Talk:Overlake Christian Church

Arbitrary section name for formatting purposes

This article has serious problems, including a complete lack of sources, an inappropriate tone, and possible WP:BLP issues. I am going to start cutting things out in an hour and a half or so, unless there are serious objections. Natalie 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What you have here is a person who is leaving, a lot of personal feeling behind it, and thus the constant changes and adjustments. It might even be wiser to just eliminate the entry until after the dust at Overlake has settled and less biased heads can write an entry. User:Monkeyfriends133 Monkeyfriends133 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Monkeyfriends133

Remove the entry all together and let it start fresh at a later date.

That's my opinion. Looks like too many people are letting their feelings get in the way of what should be an unbiased article about the church.

Monkeyfriends133 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Monkeyfriends133

I'd say we could stub it - cut it down to 1 paragraph or two. Most of this is completely unsalvageable. Natalie 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub

I have stubbed this article due to its lack of citations, it's inappropriate tone, and the recent editorializing. Natalie 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call. As someone who knows and loves the church, it's sad to see what should be informational become a game for control of information. Thank you! Monkeyfriends133 03:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Monkeyfriends133

Sad to see this had to happen, but for now it looks like the best option. As a regular attender of OCC it makes me feel ill to see the vitriol going back and forth. 24.16.17.21 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we just have to remember...it ain't our church...it's God's right?!? He's in control. Monkeyfriends133 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Monkeyfriends133

Sex Scandal

Why this part of the article is being deleted? These are the facts.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.169.68 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Again this part is being deleted..Why????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.169.68 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Because this is clearly a promotional page for them, not an encyclopedia. I'm going to add it and monitor it. Davepl (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope -- you would need a strong positive consensus for such an addition, as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor Quality

This article is very POV and it has WP:WEIGHT issues. I know that some of the editors have a deep connection with this Church, but that should not warrant writing it like this. Please expand it from what I have per WP:STYLE and WP:V. The current formatting of references is very poor...--Novus Orator 05:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to agree with user MathSci, who reverted your previous stubbing of this article. I have no attachment to this article or any connection/history with its subject, but I'm just not getting why you want to convert it to a stub. Is it that you want to see the earlier stuff about the church's trouble with their longtime minister's sexual deviance or how they dealt with that? ( Very badly, imo. I accessed the full text of the Christianity Today article, and the "elders" who managed that mess were shockingly unjust and ... well, I could think of other words to use about their actions, but I won't. But their behavior was really shameful, imo. ) Anyway, I'm sorry, but I just don't see that it's appropriate to stub it, so I, too, have reverted that. If you'd like to make a case here for working with the original text to make it more neutral in tone I'd have no problem with that, but I just don't see that starting from scratch is called for.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No way..I want the article to tell it as it was, but it needs to do so with reliable sourcing and independent analysis, so it isn't potentially libelious or biased. I merely turned it into a stub to form a good "foundation" to work off of. Please fix and increase the article by adding in good sources...--Novus Orator 07:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I think Terra Novus has a good point. As it stands, the article is a mix of indulgent promotion and scandal, none of which is sourced. The Moorehead scandal is notable, but does need clear sourcing and mustn't be given undue weight. Stuff like the books looks undue in the lede. However - Terra Novus take note - I do not support restubbing as it would be out of line with WP:BRD, and there's nothing libellous. Someone re-write the lede, and we should create sections. With the material thus organised, we can focus on sourcing and weight. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Vsevolod. The "scandal" part was at one point cited to a "Christianity Today" article, I see from the article's history. I don't have any strong feelings about including that, although I don't think it needs to be emphasized as a "badge of shame" either. That article was very critical of the church's management (or whatever the right word would be, council of elders, or whatever), but it was awhile ago too. I'll let others decide about whether that ref should be reintroduced; I think it probably should be since the events are notable, but I have no strong opinion about it, as I said. As for the favorable tone, I agree it could be made more matter-of-fact, but I don't really consider churches in general as especially controversial, and thus don't personally object to a mostly favorable tone in articles about them. I haven't looked at articles about other individual churches, though, and I know very little about the history of this one, only what I've learned in the past few days. So perhaps others will find fault with that predilection, but I don't see how it greatly damages the encylopedia to allow a moderately pleasant tone about non-controversial organizations. But I admit that "non-controversial" is very much in the eye of the beholder (and agree that the pastor-scandal thing needs a cite), so I won't argue the point if others disagree. I would hate to see this article become a battleground between current supporters and former attendees, however. I infer from previous comments on this talk page, and from looking at article history during that period, that it was just that, at one time, and imo the encyclopedia wouldn't be well-served by allowing that to happen again. Just my opinion, though, and no one ever stopped in its tracks a religiously-fueled battle over pride and hurt feelings by expressing an opinion, AFAIK. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus, I feel some mild concern about your comment, "I want the article to tell it as it was". I presume when you say "it" that you're referring to the internal strife and political battles that I've seen documented in earlier versions of this article? If so, I have to ask you (sorry, truly) whether you might have personal interest in this fight? Do not respond, please, with anything that could be in the least personally identifying, but I notice that you've edited some other articles have caused me to ask myself whether you might have been a former attendee of the church. Don't disclose even that, if you just don't want to, but it occurs to me that you might need to be especially careful about NPOV and COI rules if you were. I know that religious politics can generate tremendous bitterness (I think of the troubles in Northern Ireland, the whole history of the middle ages, the current hatred between Shia and Sunni factions of Islam, etc, etc) but ... excuse me for phrasing this so, but wouldn't Jesus just want people to try to forgive and let it go? I'm not religious, but from what I've read I suspect that would probably be his recommendation if he were to show up on this article's talk page. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You are totally correct. My comment was callous sounding, and I merely meant that the truth should be told, but with a lot of grace..:-)--Novus Orator 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your very gracious reply. As long as we stick to reliable, published sources, as you suggest, and eschew the (no doubt true) facts that individual attendees might also be aware of, I'm sure we'll do just fine. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sex Allegations

Why this information is being deleted from here? There sources and this was on all over the news. Although the allegation weren't probed the allegation existed and they were the cause for the senior pastor to resign. Please be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.179.91 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

( I have unbolded the previous comment from IP 69.22.179.91, per WP:RTP. No need to shout; we can all read plain text just fine.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC) )

