Talk:R. C. Sproul Jr.

404 Error on Footnote

The footnote for "Highlands Study Center Squiblog" (http://www.highlandsministriesonline.org/journals/hsc/2004_08_01_archive.html) is "404" page not found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.122.246 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

For discussions of neutrality and how we settled on the present text, see the talk archives. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Flex, a neutral POV also follows journalistic precedent on the question of libel and slander. To say someone broke a law when a court of law has not found him guilty of such is defined as libel and is actionable.

The RPCGA is not a court of law and is not qualified to find Mr. Sproul or anyone else, guilty or not-guilty of illegal acts of any kind. The RPCGA's publication of a "judgment" declaring "illegal" acts were committed is libel because no court of law has found these people guilty of a crime, even if the acts really were committed.

To repeat the charge in a Wikipedia, without qualifying it as "alleged" is also libel. Improper or allegedly illegal, you choose. But if you change it back to illegal without qualification, I will roll it back until you make it a case. So just save us the trouble and make it a case if you refuse to take either of the legal alternatives.

Cadwallader 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the course of action you propose if we disagreed is not in accord with the policies here (cf. WP:CIVIL). Second, as you can see in the archives, we are on the same side in this discussion, but I don't think the text as it stood was libelous. It specifically says that Sproul was defrocked "under charges including ... illegal use...." Those charges do not necessarily imply anything about his guilt or innocence in a court of law. That being said, I'm fine with inserting "alleged", as it does make this more apparent. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Flex. I've raised the libel issue here before. For that matter, the men were never formally "charged" by the RPCGA either.

For the benefit of those who might wish to change it back, I quote the Wikipedia article Defamation, subsection, defamation per se - note the fourth category:

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:

• Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
• Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
• Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
• Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[14]

What this means is that a person is automatically guilty of libel if he publishes a statement that person X engaged in criminal activity, if person X has not been convicted of such. Even an indicted person is protected against this kind of libel.

The general way that newspapers and other media publishers avoid committing libel against an un-convicted person when discussing alleged criminal activity is to use the word "alleged". Dr. Talbot put himself out on a limb by declaring Dr. Sproul & fellow elders guilty of identity theft. By doing so he committed libel - which is a civil wrong, not a criminal one, so I can legally accuse him of it here. :-) Fortunately for Dr. Talbot, Dr. Sproul is not a litigious person.

Cadwallader 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to Docs on Attack Sites

The current interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that links to original documents are not allowed if they are hosted on an "attack site". See discussion and history for John L. Brownlee. Given that Hushmoney.org is clearly an attack site hosted by an interested party, Peter Kershaw - the fellow who brought these accusations to the RPCGA and boasted on Hushmoney.org that he brought down R.C. Sproul Jr., I suggest that linking to the docs hosted there is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. If the RPCGA doesn't care to post their own documents on the their own website, www.rpcga.org, why should Kershaw's site be a trusted repository? He isn't even a member. Cadwallader (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You made what I thought was a most helpful comment in the John L. Brownlee article, and it seems applicable here:

"Wikipedia has precedent for linking to reproduced articles if the only available copies are posted on an adversarial website. For example, note the reference in the article about R._C._Sproul,_Jr. which links to documents reproduced on hushmoney.com - despite the fact that original commentary on hushmoney.com is self-published and critical of the subject of the article. I reverted the deletion of the reference links. If a non-involved, established Wikipedia editor wants to overrule my reversion, I won't argue.Cadwallader (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)"

So why now the double standard?

I changed my position because I was found to be wrong, and I am attempting to faithfully follow the policy.Cadwallader (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I trust that's true and that you're not just making artful application of the rules. Therefore it seems that our interpretations of Wikipedia policies differ and that we're unlikely to reach a consensus on the points that you've raised. After reviewing much of the discussion archive it's obvious to me that consensus was reached among a number of editors with opposing views three years ago. The issues, arguments and rules raised included among them the same ones you're bringing up again now. I see no Wikipedia policy changes in the past three years that would warrant your attempting to re-argue issues that were long ago settled. Therefore I see no point in engaging in further argument about it with you. If you're dissatisfied with the present edition of the article do feel free to submit your objections to the Wikipedia Arbitration Commission. Perhaps they'd see things your way. Good luck. --Populistdude (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The crux of your argument appears to hinge on the notion that hushmoney.org is an "attack site." Reviewing the discussion in the John L. Brownlee article it's apparent that you've left off an important adjective. The type of site worthy of concern is termed a "dedicated attack site." Therefore, your argument here seems extremely weak and it doesn't warrant deletion of any links to important and relevant primary source documents. I must disagree "that Hushmoney.org is clearly an attack site", and certainly it isn't a "dedicated attack site." Very little of the hushmoney.org web site appears to have anything at all to do with RC Sproul Jr. It appears to serve a purpose unrelated to RC Sproul Jr. No mention is made of Sproul on the home page, or on any other page that a person visiting that site could even readily find related to Sproul. It appears that the only way anyone could find anything on that site related to Sproul would be to first go to the search engines. hushmoney.org doesn't fit the criteria of an "attack site", let alone a "dedicated attack site." Unless you can come up with more solid (and consistent) arguments (and the ones which follow below are no better) it seems to me the link(s) should be restored. --Populistdude (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Some good reasons for this interpretation of the policy is that attack sites are able to use Wikipedia reference links to "put themselves on the map" in terms of Google Search Rankings. So simply obtain some original docs, post them on your attack site, and now you're entitled to free link juice from Wikipedia - the most powerful and highly ranked site on the Internet? No. This subverts Wikipedia to support the agenda of the attack site.Cadwallader (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption. Very noble of you, though, to be concerned for Wikipedia's vulnerability and its potential subversion by "attack sites." Wikipedia isn't that naive though, so they took measures in January 2007 to end the possibility of "link spam" by implementing "nofollow" tags on all external links. You can verify that for yourself, Cadwallader, by selecting "View Page Source" in your web browser and do a Find on "nofollow". None of the external links in this Article, or any other Wikipedia article, result in "free link juice from Wikipedia." Again, your argument lacks merit, as does your justification for deleting links to important primary source documents. --Populistdude (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are only partially correct, Populistdude. Though Wikipedia inserted rel=no-follow attributes in external links, Google still includes outgoing links on Wikipedia in pagerank if they stay around a few months, even though it ignores no-follow links on regular sites.Cadwallader (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Hushmoney.org is a self published source that published a purported copy of the RPCGA declaratory judgment in order to further the site owner's campaign against R. C. Sproul Jr.Cadwallader (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The "declaratory judgment" posted at http://hushmoney.org is not "self-published." By your own statements here it's clear that you already understood that. Furthermore it appears that it was posted on that web site with the permission of the RPCGA. Your argument lacks any merit that would warrant deleting the link(s). --Populistdude (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, populist, you are the one being specious here. Hushmoney.org is obviously an attack site with an axe to grind with regard to R.C. Sproul Jr., regardless of what unrelated content may also be there. Hushmoney.org is a self-published site, self-published being defined for the purposes of Wikipedia as not having any peer review process. It's a one-man show. The RPCGA does not appear to have ever published the documents in question, nor made any public affirmation that the documents posted on hushmoney.org are genuine. Hushmoney.org is a personal business website and blog, which is not a credible source for a biography of a living person. If the documents were published by the RPCGA on its own website, they would be a credible source. On hushmoney.org they are not.Cadwallader (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Without Due Process

