while on the church’s payroll”

Hope this makes it clear for everyone.

Event24 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be changed to:

“Prince was a paid staff full-time member of the church while serving as chairman to the Church’s six-member board” [25][26]

Ahnan (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the suggestion that "conflict of interest (COI) persons" should have no influence on the contents for the final draft. What's more important is that anyone contributing should respect Wiki's NPOV policy. I agree that no one should come in and only suggest whether to keep only negatives or only positives but to have a fair and neutral report and let any reader make their own judgement and conclusions. Even in commercial companies, directors in a COI situation are allowed to discuss and state their views but excused from the decision makin vote. I am a member of New Creation Church and I'd like for BL to consider the following.

My comments:

I don't agree New Creation Church is synonymous with Pastor Joseph Prince. New Creation Church is registered as a society and founded by a group of young people as reported in Straits Times (ST) article (Ref 12). At that time, Joseph Prince was still doing his National Service and was not the Senior Pastor of the church until 1990 which is seven years after the church was formed.

say what you like but Prince is the pastor of NCC. You can't avoid not mentioning Prince at all if you are talking about NCC. Ahnan (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a page on New Creation Church and the focus should be on the church and it's programs and activities. Of course Joseph Prince should be mentioned as Senior Pastor but there shouldn't be that much of a focus on one person. Point to note: There are more than ten other pastors in New Creation Church.

But prince is the chairman of the council, the senior pastor, the main actor. Why shouldn't he be mentioned. Furthermore, the public outcry in Singapore concerns Prince, not the other pastors. So, to summarize, talking about NCC, you cannot avoid talking about the main spritual leader of the church and talking about him, you can't avoid bringing in the controversies surrounding him, unless of course, you want to suppress it cause it's hurting to see your own pastor sinking in controversies? euphimist, you're an NCC member, correct? Ahnan (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's state his salary as it is and have readers decide if it is an obscene sum or not. As much as there are people who think it's too much, there are others who don't think so. That he is currently the chairman of the church council is a separate issue. Putting the two together may imply he decides his own salary which is clearly not so (as stated in the ST article) that he has made requests to the Church Council not to be paid a salary.

I disagree. It is a fact that he is the chairman of the council and as such should be mentioned. If you think he has not influenced his own salary, you can put a statement in to say so. But you will need to back it up with verifiable facts. Ahnan (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reporting of salaries on the annual report was voluntary and not legislated by law. The Commissioner of Charities (COC) only encouraged religious organisations to reveal salaries of their top staff as reported in a news article (Ref 41). Point to note: Out of the seven organisations reviewed by the COC, four including two churches declined to reveal the salaries of the top staff as reported in a Straits Times article and also The Christian Post (http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/church/2197//1.htm).

I don't think it's necessary to repeat the salary issue in another section. It's currently mentioned in the sections under Joseph Prince and also Senior Pastor's salary.

I also hope we don't get into theological arguments on teachings. There's always two sides of the story. If the decision is to include comments by a small bible discussion group in Holland, then Wiki should also agree to include articles of comments on Joseph Prince's teachings by others christian groups who support his bible teachings. I am sure I can find a lot to contribute which should pass the same test put on this Holland group on the premise of original research (assuming it passes).

By all means, put in your postive side of the story for Prince but don't try to delete stuff off just because you think the Holland discussion group's finding of Prince is negative? It hurts to see your own pastor being criticised by others, doesn't it? Hence, I too am questioning the neutrality of some of these NCC members as claimed by them... Ahnan (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BL for hearing me out. --euphimist 20:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I realise I'm late to comment on removal of the music section. I hope that it can be included back in again. If you feel it's too commercial, instead of linking to the online store, it can be linked to a review done by an online christian magazine called CreateLeVoyage.com (http://createlevoyage.com/backstage/performingarts/2008/08/music-review-of-new-creation-churchs.html). --euphimist 20:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphimist (talk • contribs)

Didn't BL say that self-promotion is not allowed? Right, BL? Ahnan (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When it comes who should or should not be allowed to edit or comment on Wikipedia, it is not the private view of anyone that matters, but Wikipedia's official set of policies and guidelines. There is no need to argue. The relevant guidelines on "COI editors" can be found by following the link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest.