Its a historic issue from 12 years ago for which there were no charges or confirmation in any way - supported by a single local archived report and wikipedia as per WP:BLP policy and WP:Do no harm should not become the primary vehicle for such contentious detail. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your wish to "do no harm", and I respect that. I also have no wish to hang an albatross around anyone's neck, nor do I have any personal interest in this. But supporters of this church are going about their desire to protect it in the wrong way, and editors here need to put Wikipedia's content policies before their personal interests, anyway. In response to your previous comment, though, you're mistaken in your first two points. See Elders Now Say Moorehead is "Guilty" of Misconduct, and Elders Change Stance on Moorehead; New Testimony Backs Allegations. Further, your "single local archived report" comment may reflect what was still in the article a short while ago, but are you unaware of the many other sources that have been edit-warred in and out of this article for so long? The controversy was picked up by Christianity Today, and the ProQuest database of newspaper and magazine articles ( probably available to you if you have a public library card ) provides access to over 75 discrete full-text articles or abstracts thereof about this matter. It's true that all but a few of those are local or regional stories, albeit from large, reliable-source newspapers, but then they would be, wouldn't they? It's a local church, after all. If you wish, I can post links here to a dozen or so news stories about this to confirm what I'm saying. I'd prefer not to do that; I see no reason to promote this controversy, but I'll reiterate that church supporters are going about their desire to protect their church incorrectly, here. I don't have more time today to discuss this further with you, but I'll just say that trying to entirely expunge all information about the scandal from this article is the wrong approach. That will never work; someone will always add it back. We can follow up on this together in a day or two. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No they won't.. I will talk to them and explain this situation and remind them that there were no charges at all and it is from 12 years ago and the reporting is dated and as I said - wikipedia is not according to policy supposed to be the single source of such minor controversial content - I am not a supporter of this minor note church I am from the uk and I care less about religion - its historical dated content of minor note and there were no charges at all - Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that went well. Rob (for want of a better way to address you), it's not reasonable to suggest that a topic that generated over 75 seperate news articles in major, reliable sources is "minor", nor to suggest that Wikipedia would be the "single source" for information about the controversy. You're arguing against policy here, and I think you're experienced enough to recognize that, upon reflection. You said, below, "the article is nice and clean and tidy now and I support that", meaning, presumably, that between you and WikiReader527 ( related to WikiReader1 and WikiReader07, who have also deleted negative information? ) all mention of this issue has been expunged. But "nice and clean and tidy" is not the standard we strive for here, as you know: Factual, objective, and fair is more the mark. I want to be sensitive to the legitimate interests of the present congregants of this church; I mean that. But attempting to supress well-sourced, undisputed facts, merely because they reflect poorly on the subject of an article is not what we do here. Your basis for trying to do so comes down to simply "I don't like it."

Well, the fact is that I don't like this content any more than you do, but my distaste for it is wholly irrelevant. I will not stand by and do nothing while other editors put their own preferences above the good of the encylopedia by deleting unfavorable content in contravention of policy. Besides, what's the alternative? For you, and like–minded editors to stand watch over this article indefinitely, constantly reverting sourced content against policy? There are enough people out there, as a review of the edit history for this article clearly shows, who want the Moorehead sources in. The plan you're suggesting – to simply continue the long, slow edit war – isn't a viable solution, and I won't stand by and let it continue. The information has to be in; but it should be included in as sensitive and non-sensational a manner as possible, giving weight to the board of elders' eventual apology to the congregation. ( If not to the victims, who, it appears, have never received an apology, presumably out of fear of a lawsuit, despite the egregious harrassment they were subjected to. ) It has to be in the article, presented in a sensitive manner, for two reasons. One is to conform with Wikipedia policy, obviously. But the second is a more practical one: every time you and your like-minded editors try to expunge it, someone else will inevitably come along and reinstate it, and will probably do so in a much more blatant and crude way than it existed before your deletions, as your recent tangle with our IP friend demonstrates. Btw, if I haven't said so before, I want to make it clear that I have no personal stake in this: I've never attended the church, I've never met anyone who has, and although I've been to Seattle, I have only the vaguest idea where the church is located. I'm certainly not an anti-religionist of any variety, either. My only interest in this is as it affects the integrity of the encylopedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• - note - I will open a thread at the WP:BLPN to see what independent users think about t, please refrain from replacing it woithout consensus, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Bad idea at this point. I'd recommend against that, Rob. It won't get you the result you're looking for, and doing so will leave me no alternative but to produce (here) some of the over 75 reliable source ref/cites available about this topic that I've mentioned above. I'd prefer not to do that, because they'll likely be used to expand the coverage of the issue in the article beyond what I think right. Besides, given that you just reverted a second IP again, ten minutes after I posted my last comment, just above, and given that this now puts you at 3RR, the edit warring notice board would be the more appropriate venue, if you really insist on escalating the dispute prematurely.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not, really, anyways I opened a thread - Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Please close it. Our discussion here was ongoing, so there was no need to escalate at this point. Further, opening a thread at one of the boards backs me into a corner on this. You'll force me to disclose some of many reliable source news stories about the matter, and I don't want to see those splashed all over the article, which would be the inevitable result. Please reconsider, and let's see if we can come to a compromise that will suit parties on both sides of this longstanding edit war.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't care about both sides and I don't care about no long standing edit war, the discussion here is just you insisting on keeping the content, its imo a BLP issue and you are insisting on keeping it and I would like some independent experienced opinions. Any sources are historic 1998 and there where no charges, the living person is not a public figure and he is not notable either. If there is support for it at the noticeboard then that will end the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with following) Rob, I implore you: You haven't researched this issue adequately. Moorehead is the author of a dozen books, and both he and Overlake were in the news before the story of his Florida arrest that touched off the firestorm hit the news. He's certainly a public figure, and information about him can't be supressed under, for example WP:BLP1E, which would be your strongest argument. You don't want negative information about the church in the article, but your actions will result in not just a small, non-sensational, sensitively-presented cite to this unfortunate topic, but rather, if you force me to post some of the myriad sources/cites that are available the inevitable result will be that much more will make it in, and that most likely presented in a less sensitive manner than would otherwise be possible. Please reconsider.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed the content and removed the titillating section header and left the content below and added it to the article, what do you think about that? Do you support this compromise? Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• - note - I have made an edit which is less weight and as such less of an issue. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• - He resigned in 1998 after unproven allegations of sexual impropriaty.^[1]

