Talk:Sovereign Grace Ministries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Reformed Charismatic" redirects here?

I just discovered that the page for Reformed Charismatic redirects to the Sovereign Grace page. Given that there are other networks of Reformed Charismatic churches (Newfrontiers and Acts 29), shouldn't there be a separate page rather than a redirect here? 87.243.193.13 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I pointed it to Neo-charismatic churches. It certainly should not point here.sinneed (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection Has Been Placed

The page has received nearly a dozen instances of vandalism over the past three days. This vandalism is being caused by an anonymous IP editor whose IP address resolves to Herndon, VA. Herndon is 14 miles from Fairfax, VA, where there is a congregation affiliated with Sovereign Grace Ministries.

While speculation on my part, the only reason for this vandalism that makes sense to me (given the timing and ferocity) is this: said Fairfax congregation is imbroiled in a controversy regarding alleged criminal activity, and the anonymous vandalism includes efforts to discredit and/or remove an external link to a site which is addressing these allegations.

While I'm certain the anonymous user is most likely ignorant of Wikipedia procedures (and not acting with malicious intent), it remains that Wikipedia ought to protect the page from POV edits made by anonymous editors (who have been warned more than once that their edits constitute vandalism). travisseitler (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion proposed ELs

Further Discussion Could we please discuss the placing of the "A site dedicated to members, present and past" under the "External links" section? The tittle for this link is misleading. At the moment, while I understand that people desire to express their differing opinions/experiences about SGM, placing a link to said blog under the tittle "A site dedicated to members, present and past" is, in my opinion, evasive and misleading. Wasn't this issue of the placing of the blog link addressed last year (May 2008)? The site is continually replaced by anonymous users which makes this difficult to find resolution on. Travis, could you offer some input on where we are at with this? Thanks. FenderPriest (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the archive shows a discussion on this issue last year. Through my research (including wike and said blog's discussions) it doesn't seem that a final verdict was ever achieved as to whether this page should be allowed on the site. I imagine the discussion needs to revolve around if the blog fits in the Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided section.FenderPriest (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the semiprotection is needed. The link does not seem disastrous, just inappropriate. IP editing is important to many people, for whatever reason (I don't do it because it reveals too much information about me, an ID protects my identity better). I have killed the link, as it seems improper to add it. The editor(s), if any, who care may join the discussion, or not, as they choose. If they re-add it today I will warn them, 3RR.sinneed (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

actually... a very very long discussion took place on here last year, in which a moderator came the the following conclusion (which you can read if you look at the full discussion history for this page). The moderator wrote:

"This all being said, after very careful consideration, this is what I recommend. The external link to the Sovereign Grace Uncensored blog should be permitted. I am aware that this is a decision that will be met with a lot of outcry, however, I have reasons as to why the link should be included. I repeat, I am not affiliated with SG Uncensored. And, this action is not an endorsement of them, or their actions/comments, it is met with acceptance by Wikipedia policy. I will explain in full detail below. External links are not subject to Wikipedia policies regarding reliablity, unless they are used as a reference. Historically, in Wikipedia, the inclusion of external links is whether the link is relevant to the subject, not necessarialy the reliability of the link in question, so the standards of reliability generally do not apply. The question is whether the external links add material value to the reader. It is plausible that the blog in question may add material value to a reader, as it offers an alternate view of the subject in question. However, concerns have been noted, that the blog may be guilty of libel, may generalise the Sovereign Grace Ministries as a whole, as a result of alleged misconduct by the pastoral team, or by the ministry of one/several churches. So, in order for the link to be included, I suggest that The blog will point out the particular churches/ministries that the blog is discssing. Certain editors in this dispute raise concerns that the blog may generalise the Sovereign Grace Ministries, and, in my judgement, I believe this may be a reasonable concern. If the blog could compile a list of specific churches, then it would address the concern of the blog generalising Sovereign Grace as a whole. That being said, this is only in regards to using SGM Uncensored as an external link. However, I would strongly dissuade the use of the blog as a reference for any criticism sections. Wikipedia policy regarding blogs is that, and I am using the quote that TBerg used, as they are correct in their quote: “ Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[1] ^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