For the sake of some editors (especially the newer ones) who may not be aware of Wikipedia's stand on the inclusion of materials that are related to living persons, please know that poorly sourced materials that are potentially libelous can be speedily deleted by any editor - including one who may be deemed to have COI (read guideline here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests). At the same time, one must not be too quick to delete any content one disgrees with, but should exercise diligence to make sure the content is indeed poorly sourced and libelous according to Wikipedia's standards before doing so. The relevant policy on biographies of living persons can be found by following the link here: WP:BLP.

Please also be reminded that Wikipedia frowns upon "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki guideline also said: "NOTE: POINTING OUT AN EDITOR'S RELEVANT COI AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND IS NOT CONSIDERED A PERSONAL ATTACK." Ahnan (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the editors who are genuinely concerned with COI editing will find this essay, which offers suggestions on how COI editors should go about with their editing work on wikipedia, and how persons responding to such editors should conduct themselves, a useful read:WP:SCOIC. Happy reading! Tanlipkee (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From the postings of Tanlipkee, I can see that he has removed negative things when he first started contributing to the article which Ahnan has pointed out. He has also removed many times the word "However" based on a technicality in relation to Joseph Prince's salary that he did not earn $50k or more which another user has put in as a contrast to the interview conducted by ST on whether or not Joseph Prince is earning a high or low salary when the fact is Joseph Prince earns about $40K per month which would put him in the top income tax bracket in Singapore even based on IRAS standards, is a high level of salary. There is too much nitty gritty arguments by Tanlipkee to try to do away with just a word "however" based on a technicality when the interview in 2008 is about whether he earns a high salary and not exactly how much he earns. It is just too ridiculous and I do not wish to see this repeated in other issues again. That is why I suggested above that anyone who are affliated to NCC refrain from influencing the discussion in here on what to remove or what to add but only to provide facts/resources if the discussion is lacking on these about NCC. On another point, I did not say Joseph Prince decides his own salary but with Joseph Prince telling the media that he has asked the council to allow him to go on no pay leave which has been turned down, conflict of interest should be highlighted here with the qualification that that he is also the chairman on the council for readers to get the complete picture. Non-affliated NCC editors/users- I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.248 (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to inform editors who may not be aware, that there is already a proposed neutral draft (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Making_the_Article_Neutral). Please review the draft, and give relevant comments on the draft, e.g. if any editor were to insist that the word "However" should be included in the draft, state so clearly. Criticizing other editors does not help to improve the article. Let's focus our time and effort not on the editor but on the editing. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability

Is the contentious information verifiable in respect of reliable sources? If it is not, then we do not use it. Period. If it is veriable in accordance with this standard, then we may use it. On this standard, the 1%, which I calculated, is original research, which I noted on the Talk page when I presented the number. It may not be used if challenged. It has been challenged. Therefore, it may not be used. This is not a matter of a vote, or of point-of-view or of conflict of interest. There is no argument for its inclusion that trumps WP:RS. Gone. // BL \\ (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose that both info, the $55.4M income and the $581K donations be put down. Let the users calculate the 1% out themselves (shouldn't be that difficult to figure it out). Ahnan (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BL, I concur that a link to the church’s website is appropriate for readers to check out the church for themselves. Can I also take your comments to mean you are ok with my proposal to include the mission statement, history & leadership, weekly services and ministries sections? The source for these sections is the church’s website, but the info is as what you’ve said, simply the church describing itself.

Event24 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BL, I think this should be discouraged. They are trying to advertise their service. Doesn't this infringe on Wiki's policy? Ahnan (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The information culled from the New Creation website is not necessarily contentious, but it is unverifiable. To the extent that it is the church describing itself, it may be accepted as being reliable: matters like statements of belief, for example, would likely fall into this category. For most other matters, however, the web site is not a reliable source: unless confirmed in a reliable source, and that is an important qualifier, membership numbers, financial data, scope of community involvement, significance of its governance, press notices, internal discussions, and the like are self-serving more often than not, and thus are not usually suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Anything that is essentially promotional from such a web site is also not a suitable for WP. This may mean that, because the reliable sources are few, the article is short. Of course, a link to the web site is perfectly appropriate, and there any reader can see what the church claims for itself. WP cannot make those claims on its behalf, however, without the evidence of a reliable source. For example, unless there are reliable sources dealing with the merchandising aspects of the church, it is my view that they are not appropriate to include in any detail. That the church does raise money through merchandising is likely not contentious, and, unqualified, might well stand.