( Please note that in my immediately–preceding edit I indented your "note" comment so I could reply in the usual WP:INDENT manner, but also increased its emphasis, so subsequent readers won't miss it. I hope that's alright with you; if not, feel free to revert it to its former outdented position. Also, in the same edit, I fixed the footnote you provided here, which would not display since this talk page has no reference section. )

I'm glad you're amenable to compromise, and I hope you understand that my interest here is not to discredit this congregation, but rather to come up with an agreement that will allow this article to be developed without the revert wars that have been going on for years. I'm afraid, though, that I'm out of time for the present to discuss this further, just now. Please check back in a day or two. Comments from other editors, including the two IPs who have added the info in the past couple of days would also be welcome, if civil. Oh, one last thing, Rob: Are you intending to keep the WP:BLPN thread open, or can we keep this discussion here, for now? Remember you can always take it back there if you feel the need after trying to sort it further here. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I will leave it there now, its beneficial and also harmless and there was support already for the trimmed compromise. Actually, the article itself is the main issue - its a bit poor and the citations are minimal and a couple of primary citations - everyone just is interested to add some unproven sex allegations - no one is interested in the actual content about the church at all. - such is the reality of tabloid coverage and the tabloid mentality that is the outcome of that. I don't mind you indenting and looking at it, the bolding might be a good idea. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) Just back for a moment: You're welcome for the WP:RTP, I'm glad you didn't mind. Half my purpose in having this discussion with you is that I, too, would like to see people who have an ongoing interest in the present activities of this church be able to add content without the nasty wrangle that has plagued this article for so long making that difficult or impossible to do. Also, it's true that the allegations weren't proven in a court of law, of course. They were, however, proven in the eyes of the church elders, as I think you've seen from a couple of the refs, above.

I think there's probably more than just a "tabloid mentality" motivating editors who want the negative comment in, though. It seems reasonable to imagine that some of them at least know some of the people who were the subject of the pastor's "attentions", let's say. We owe sensitivity to the church's image, but we also, imo, have an obligation to the victims to tell the truth. In researching this, I saw multiple articles about how they were treated. Any of them who spoke up were treated as pariahs, news stories said; they became outcasts when they tried to attend church functions; they received harrassing phone calls; and one said he actually received an anonymous death threat. Further, for the board of elders to dismiss the testimony of 17 separate men, and claim the pastor had been exonerated on that basis was, in my opinion ( and in the opinions of other local ministers, according to interviews with them by news organizations ), pretty darn appalling. We don't need to include more than a few well-cited sentences about this whole issue, imo, but it does need to be truthfully acknowledged as a significant part of the church's history. If nothing else, as I see from the sources, it caused their attendance to drop from 6,000 down to (at one point, at least) around 1,700, and put the congregation into financial straits right after they'd completed their huge new building, with its huge new mortgage.

I still think you'd be wise to close the BLPN thread you opened. Without seeing more of the great many reliable source articles available about this other editors won't have a legitimate basis for rendering an opinon. With no offense intended, your presentation at BLPN wasn't exactly what I'd hold up as a shining example of candor. For these reasons, it's not helpful, imo, to continue the thread there, nor to rely on any opinons that people might express without having full recourse to the facts, i.e. without having access to more of the sources. And, as I've already said, I'd very much prefer it if you wouldn't push me into disclosing those by asking for opinions at BLPN that can only be based on a very incomplete view of the matter without knowledge of them. You'd be welcome to links, via e-mail, to the dozen or so refs that I have ready to hand, out of the 75 or so I mentioned, but, again, I really hope you won't keep pushing at BLPN. I could only argue my side of the case by disclosing more sources, and I really don't want to do that publicly if I can avoid it. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not closing the thread at BLPN , two editors and myself have now commented in support of the trimmed version. If you have seventy five citations and you want to post them you are able to, imo - it won't make any difference they are all historic and they won't have any charges. The idea you seem to have that your 75 citations will be used to expand the content about this is completely mistaken imo. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That already happened. A ref I posted here yesterday was inserted into the article by an IP today, in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm new to wikipedia but live in the area and have been making edits to improve articles. I've read through most of the discussion here and I can't see how the current entries are a very balanced point of view. A neutral point of view would be to just indicate the tenures of each senior pastor as part of the history. Show me another local church where every negative story is documented in detail in the wikipedia page. That can't possibly be the standard y'all apply. Look at other local articles like the Redmond, WA article - nothing negative. Look at my old high school - Lake Washington High School article - nothing negative. IMO there needs to be a higher threshold before this stuff is included. Do YOU think this is a balanced view of an institution like Overlake? --WikiReader527 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been a lot of "Wikireaders" editing this article -are they all different people or the same user with new accounts?

Please see WP:NPOV. All significant points of view need to be included, with weight proportional to their prominence. How many sex or money scandals have there been at your old high school that have been widely reported?   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Wikireader; welcome. I've been meaning to leave a note on your talk page informing you of this discussion since you've been pretty active at this article in the past. It seems to me that if we're going to have any chance at all of finally putting the battle over this article to rest, we'll need broad participation here from editors who represent all the varying perspectives about how to deal with this sensitive issue.

Over the years there have been many editors who have, like yourself, sought to exclude most or all of the information about the Moorehead debacle and its effect on the church from this article. I'd like you to know that I have considerable sympathy for that, even though I can't approve of such attempts. Similarly, and as I'm sure you know, there have been many people over the years who have edited this article to present information about this matter in an acrimonious or sensational way that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

What I imagine might not have occurred to you is that you are probably yourself largely responsible, albeit indirectly, for the current state of this article, i.e. for its inclusion of as much information about the scandal as it currently contains. When I saw your account's very first edit, on 31 January, 2011, removing the last mention of this information from the body of the article, I thought, "That won't end well." I was pretty sure that attempting to expunge all negative information would backfire, would just make people who are determined that such information should be included more determined still, and would set off an edit war that would result in more negative information being included than was present before you began. That is what happened, of course, and the same sequence of events has played out many times in the past, with similar results.