” 

This here clearly states that posts left by readers may never be used as as sources. If this blog is used as a reference, then, it is of course, subject to Wikipedia policy, specifically our policy on reliable sources, original research, verifiability, and neutrality, however, if this is only used as a link, not a reference, then its use may be acceptable, and may not be subject to the same policies. Article must maintain a neutral point of view. This is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Articles must be neutral. The addition of viewpoints that have bias, must be combined together to make a neutral article, that is, an article that balances each viewpoint evenly.

• Suggestion from editor- additon of a Controversy section.

Generally, Controversy sections are generally advised if the content cannot be integrated into the article, and it seems in this article, that will not/cannot happen. The previous controversy section used the Sovereign Grace Uncensored website as a reference, which is not advisable, as blogs cannot be used as reliable sources, see the above reference. Howeverm if reliable sources can be found, then a Controversy section could be included. At the present time, that is all the issues I have to address, if I have missed out on something, let me know below. I would like to point out, I do not mean to be taking sides here. I am trying to help solve a very complex content dispute, and I will do my best to help resolve this dispute. Thank you all for your consideration and co-operation. Steve Crossin (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs)

It may be important to note that, if one looks at user talk:Steve Crossin, one will find "This user has been banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of until March 27, 2009 by the Arbitration Committee." On the "Controversy" section, please see: wp:controversy. These are not recommended.sinneed (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aso, to correct a bit of wording, Steve Crossin may have acted as a "mediator"... that is, an outsider who attempted to "go between" 2 or more conflicting individuals or groups. A "moderator" fills a very different function, usually in a formal debate.sinneed (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Feb 2009

Much as I don't like the SGMSurvivors blog or its policies it is a more popular than the main site. The main details of it have been confirmed by reputable sources like SGMrefuge where a former SGM leader indicates he did and saw the stuff SGM is accused of, a guilty plea; Church Discipline which is a non denomination blog which looks into church abuse. Also there are other "former member" sites which validate the information spiritual tyranny, Growing in Grace, Under the Terebinth Tree, I kissed dating goodbye.... We need to have some mention of the fact that there is a large disgruntled community of former members all telling stories of systematic abuse. jbolden1517^Talk 14:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• ONLY* if there are wp:RS that say it. None of those you just listed give us any help.sinneed (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A person is a reliable source about themselves. A leader is a reliable source about an organization they used to lead. Church Discipline's analysis of cases has been cited by the Texas bar. Further a multiplicity of sources becomes a reliable source that there is in fact controversy. I don't see how we can maintain that there is not a large community telling stories of systematic abuse they were either subjected to or participated in. jbolden1517^Talk 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just ran into another former member who is very critical julie morris and jbolden1517^Talk 01:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Debra Baker forgot about this one. Her story is confirmed by the Christian Research Journal, so we have an independently published source. jbolden1517^Talk 01:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "A person is a reliable source about themselves." - I have no idea what you are trying to say. We can't site humans. We must site something written (paper or electronic), published by a reliable source.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves jbolden1517^Talk 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I have done that many times. I fear I still miss your point. I don't see how this helps, here.sinneed (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is hard to see? Jim says "I did X". By policy, Jim is automatically a reliable source about himself. Jim is a leader who says "other leaders told me to do Y". That is automatically a reliable source about leadership conversations, etc.... jbolden1517^Talk 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if we have a wp:RS where Jim says "I did X" then he did in fact. If he has a blog that the Wikipedia community accepts as his, then yes we can use that as a reliable source about what he did.