When I first read the wiki entry on NCC, it sounds exactly like NCC's own website. The infomation is all self-serving and promotional stuff which I agree with BL that it should be removed... Ahnan (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am short on time this week and thus have not taken the question of reliability of the sources for the Dutch criticism of the senor pastor for review. No discussion of what to include or of how to counter (balance) it can conclude anything until we know if the sources are acceptable. It seems wasteful to argue further about the text when we don't yet know if the information is permissable. If the sources are deemed not reliable, as defined, then the material will not be used and all these words are as dust. If the sources are reliable, then we can take the time to discuss weight and balance.

As for the senor pastor's salary, we are also awaiting a decision on the sources, though here I have little doubt, personally, that all the blogs and forums will be disallowed. Whatever reliable sources report, we may choose to include, though we cannot draw inferences or conclusions that are not stated directly in the sources. To the extent that two sides of an issue appear in reliable sources, we report what is said and who says it, without further commentary.

"COI" is shouted all over this page. From my own perspective, I can see very few who do not appear to have a conflict, and more than one with a conflict who is, nonetheless, acting in a manner consistent with the best policies of WP. COI is only a problem where neither policy nor logic can supersede it. Look to what is being done, and not to who is doing it; look to the content, not to the editor. // BL \\ (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, these people have been trying to find the slightest excuse for removing anything that is negative towards NCC or their beloved Prince... their actions speak for themselves Ahnan (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the following section should be retained:

In an article written in Dutch from a christian youth magazine in netherlands (Xist in Christ) published in Netherlands Daily (Nederlands Dagblad), it warns of the painful consequences of the 'prosperity theology' of Pastor Prince. [31][32] Other articles also published in Netherlands Daily (Nederlands Dagblad) were also criticial of Joseph Prince's sermons. [33] It was also reported in Netherlands Daily that a Christian based group named Generation Foundation had distanced itself from Joseph Prince[34] Another article published in the Nederlands Dagblad reported that Joseph Prince received a warm welcome when he spoke at the Eurospirit 2008 in the Netherlands. Joseph Prince’s message centred on how only grace can transform lives. He stated that to live under grace is not an excuse to sin. While the law brings unrest, those who rest under grace can walk with God and will want to do what is right because they have received His love. [39][40] (THis vcomment was inserted by 218.186.10.248 (talk) (230,615 bytes), the attribution has been added by // BL \\ (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

"Nederlands Dagblad" is a publication that I will add to the list of sources to be checked for reliability. The English-language [website] has, for the paper’s mission statement:

The factual reporting is impartial and accurate. The eventual purpose is – by choosing themes, topics and subjects, and commenting on them – to show that behind the reality of daily life there is a bigger reality, God’s Reality.

It may be thus a “ reliable source” with respect to facts, though saying it is impartial does not make it so, but a biased one in respect of opinions, or in respect of the stories on which it chooses to report. What we may use from the paper will depend upon its deemed reliability in WP terms. // BL \\ (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for BL's consideration: This is a WK page of New Creation Church, and should not become a venue for theological comments, criticisms or praise of one aspect of a pastor's teachings. If we allow this we're going to allow for a lot more of such comments. I suggest we do not include the above articles found in Nederlands Dagblad or other such articles whether bouquets or brickbats.

Sorry, I cannot agree with you. The Holland's piece to me is entirely credible and provides a good counter balance to the "prosperity gospel" that Prince is sprouting. Ahnan (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that theological comments should not have a place in this article. As some other contributors have mentioned before, this is not a Christian Wikipedia and doctrines can’t be verified. We’ll be better off staying with stating facts with verifiable sources.