For that very practical reason, and also, more importantly, because of the content policies here on Wikipedia, you're simply going to have to reconcile yourself to the reality that some information about this unfortunate chapter in the church's history has to be included in the article. The only questions are how much will be included, and how will it be presented? I'd like you to be a part of that discussion. I hope you'll stick around and work with other editors here to develop a consensus version that we can all live with, if not necessarily all approve of or accept on an emotional level.

The goal, of course, would be to put an end to the long term battle over this article. I plan to add some comments to your talk page about your possible use of other accounts, and a few other points, too, by the way. Again, I hope you'll stick around and take part in this discussion candidly and constructively with the rest of us here. I would like to point out, though, that this talk page is the correct place to attempt to influence the development of this article. Discussing any changes you want to see in the article here, on the talk page, would certainly be a better plan than unilaterally changing the article yourself, i.e. would be a better plan by far than attempting to delete or add content without consensus here to do so. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Wikireader; a couple of other comments: It's my own view that the current state of this article does conform appropriately to Wikipedia's content policies in general, and to the due weight and neutral point of view policies more particularly. Re "weight", there are actually many fewer sentences about the Moorehead scandal in our article (by far) than there are reliable source news articles about the matter. I understand that you don't want any of this information in at all, but this actually seems pretty restrained to me. It would help balance the article, of course, if it could be expanded from reliable source news articles with content that does not pertain to the events around Moorehead's departure. And re "neutral point of view", the article mostly takes its information straight from the available news articles. If there are any news reports that present a more favorable view of the events, I haven't seen them, although I'd like to. Finally, if there's any specific wording that you view as failing to maintain the "neutral" presentation of the facts that we're all required to uphold, please do point that out here. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting other users objections

Automatic archiving needs to be set up for this page. Until then, please refrain from deleting other users comments. Doing so gives casual readers of this page the impression that there has been no controversy over this article, which couldn't be further from the truth. I've just restored the most-recent selective deletion made to the page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see this comment - Its a historic issue from 12 years ago for which there were no charges or confirmation in any way - supported by a single local archived report and wikipedia as per WP:BLP policy and WP:Do no harm should not become the primary vehicle for such contentious detail. If you dispute this statement then perhaps a thread at the BLPN would be a good idea, please do not replace it wothout support there or here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comment immediately above, already. I'll have more to say about the long-term edit war over this article (eventually), but not in this section, which is only about the procedural issue concerning talk page use, as far as I'm concerned. The only point I wish to make, here, is that it's not your prerogative to delete other users comments. Please don't do it again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a duplicated comment from the same user and under a title with blp issues - sex crimes or something - I will archive anything worthwhile but imo that was not worthy of archiving. As for what you cal the long term edit war, the place to take this content is the BLPN and see what support it has, the article is nice and clean and tidy now and I support that. Actually there is a notability issue as well but that might be helped if anyone want to add independent citations. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

( Comment: it was this talk-page deletion, which I reverted, that prompted me to create this present section.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC) )

I see that you ( Off2riorob ) just created an Archive page for this talk page, in the middle of our previous discussion. You're aware, I trust, that everthing to do with archiving a page has to be settled up front and by consensus? In other words, although I'm not criticizing or doubting you meant well, it'd be a problem if any editor were to unilaterally begin any form of archiving at all before we have that discussion. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

When this discussion is over I am going to archive the stale and old discussion, as is normal for talkpages. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise you to do no such thing. Performing a unilateral archive against consensus would be a really bad idea. If you choose to go ahead I will revert that, and if you do it again you'll leave me no choice but to take it to ANI where I expect you'd find little sympathy for that action, or for your broader actions concerning this article. You've already taken this to one board, no one needs any more drama over this; please don't make it necessary.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A proposed compromise over Moorehead info

An important note to all editors. This is a proposal to try to end the present edit war, not a license to incorporate the following changes into the article as it exists in your at-the-moment preferred version, just after your current edits. Please don't try to have your cake and eat it too, in other words. Stop editing the article, stop reverting, and try to work out a compromise here. Please do not continue to edit the article, even if someone else reverts you, while discussion here is pending. Multiple editors here have been exhibiting battleground behavior, and it would be better for all concerned to avoid the necessity of requesting individual sanctions to keep that from continuing.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the edit/revert battle is unabated, and that Off2riorob has again deleted content re-added by one of a couple of geographically seperate IPs. I don't think edit wars are the way to resolve this conflict, but, to his credit, Rob has also introduced what I infer are meant to be compromise edits, revised language to disclose the reported information. In one way, Rob's edits actually go a bit further than I think is necessary. I'm not going to edit this article myself, but here's what I'd been thinking of as something that might satisfy both sides in this dispute and finally put this long-term conflict to rest:

After leading the church for almost 30 years, and building it from a congregation of about 75 members to a weekly attendance of over 6,000 in early 1998, pastor Bob Moorehead resigned in June of that year, amid allegations of serious misconduct. The church's board of elders hired a private investigator to explore the allegations, and 17 men gave evidence before them, all claiming to have been victimized by the pastor. In a decision that was widely criticized by other area ministers, the elders dismissed their claims and exonerated Moorehead. A year later, however, after Moorehead's departure, the board reversed its earlier decision, saying new evidence had arisen that convinced them of the former pastor's guilt, and issued an apology to the congregation ( although not to the alleged victims ) for their previous handling of the matter.

As you can see, this doesn't directly mention sexual allegations, groping, or the claim by the ex-wife of one of the members that she twice surprised Moorehead and her husband, also a church member, having sexual relations. It doesn't say "sex" at all, actually, not directly, although the cites will, of course. I haven't bothered to introduce cites here; there are plenty to document this wording, of course, and I don't see it as any undue hardship on readers that they'll have to click on a reference to find out what variety of "serious misconduct" was at issue. ( No, the simple word "impropriety" won't do, instead. "Improper" would be telling a racy joke at a religious retreat; what's at issue here is in a whole different league. ) My intention is that these three sentences only, no more and no fewer, would be allowed by consensus in the article.

In fairness to the 17 or more victims, whose evidence would have been essentially overwhelming when considered collectively, I do think it's important to include language disclosing the exact nature of the board's actions. The members of the congregation who had the courage to give evidence were treated as liars and outcasts because the board dismissed their complaints: many of them were harrassed at home; they viewed as instruments of the devil; one man even reported that he received an anonymous death threat. If the board had acted responsibly when it first had the chance, none of that would have happened, I believe.