No, if he says "because Bob told me to" then we cannot use his blog as a source about Bob.sinneed (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Further a multiplicity of sources becomes a reliable source that there is in fact controversy." - I fear that someone has misled you. I don't see anything like that here wp:Reliable sources. Could you give me the relevant quote from wp:RS or even a section heading? It would help me a lot in some other articles I want to expand. We must have a wp:reliable source if the material is likely to be challenged. And it clearly will be and has been challenged.

under Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" WP:V, in other words you are trying to argue that this is not a controversy it suffices to prove prevailing view for the burden of evidence to shift. jbolden1517^Talk 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "you are trying to argue that this is not a controversy" - Please don't do that again. I make no such statement, I make no such implication, and if you infer it, you err. Do not put words into my mouth again.sinneed (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK then. What is your objection then to this article discussing the controversy with SGM? What specifically is your contention? jbolden1517^Talk 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "this article" - you have named a BUNCH, and I have explained my concerns with each.sinneed (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "I don't see how we can maintain that there is not a large community telling stories of systematic abuse they were either subjected to or participated in." - Your statement has nothing to do with Wikipedia articles. Please focus on the content of Wikipedia. "We" have no business maintaining anything of the sort whatsoever. Has someone attempted to do so? I have not seen it here.

sinneed (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In excluding discussion of a controversy you are asserting this controversy doesn't exist. jbolden1517^Talk 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "In excluding discussion of a controversy you are asserting this controversy doesn't exist." Absolutely NOT! Not related in any way. If we don't talk about pink socks in this article it in no way implies pink socks don't exist.sinneed (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not discussing pink socks in an article listing sock colors most certainly does carry that implication jbolden1517^Talk 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have read your words and understand them. No, it does not. A statement in the article "There are no other colors of sock." would most certainly say that. Or if we said "Colored socks are those that are x, y, z, p and Q colored." would say so directly. Simply not mentioning every color of sock would not imply that there are no chartreuse socks with pink polkadots and green spangles.sinneed (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Christian Research Journal" - Sounds very interesting. They don't have to confirm, just cover it. I look forward to the link.sinneed (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

April-June 1998 (print version). Online articles [1] [2]. You can see Gary Ezzo, attacking Baker by name in [3] and [4]. Note that Ezzo is not denying Baker's story as being notable but is quibbling about details of it. jbolden1517^Talk 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.ezzo.info/ is a very attractive site but I see nothing to cause me to think it is a wp:RS... not disputing it, but it would need to be a wp:RS and there is nothing there that indicates it should be.
• http://www.ezzotruth.com would face the same problem.
• http://www.equip.org goes through a weird series of redirects but seems to be the actual site for Christian Research Institute, which in my just-an-editor-like-you opinion seems to be a wp:RS.
• I am a bit confused though, as to why you are providing these links about Growing Families International and Gary Ezzo here? Are they an unmentioned piece of SGM?sinneed (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• ERK! Sorry, that would be if we wanted to use it as a reference. For an wp:EL we don't have to show it to be a wp:RS only to show it meets wp:EL. Very different. I am not sure what use you contemplate, as I can't see how they are related.

Those links discuss (briefly) an excommunication from SGM. The reason for the excommunication has to do with an SGM endorsement of Gary Ezzo, and a member by the name of Debra Baker who objected. They provide a 2 independent (and hostile) reliable sources for Debra Baker's story. Debra Baker's story is one of the SGM controversies jbolden1517^Talk 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I found no mention of SGM. I found no mention of a church listed on the SGM web site.sinneed (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Covenant Fellowship notice the SGM logo in the lower right hand corner? jbolden1517^Talk 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but I feel I am running in circles. I see 'Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship' tossing Ezzo, a controversial figure. Please, you need not convince me, I am just an editor like you. I appreciate your attempt to educate me. If the SGM people practice what they preach they will toss Ezzo too, as I read it (NOT AN EXPERT), because another church tossed him, and they believe in Church Discipline (their caps). Yes, I see the logo at the (very abusive) website you sent me to... it would NOT let me out and I had to kill the browser session. Normally I would be interested in relevance, but I really don't care, and won't revert any edit you make whatsoever. Some [other] editor can do it, or it can stand for eternity. All the best.:)sinneed (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I read up a bit, and here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy has the steps that could be followed to get a community decision on whether something should be used as a source in this type of article.sinneed (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Rather than continue the wrangle above, perhaps a good next step might be for anyone who wants to make an edit to propose it in this section. I fear the communication above is not enlightening me in any way... not that that is needful, but I don't think I am helping up there, and plan not to add further to it.sinneed (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation of web page for WorldView Community Church