Event24 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BL, we are just trying to report that some group of people are against Prince's teachings. We are not trying to debate on who is right or wrong here but merely to show that Prince IS A controversial figure with his controversial teachings. We are reporting about this controversy. Whether people want to believe in Prince's teachings is up to the individual to decide. Trying to suppress the controversies, including this teachings, surrounding him is doing an injustice to the public. We have verifiable facts here. Why the need to suppress these facts? NCC people of course will try to remove as much negatives (even though they are verifiable facts) as possible... BL, I hope you can remain neutral at least... Ahnan (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have one proposed edit: Under the heading Senior Pastor Joseph Prince:

Before he became a full-time pastor in the New Creation Church, he was an IT consultant. He changed his name from “Singh” to “Prince” and his undisclosed first name to “Joseph”. I propose to delete the last sentence as it's not verifiable. The actual news report states: Joseph Prince, by the way, was a name he adopted when he was working as an IT consultant before he became a full-time pastor. 'I saw in the Bible that everyone that God raised, he changed their names,' he explained. Thanks for your consideration, BL. --euphimist 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that his surname was originally a "Singh". Can't take the heat? Sounds too damaging to your pastor? Check with your comrade, Tanlipkee, a caregroup leader of NCC, about Prince's former name. I'm sure as a good Christian, he wouldn't want to lie, would you, Tanlipkee? Ahnan (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had read that information somewhere other than in this article, but perhaps I am mistaken. Certainly the first source that is quoted does not, as you have indicated, make these claims. The second source, which is a .pdf copy of the same article is not, in fact, a source that should be used at all. If there is no source for the "Singh" information, then it should be deleted. Check the other articles referenced first as there may just have been a mistaken link. // BL \\ (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is a fact, then give us the source, Ahnan. What we are discussing is that the source currently given does not speak to the pastor's former name. There is no suggestion that a change of name is not present in an appropriate source. Baiting other editors, and especially baiting one who has said nothing in respect of your specific point, is not permitted. The tone of your comments is unwarranted and unacceptable. Please modify your remarks to deal with the text and its sources, and not with the editors. This is not a chat room or a forum. Tanlipkee would be sensible to ignore your jibes. // BL \\ (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with BL that this is not a chat room or a forum. Wikipedia's talk page is meant as a space for editors to discuss about and find ways to improve the content of the main article. The following point has been reiterated many times, and it bears repeating: Wikipedia is NOT a battleground where anything goes WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Wikipedia has attained its level of reputation and credibility because unlike many other online forums and blog sites which are unregulated, it does not allow participants to freely post un-cited information, quote unreliable sources, express unsubstantiated views, hurl wild accusations and publish libelous claims. Where editing and behavoral standards are concerned, Wikipedia has a comprehensive set of policies and guidelines. The core principles of verifiability WP:V, neutrality WP:NEUTRAL and civility WP:CIVIL are unshakable. I hope all editors can understand and respect that.Tanlipkee (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not trying to hurl wild accusations here. Please do not make such wild accusations on us yourself. As soon as we find some negative but verifiable facts to put up for Prince, you NCC guys will start to find reasons and excuses to remove our text. The Dutch studies is a very good example. You NCC fellas have been trying to find ways and means to suppress this text! Who is behaving unreasonably here? Who are the ones making this a battleground? Why don't you go ask your NCCWebmaster. He's the one who started the fight by repeatedly removing verifiable negative text on Prince! Ahnan (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeline to put up finalised article

Hi all, this page has been unusually quiet recently. I’m just wondering if we’re giving ourselves a timeline to work on BL’s draft, consider the comments about it, and put up the finalised article? Thanks for working on this article together! Event24 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Event24, would you mind disclosing whether you are related/affliated in any way as I noticed someone asked this about you earlier on but you did not clarify on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.33.160 (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bro, I doubt he is going to answer. Like I've said, a person can even claim he is Jesus Christ but it's the person's actions that determine his character... Ahnan (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi BL, looks like the discussion here is about done. Maybe you're waiting for guidance on the reliability of the Holland bible study group's article? I've actually researched and found another Holland article which I think will pass the reliability test but I don't want to further prolong this discussion. If both sides keep going it will never end. How about putting up the final draft soon. Thanks for your time in this.--euphimist 21:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So what are you saying? You want to throw away the Holland bible study group's article and replaced with your Holland's article? Show us what you've got! If you're trying to pull a fast one, we'll be watching.... Ahnan (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi BL, please let me know if you need help to fix the links in the next version of the draft. I am not too good at it myself, but I will try my best. I've been pretty busy with work lately but should be able to spare a couple of hours next week to help with the wiki article. Thanks! Tanlipkee (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.