I'd like to hear what both sides on this conflict think about this wording, including the IP/Anonymous editors that have contrubuted to the article in past three months or so, if possible. Could both sides hold their respective noses and step up with this wording to finally end this very unpleasant dispute for good and all?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I"m not on any side of this conflict. Could you bring your proposal up to date by adding the sentence about homosexuality being a theme in Moorehead's ministry?   Will Beback  talk 

I know you're not, Will: I'm well aware that you're motivated only by your wish to improve the article and the encyclopedia. The only sense in which "sides" could have any relevance to your editing of this article is that I gather you may favor a broader disclosure of this and of unrelated negative incidents than some other editors do; as you know there are many who would like to see a much more narrow disclosure, or even none at all. But "sides" is a loaded word to describe the varying opinions about that, so it's probably best avoided, of course. I suppose I used the word because of my strong impression from closely examining this article's edit history that (unlike established, generalist editors) many or maybe even most of the anon/IP and single-purpose account users that have edited this article may have had some personal involvement with the church. Anyway, I've tried to update the proposal I made above, to accommodate your (Will's) request. Here's what I came up with:

During the nearly 30 years of his tenure, Moorehead built the church from a congregation of about 75 members to a weekly attendance of over 6,000 in early 1998. He resigned in June of that year, amid allegations of serious misconduct, mostly relating to the 1970s. The church's board of elders hired a private investigator to explore the allegations, and at least 17 men gave evidence before them, all claiming to have been victimized by the pastor. In a decision that was widely criticized by other area ministers, the elders dismissed their claims and exonerated Moorehead. During the year following his departure, the elders continued to defend the former pastor, but in May, 1999, they reversed their earlier decision in a letter to church members, saying new evidence had arisen that convinced them of his guilt. The letter included an apology to members and a request for their forgiveness, but no corresponding language addressed to the former pastor's accusers, who had been disbelieved, and then treated with contempt by some members of the board and much of the congregation after they gave evidence in the matter. The impact this scandal had on the church was particularly severe because, as a conservative Christian, Moorehead had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching, and had likewise spoken publicly to condemn gay rights. The former pastor has consistently asserted his innocence of what he called the "horrible, perverted, reprehensible accusations" made against him.

I'm sure the above is essentially accurate, of course, or I wouldn't have posted it here, but it may be that it will need some adjustments when we compare it more exactly to the precise wording of the sources. Most of it is supported by just three news reports currently; other sources will need to be drawn from to support it more completely. So what does everyone think of this, relative to the current/dynamic version that's in the live article at present? What changes would you like to see, and how should this content be merged with the currently-existing version, if at all? All contributors should feel free to revise this in new posts below, or to propose other alternatives they prefer, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality

There was a question about the relative prominence of homosexuality in Moorehead's ministry at OCC. Here are excerpts from the cited source and others:

• Those men and others have accused Moorehead of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching.
  • MOOREHEAD RESIGNS AS PASTOR HE DENIES CHARGES, BUT SAYS THEY HURT OVERLAKE MINISTRY; [FINAL Edition] STEVE MILETICH HEATH FOSTER P-I REPORTERS. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: May 18, 1998. pg. A.1
• Moorehead, who has preached strongly against homosexuality, announced a month ago he is resigning.
  • EMBATTLED PASTOR FORGOES FINAL SERMON AMID PROBE INTO MOLESTATION CLAIMS AP. Columbian. Vancouver, Wash.: Jun 15, 1998. pg. 1
• From the pulpit, he has spoken out on the social causes close to his heart, such as homosexuality, which he has called perverted, ungodly and wrong.
  • A PREACHER `ON FIRE' ALSO IS ON THE GRILL; [FINAL Edition] STEVE MILETICH P-I Reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Mar 2, 1998. pg. B.1
• Moorehead is a conservative Christian who has denounced homosexuality from the pulpit and preached against gay rights.
  • AT LEAST 10 ACCUSE PASTOR OF MISCONDUCT CHURCH'S INQUIRY INTO MOOREHEAD NEARS END; [FINAL Edition] STEVE MILETICH P-I Reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Apr 24, 1998. pg. B.1
• The accusations posed a direct threat to his reputation as a Christian conservative who had condemned homosexuality from the pulpit.
  • HIS ARREST WAS FAR FROM FROM ROUTINE; [FINAL Edition] STEVE MILETICH P-I Reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: May 18, 1998. pg. A.4
• Moorehead brought fiery preaching, door-to-door evangelism and strong, conservative stands against homosexuality, abortion and other social issues.
  • CHURCH ELDERS EXONERATE PASTOR / OVERLAKE'S MOOREHEAD CLEARED BECAUSE WITNESSES UNWILLING TO REVEAL NAMES Steve Maynard, The News Tribune. The News Tribune. Tacoma, Wash.: May 28, 1998. pg. B.1
• Moorehead, who has preached strongly against homosexuality, announced a month ago he is resigning.
  • EMBATTLED PASTOR FORGOES FINAL SERMON AMID PROBE INTO MOLESTATION CLAIMS AP. Columbian. Vancouver, Wash.: Jun 15, 1998. pg. 1
• Two years ago while on vacation in Florida, Pastor Bob, a conservative who has condemned homosexuality from the pulpit, was arrested by undercover police officers in a restroom often frequented by men looking to have sex with other men.
  • SOMETIMES THE ENEMY IS THERE IN THE MIRROR; [FINAL Edition] JERRY LARGE. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: May 24, 1998. pg. L.3
• "In my opinion, it is an abomination unto the Lord and to everything that is decent," said the Rev. Bob Moorehead, pastor of Overlake Christian Church in Kirkland, the region's largest Protestant church and one that believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Moorehead says throughout the Bible the practice of homosexuality is held up as a sin.
  • SEATTLE CHURCH OKS PASTORSHIP FOR GAY COUPLE BY WIDE MARGIN -- `WONDERFUL,' SAY SOME; `ABOMINATION' TO OTHERS; [FINAL Edition] LEE MORIWAKI. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Jun 13, 1994. pg. A.1