The "Declaratory Judgment" acknowledges in point 1 that due process was not followed in producing the judgment:

"the Session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church comes as it’s own accuser and confessor before this judicatory, which states, “….the judicatory may proceed to judgment without full process, determining first, what offense, if any, has been committed, and, if a serious offense have been committed, what censure shall be pronounced.”

Therefore the phrase "without due process" is justified in qualifying the defrocking, because the defrocking document itself acknowledges that full process was not given to the accused.Cadwallader (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You fail to comprehend what "due process" means. Due process simply means the process that is due the accused to ensure that his rights aren't violated. Will every process be the same for every accused? No. The process will vary based upon the nature of the allegations, as well as how the accused answers the charges. For example, if the accused pleads "Guilty as charged", he won't be afforded a trial, and thus there will be no "full" process. Does this mean he's been denied due process? Of course not. His rights have been honored and upheld, including his right to plead "Guilty." He's been given the process due him under those circumstances.

The lack of full process (not convening a trial) in the defrocking of RC Sproul Jr by Declaratory Judgment doesn't in any way constitute "without due process." Due process was carried out, in spite of the lack of a trial, because Sproul came "as his own accuser and confessor." In other words he pled guilty, eliminating the need for any trial on any matters that he'd pled gulty to. --Populistdude (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologized for What

The letter of apology cited only apologizes for teaching and practicing paedocommunion. The current paragraph on the defrocking implies they apologized for all of the ridiculous accusations in the declaratory judgment, which is not the case.Cadwallader (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Declaratory Judgment convicted them for, among other things, "abuse of authority in an inexcusable manner." In the St. Peter session's letter of repentance they state:

"In addition, we confess that because of instances where our offices and authority have been mishandled, some families have been hurt and others unknown to us could have been offended."

This indicates that they apologized for far more than just the practice of paedocommunion. --Populistdude (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For clarification

• "Session of SPPC" => "Session of SPPC, its governing body"

Note the piped link is to Presbyterian polity. patsw (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AM confession

I have reverted the addition of Sproul's AM confession - it was purely a primary source. I see it had been picked up in a couple of outlets, and had thought about adding it. But there's an issue of undue weight, as well as fairly describing the confession. For example, USA Today talks about Sproul's "prospective thought about maybe sinning". StAnselm (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sensible, though The Christian Post and Christianity Today look to say he was suspended from Ligonier Ministries.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I just added the AM information, then I saw this on the talk page. Apologies for missing this. While I kept it short, I am open to discussion if there are concerns. Basileias (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ChristianNews.net is Not a Legitimate News Website

I realize the cry of "fake news" is an old meme, battle-cry, and practically a fallacy in it's own right. But Christian News does not represent a delivery of facts from a narrative. I could understand citing court documents from the court website, or even a semi-legit news source but Christian News is a joke and shouldn't be trusted as anything other than a tabloid. Vulgarly sensational is an accurate description of ChristianNews.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.173.136 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm - perhaps this is a case for the reliable sources noticeboard. I've looked at it, and I'm not sure. StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV vs padding with zeros?

If I am reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style section "Currencies and monetary values" (WP:CURRENCY) correctly, there is no need, or even warrant, to append .00 (as was done at the end of "Career and family" before I truncated the numbers to whole amounts) when citing monetary quantities (presumably exact), especially as large as those here, well over $100,000. Am laying no accusation of deliberate bias at the feet of any contributor to this article, and my perception may be completely mistaken. But the extra digits, if indeed unnecessary, could look a bit like an attempt to magnify the numbers and thereby to magnify any misdeeds or lapses in judgment on the part of Sproul Jr. or those associated with him. Indeed some sensitive readers might, by reasonable extension, construe the artificially long-format salary and severance values as an attempt to cast aspersions on the religious beliefs with which he inseparably identifies and is identified. --2603:6081:8002:AE78:C572:B691:B196:C08 (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)