WorldView Community Church history page The church isn't on the SGM church list, and there is no mention of SGM at the site. Removed. Easily restored if there is some reason it should be there.sinneed (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut to talk page.

In reference to the no-adopting-existing-churches policy:

It was this policy which led to the expansion of New Frontiers International into the United States.

This seems to be something that doesn't belong at all... relevance? But if it does, surely it belongs at the Newfrontiers article?

I won't kill it if it is readded, but I think an adding editor should be able to explain whey it goes here. :)sinneed (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Long series of edits I have made.

I have cut a great deal of what I perceived as self-promotion or perhaps simply over-enthusiastic wording. I have also cut a great deal of very complex wording and simplified it as much as my very limited editorial hatchet skill will allow. I light-heartedly hope I have generally changed only the words, and not the factual content, except where it conflicted with a source. I hope that editors more knowledgeable about the organization will see and correct any errors I introduced. As some of the sources are books not readily available to me, I have edited based on my understanding of the meaning of the words used... always risky.

I apologize for any errors. sinneed (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

widespread

Actually there is quite a bit of press on the issue of Christians addressing leadership concerns via. blogging. Most of the press attention has regarded controversies with membership and the Southern Baptist leadership (a denomination of 9-16 million). So we can definitely site that this issue in general has received widespread attention. I'm not sure if we want to add the many articles on that. In terms of SGM in particular. I'd say the claim is self documenting. More reputable and heavily read groups are discussing these issues. Intra group political fights aren't covered by traditional media, that gets covered more by electronic media. If you would like to suggest a rephrase though that would work. jbolden1517^Talk 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the question that needs the citation? AFAIK there is no dispute these people are former members? SGM agrees. Do you want references for the various blogs showing membership? Or is this a request for something else? jbolden1517^Talk 05:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Studying Wp:RS might help. One of the reasons we need wp:RS is because we have no way to know who it is that spoke, or what they said, without one. The requirement for wp:EL is a bit looser, but these won't make it either. We can say confidently that SOMEONE wrote the things at those sites.sinneed (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The community in question know the people in question. You are dealing with a community of about 20,000 people. They know each other's children. No one is questioning their identity. I think you are dealing with a hypothetical. jbolden1517^Talk 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"No one is questioning their identity." - false. I stated firmly that wikipedia does not know who they are, according to the Wikipedia community rules, which I listed.
"I think you are dealing with a hypothetical." - Not at all. These are not hypothetical rules. They are quite real, and you are editing outside them.sinneed (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute or vandalism continuing

I have done my 3rd revert today. I believe this is a wp:BLP violation, an if so it would be exempt from wp:3rr but I am unwilling to revert this again today, I don't feel it is that egregious, just bad. I am reaching out to the IP(or IPs) repeatedly applying the edit, but so far without success.sinneed (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. Why do you think this is a BLP issue? The link you have correctly removed fails WP:EL. Avoid "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." I would seek to block the IP responsible. [User:Momento|Momento]] (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I may need to expand on the notes at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sovereign Grace Ministries. I have not found support for blocking folk simply for insisting on the insertion of an external link of that nature. However, when the EL contains excoriating comment on living person, I worry. Also, this is a long, long, painful conflict going back many months. Those adding the content appear to be unable or unwilling to find wp:RS, and thus cannot or will not add content to the article. This makes me even MORE certain the link should be out. All that uproar and not even a local paper picked it up?sinneed (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that this time when the article is locked will be used by the apparently-polarized editors to reach some form of consensus.sinneed (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again removed the personal blogs, incorrectly added.