The phrase "major theme" is taken from the first excerpt. I think "facet' underplays the prominence of the issue.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What you've presented above comprises some of the cites I'd pulled from ProQuest, myself, Will. May I ask if that database was your source also? If so, then two questions, please: I haven't been able to figure out how to pull multiple cites at once, only just one at a time, and that via a manual copy and paste. Do you mind telling me how to do that, if you know? Also, was there a cite format you selected that rendered these as shown above? I've always found I had to manually edit the output to get the article title to appear first. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is from Proquest. I'd share the links, but because of the firewall situation the links I use are unusable by most other editors. This is the format of the citations as they come, I haven't changed them. I did copy and paste the text from the individual articles, but it only took a few moments for each. If you have other questions about Proquest I'd be happy to help, but we shouldn't clutter up this page with that discussion. Drop me a note on my talk page or send me an email.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these cites and quotations, Will. You do have the sources to say this was a "major theme" but, despite never having heard one of Moorehead's sermons or read a transcript, I, like Rob, find it a little hard to accept the phrase. I'm unfortunately pretty familiar with evangelical fundamentalist sermons, and my guess is that "major" probably overstates the case somewhat. To me, a theme would have to comprise around ten to twenty percent of a minister's preaching time for me to be willing to call it "major". I'd guess that despite that world's rabidly anti-homosexual rhetoric, explicit preaching on the topic probably would have taken up no more than about 5% of "air time" at most. Just wp:or speculation, of course, but speculation based on having had (way too much) exposure to that mindset. I suppose one could go through his dozen or so books and count the words that criticized gays relative to the total word count, although that'd be wp:or, too, ( not to mention unspeakably tedious, imo ), but I'd be very surprised it were to exceed that 5% figure. I won't make the change without your consent, or argue for it further if you disapprove, but could you perhaps accept a just slightly less-emphatic phrase? Would "prominent theme" work for you, for example, to borrow your word from above? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• -a facet of - is without undue weight. Prominent is less undue than major, a step in the right direction but not much. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Rob, I think we're all going to have to "give" a little if we're going to make progress, here. I don't suppose you ever saw the televison show The 700 Club, hosted by Pat Robertson? It was a staple in the homes of the friends I grew up with, and I imagine it would suit the members of this church down to the ground, from what I've seen in the press. If that's correct, as I suppose, i.e. if that show typifies the beliefs of OCC under Moorehead, then "a facet of" really would be much too mild. Btw, you won't be offended, I hope, if I ask that you not set off your comments with the asterisk (*) character quite so often? It was helpful in the case of your just-preceding comment, because it began with a necessarily lower-case quotation, but it also makes it a little hard for me to know how to indent properly, afterwards, is all... I admit I'm kind of obsessive about talk page indentation and formatting, though, probably because I may be a little ADD, as a doc once told me. I think it probably does take a bit more effort for me to read threads that are formatted in any way that's even a little out-of-the ordinary, than it does for most people, anyway. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some video clips of Pat Robertson expressing his views on gays, via his Christian Broadcasting Network. This is quite typical of fundamentalist evangelical Christian opinion in the U.S.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your speculations and guesses. I don't know anything about this topic beyond what I read in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, that post knocks you out of the running for Wikipedia's "Most Gracious Reply of the Year" award. I don't mind politely discounting my own opinions as a rhetorical device and courtesy ( you're acquainted with the word "hyperbole", I'm sure? ) but I'm not especially giddy when someone to whom such a courtesy is offered repeats that discount back to me.

You have a single source that uses the word "major" and two fellow editors who think "prominent" would be a more fitting description. So what, then? Do you imagine the Post-Intelligencer's Miletich & Foster attended some randomly-selected sample of Moorehead's sermons, and performed a careful statistical analysis to come up with their word? They probably never heard him preach at all since they were reporting on his resignation.

Your apparent unwillingness to compromise in even so ridiculously tiny a matter as this single word seems to me about as productive as the excessive ego-attachment that Off2riorob has evidenced, of late, for his own contributions. Go ahead, Rob; change the description to "a facet of", again. Then go ahead, Will; change it back to "major", once more. That will certainly be fun, and will serve the project well, not to mention being a responsible use of your valuable time. Maybe if things go really well, and you both refuse to compromise as a matter of principle, we can all have some drama at 3RRNB over this. That would be orders or magnitude more beneficial to the project than spending our time actually trying to cooperate with each other to produce quality content. ( Just so everyone's clear, that was both irony and hyperbole. ) Sheesh!  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Will will aver that I am not a rubber stamp for his views. He is, moreover, spot on with regard to what is appropriate in this article -- that is, requiring that we use what has been reported and not what editors surmise. No article touching on living people should be held to anything less than the strict enforcement of the tenets of WP:BLP. I would likely also consider proper weight to be the issue - trying to refer to "fundamental evangelical Christian opinion" would require substantially better sourcing than has been presented. Collect (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, I hope you realize that you're citing BLP to support the wording that this pastor made anti-homosexual rhetoric a "major" part of his preaching, versus just a "prominent" part. And please spare me your usual condescending lecture about BLP policy, as if you were its one, true defender. I get very tired of hearing that from you. You're not the only editor here who knows that policy, and you're not the only editor here who cares about it. The more germane issue at present is whether editors will genuinely try to cooperate with each other or will just dig their heels in to shout, "Hurrah for my version!" at every opportunity. The central problem with this article is not and never has been a BLP issue, but simply that it's been a battleground for years. If you're willing to try to help solve that problem, then great, please do. But if you just want to fight, then please go somewhere else.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording was not clear enough? Any claims must conform precisely with WP:BLP requirements. As for making asides about me personally - I trust you know that such are not proper on article talk pages. And I trust you will redact anything approaching a personal attack forthwith. Is there an actual reason you chose to attack me rather than simply accept my post as it was intended? Collect (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want condescending replies don't make condescending posts. ( See paragraph two of lead, minus its first sentence. ) Anything else you have to say that's not about trying to help settle the very long term edit war over this article you can say in a new section on my talk page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no edit war over this material. Let's keep this thread focused on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not at the moment there's not. But what would have happened if I'd just changed "major" to "prominent" without trying to gain consensus here? Either you or Collect would have reverted that. But there's a larger problem here, larger than just the immediately-present editors. We need to try to come up with an agreement about how much we say about Moorehead's trouble and its affect on his church, and an agreement about how to say it.

If you look through the edit history of this article you'll see that there has been a long-term battle over exactly that. The only chance I see of resolving it is if we can get people on both sides of those two questions to finally agree, and come up with a presentation that they're both willing to live with and defend. Otherwise everyone just goes on wasting their time, and the article will keep alternating indefinitely between tabloid-style sensationalism and making no disclosure at all of this unfortunate but significant part of the church's history.

I can't understand why no one else seems to get that, why people can't seem to accept that some compromise with the opposing view on these questions is necessary to prevent that. Sorry for the tone of frustration, but isn't solving this very long term problem worth more than hanging on with a death grip to every iota of one's own preferred wording?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"...a death grip to every iota of one's own preferred wording"? Let's reduce the rhetoric, please.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Was that hyperbole, again? Sorry. Maybe it's habit-forming. What about, "An intransigent attachment to one's own contributions"? No? Well, I'm content: I've been able to use the word "hyperbole" four times in a row now, more than I was able to do all of last year. ( TAG: Self-depreciating humor in preceding sentence. )

Half of my "facepalm" reaction here is that we ( you, Rob, and I ) seem to be operating from incompatible models for the development of controversial articles. I put a proposal for compromise language about this issue on the table almost four days ago, and both you and Rob appear not to have given it a moment's thought, and instead just jumped in to present this very contentious matter as you each think best. I do appreciate you showing up, Will, truly, and I respect your willingness to research the sources so carefully, too. But I frankly can't even imagine myself blowing past a compromise proposal re a contentious and highly sensitive issue. I'm not enamored with that proposal, btw, but I'd hoped it could at least provide a starting point against which changes or alternative proposals could be discussed.

I just don't see that any stable version of this article is likely to emerge if each side just changes it to reflect their own preferences, without any substantive discussion or any attempt to work out mutually-acceptable language here. I'll admit that I'm probably a lot more focused on trying to build consensus than most Wikipedia editors are, and I can understand that some people find that focus very tiresome. I even get tired of it myself; it'd be so much more gratifying to make the changes I want and fight to preserve them. I'm just not aware of any alternative to discussion and compromise for settling long term conflicts. And I'd really like to get this one settled, if at all possible, so we can all move on to more productive channels for our contributions, and so this article can finally move forward, as well, to include more reliable-source content about the church's current activities. Will you please try to help bring this about?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a list of churches started by OCC. Together, we're improving this article. It's unfortunate but true that much of the actual notability of this organization stems from its scandals. The misuse of funds issue could use a little more detail too. Also there was a significant embezzlement case that made the news and which might deserve a sentence.   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the list you added, and certainly agree that was an improvement. I suppose you're right about the $100K embezzlement thing, too, strictly speaking, although my inclination, within the constraints of our policies, of course, is to try to avoid letting the bad press overwhelm and dominate the article, if possible. I know about the impact of the Moorehead debacle on its gross attendance numbers, of course, but I wonder what kind of actual turnover the church has seen in the composition of its membership. ( And in the composition of its governing board of elders, too. I'd be especially curious to know if any of the 14 board members from 1998 are still in their same roles. Has anyone seen anything about that? )

My thinking is that although it's certainly the same building, I'm not sure it's the same church, if you follow me. Perhaps not the same people, that is. I'd have more respect for the current membership/leadership if I'd seen any report that they actually apologized to the people who gave evidence against Moorehead, had asked their forgiveness, and had invited them back to the church: I gather from news reports that they were treated really badly, that they were essentially pushed out, accused of being instruments of the devil, and all sorts of unpleasantness. But if there aren't that many of the 1998 "leaders" and congregants still around, it doesn't really seem very fair to me to go on at more length than we have to about the bad press from that time, anyway. Thoughts?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why the article on the United States doesn't mention the Civil War or slavery: it was a long time ago, the people who were involved in it are all dead now, and it's really not fair to the current citizens of the country to include negative material like that. ;) But seriously, our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. It's unfortunate but typical that good works are often boring and receive little attention. We can add what we find, but we can't give more weight to barely reported fund-drives than to widely reported problems, even if they were 10 or 20 or 100 years ago.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that was pretty funny, Will, and a very effective way to make your point. But I wasn't suggesting that we suppress anything, just saying that we have some discretion within our policy guidelines as to the length at which we document elements of the church's history, and that my preference is that we try to behave charitably, to the extent we reasonably can. YMMV, in all good faith, of course... I won't belabor the point, which I'm sure you understand anyway, but the question as to what, exactly, is the subject of this article does seem an interesting one. It's not the pricey building, obviously, so what then, if not the leadership and congregation? To the extent that those may have changed significantly since 1998, it seems reasonable to me to try to be as sensitive as we can, within policy, to the current makeup of the church. In legal terms, after all, a church, like any corporation, really isn't much more than a some documents in a file folder somewhere. But I understand that philosophical considerations don't really have much practical relevance here; mostly I'd just like to find a plausible excuse to be nice to the current congregation. ( TAG: Self-depreciating but not wholly ironic humor in preceding sentence ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy on how much attention to give to an issue within an article is WP:DUE.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. WP:DTR, paragraph two of lead, minus it's first sentence.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What does that have to do with how much weight to give various topics in this article?   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. I was trying to say, in a concise way, that I'm as aware of WP:DUE as you are ( I linked to it above, actually, for Wikireader527 ) and that it's not generally productive to instruct established users on very basic policy matters. But nevermind; I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't already been a little short on patience just now.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't read everything you write. The point still remains that the applicable policy is WP:DUE, and it does not include the considerations that you appear to be bringing up, such as the age of the incidents or the subsequent turnover of personnel.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) Turnover of elders is almost meaningless -- many churches have fixed terms (as short as one year) for such a position, meaning that a substantial turnover is guaranteed. And absent a reliable source making some point about turnover, we really should not try adding it to the article. Collect (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Collect. To the extent that I'd thought about it, I'd supposed elders just stayed on, getting elder and elder until they just got too eld to do the job. I didn't intend that we should say anything about possible turnover in the article, though; I was just explaining my motivation to Will.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fidelity to sources

In this edit, Collect changed wording from "As a conservative Christian, condemnation of homosexuality had been a major theme of his preaching." to "As a conservative Christian, his preaching had homosexuality as a major theme of his preaching." His edit summary said merely, "simple grammar". The relevant source sentence says, "Those men and others have accused Moorehead of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching." I reverted this change because it's less clear that the previously-existing sentence, it's grammatically incorrect, and it's less consistent with the source upon which it depends.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Underline emphasis added after the fact, by Ohiostandard, at 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The prior grammatical version was appreciably worse: As a conservative Christian, condemnation of homosexuality had been a major theme of his preaching.[4] has the adverbial phrase "as a conservative Christian" apply to the noun "condemnation". Which I found odd. Better would be "He, as a conservative Christian, preached condemnation of homosexuality." Care to use that? Collect (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I'd like to ask others here to opine. I have no pretensions at all to authority as a grammarian, but among the several meanings that the Oxford English Dictionary offers for "as", I find "after the manner of", "like", and "in the role of". I believe this is the sense in which the word occurs here. I'm not convinced that "As a conservative Christian" applies to "condemnation", in other words. It rather appears to me to apply to the implicit 3rd person masculine singular ("he") from which our "his" derives as its possessive form (used as an attributive). Your just-proposed construct is certainly more crisply explicit, and I admit that has its merit and appeal, but I doubt it's more correct. Regardless which of us is right, though, I'd really be more interested to know what you think about how the presentation of the Moorehead debacle is shaping up? Does it make you wince, or are you more or less alright with the article's present treatment?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, do you mean to tell me that condemnation of homosexuality is not a conservative Christian? Who knew! The friendly folks at the language reference desk just helped me understand your objection, which I hadn't done. One of them suggested, "As a conservative Christian, he had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching." I like that; do you? I suppose, if one tried very hard, one might infer an unwarranted temporal aspect, i.e. that Moorehead is no longer a conservative Christian. But I don't see that as a significant problem, and it seems considerably less stilted than the excruciatingly unambiguous wording you mentioned. If this suggestion seems tolerable to you, would you do the honors? I think you're entitled, since you pointed out the potential snag with the current wording. I'm glad you brought this up. I'd still like to know what you think of the current overall treatment of the Moorehead stuff, as well, though. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to know what characterizes the beliefs of a "conservative Christian" - I relied, as nearly as possible, on what the sources stated. By the way, if this were a church affiliated with a major group, then I would find comments that a pastor believed in the official beliefs of the group to be a tad unworthy of note. Otherwise we would have "anti-abortion" appended to every Catholic clergyman, etc. It is only if the belief is specifically notable with regard to an individual clergyman that I would think it belonged in an article. And I do like my wording. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so we have these alternatives:

(A) He, as a conservative Christian, preached condemnation of homosexuality.

(B) As a conservative Christian, he had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching.

Sourced from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's 18 May 1998 sentence,

• Those men and others have accused Moorehead of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching.

I don't care greatly about this, but since we don't agree, let's ask others which they prefer. Other opinions, please?  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On weight, balance, and neutral point of view

My emphasis is on a balanced article. If there are two paragraphs on the 30 year history of Overlake or any other institution, it doesn't make sense in this case that half the text cover a single ugly moment. This article is about Overlake, not Bob Moorehead. If someone thinks there is enough notoriety (which I doubt) to create a Bob Moorehead article, that would be an appropriate spot to detail the books he's written, his career, his controversies,etc. Look at the description of Bill Clinton from his own article: "Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate.[12][13]" That's one sentence. Nice neutral language "scandal involving" captures the moment without dwelling on the unneeded particulars. If that showed up in my child's text book about Presidents I would think that was appropriate. If they had a picture of the spot on Lewinski's dress, I would say that was way out of line and tabloid like. I think "He resigned in 1998 amid allegations of sexual impropriety" is the proper balance, weight, and impartial tone related to the complete article to achieve a sense of neutrality. --WikiReader527 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is far from the only coverage of the scandal on Wikipedia, or even in the Clinton bio. There are 28 articles related to the scandal. Category:Lewinsky scandal. Obviously, the scandals related to OCC are not nearly so important, but neither is OCC. The question is how much of the notability of OCC is connected to those events. The way we determine that is by assessing the prominence in independent sources. So if 78 sources talk about other OCC events, and 22 talk about these events, then a rough rule of thumb is that we should devote something like 22% of the article to them. It's never exact, but the point being we use outside sources as our guide. Please read WP:DUE and let me know if you have any questions about it.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've already read the section and stand by my points. If the scandal is important enough, someone should be creating a new article about the scandal. Your analsis of weight is greatly flawed. Using outside sources as the guide like your example would create a completely distorted view of the institution. Look up Duke University. There is no mention of the huge scandal related to the lacrosse team and the female who accused them of sexual impropriety, etc. Why not? There are thousands of independent sources related to that scandal. Yet, it's not even mentioned. I'm sure that is because stuff like that is more appropriate on it's own page Duke lacrosse case. The Duke University article is clean, detailed, and very helpful for learning all about Duke. It serves it's purpose. I agree with your point, if OCC is not very important, then the scandal is even less so. Two paragraphs of history should not include all that detail on the scandal. Please show me a good wikipedia article that is an example of the weight and balance you are proposing. --WikiReader527 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Duke was founded in 1838, and has a long history. If there were not standalone article on the Lacrosse scandal then a longer treatment would be appropriate. Just before it was split off, the scandal material was over 1000 words long, of about 1/6 of the article.[1] The fact that there's no need for standalone articles on the various scandals at OCC does not mean they are insignificant in OCC history. If you can show that other events have received equal or great attention then they should get equal or great space in the article.   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than reducing the minimal coverage of the scandals, it'd be better to expand the coverage of other events.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any strictly analogous cases, e.g. where a different person, starting essentially "from scratch", built a ministry (or other kind of organization) into a behemoth, and then fell from grace after being caught violating the very principles he built that organization upon and frequently articulated in public? Any instance for which we have an article only about the organization but not about its longtime figurehead would be especially helpful, I believe. "Helpful" for the purpose of comparing how much weight is given in the organization's article to the man's downfall and its affect on that organization, I mean.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a tall order. Here are some other ministries with scandals: The PTL Club, Living Enrichment Center, Greater Ministries International, Hyles–Anderson College, New Life Church (Colorado Springs, Colorado).   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)