"sgmrefuge" blog "sgmsurvivors" blog

There are at least 2 objections: they fail wp:EL and they contain quite serious wp:BLP-violating content. If the editor is interested, he or she may want to discuss the proposed addition here.sinneed (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the content under "Recent developments" regarding the purpose and aim of the blogs SGM Survivers and SGM Refuge is misleading and inaccurate and should be removed. If one were to peruse the blogs, the place of women in leadership in Sovereign Grace Ministries is not the main focus of the blogs discussion or comments. While the description is accurate that the blogs exist to promote allegations of various types, it gives the impression that their intent is mainly focused on the issues of egalitarianism and complimentarianism, which is false. I do not believe the blogs hold up to the requirements for wp:EL and wp:BLP, and therefore should not be included in the article. One wonders why the blogs aren't given their own wikipedia pages since they are the constant focus of editing for this page. FenderPriest (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• As it is un-sourced (it has footnotes, but those are not wp:RS, so it is unsourced) and challenged, I know of no WP rule that would prevent you from removing it at this time.
  It would be courteous to explain here what you plan to remove, and why, citing the appropriate policy, rule, or guideline. And please, if it is restored, please avoid being sucked into an edit war.
  In the event that deleted content is re-added, adder needs to remember that the wp:burden is on the person adding the content. Be sure to provide wp:RS before restoring deleted content.sinneed (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no claim that SGMRefuge is focused on the place of women in the church, "The online controversy has carried on to discussions in blogs focused on the role of women in the church" We can insert "other" before blogs for clarity. However Church Discipline got involved for that reason (and that I can provide a RS since every author is an RS on themselves), and the comp/eqal and truewomanhood blogs are obviously focused on that area. We can rephrase a little though. But I'm not sure how it would address your other concerns if we were to make it clear that SGMrefuge deals with emotional support for all the other areas that people have complaints with SGM like: child abuse, child sexual abuse, mistreatment of members, forced humiliation, egregious violations of church discipline, poor counseling, etc...  : As far as RS.... as established above the excommunication of Debra Baker over the Gary Ezzo issue does have a wealth of reliable sources. That establishes the reliability of Baker's story as well, and in particular the fact that she is a long time former member. This would allow discussion of the SGM / Ezzo tie as a matter of policy. It also establishes the atrocious abuses of church discipline (as does your/their member handbook).

But frankly I think SGMrefuge and the online controversy deserves a casual mention not the paragraphs that would be required to contextualize this Baker issue enough for general readership. We need to avoid undue importance. IMHO the banners draw attention to what should be just a line or two external links. I think wikipedia has an obligation to present the fact that dozens of people have come forward with awful stories about this abusive cult. SGM is not the only church that has detractor's comments for example Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology controversies.

Just take a step back and thing about the rule lawyering. Under the rules SGM's involvement in the ESV/TNIV controversy have loads of reliable sources. That gets us all sorts of SGM staff, lying their asses off, in reliable sources. And it comes with dozens of high quality reliable sources that will point this out. But I personally would rather play it down since IMHO they are just following the lead of other right wing reformed churches and was not a leader in the defamation campaign. There is no WP:Fairness policy but I kinda use one under WP:IAR.

So what's your pleasure best reliable sourced information or most fair information?

As far as BLP there are no mentions in this article about any living persons.

What I think we should aim for is Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance and the article without mentioning the fact that SGM has hurt a lot of people very badly lacks balance. jbolden1517^Talk 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• "So what's your pleasure best reliable sourced" - Whatever wp:RS you can find. I have seen none. You must provide wp:RS for the content you have added, as it is challenged, or it is very unlikely to remain in the article. The wp:burden is on the editor adding content. Anyone can delete the entire block, at any time, as it is unsourced. No, the footnotes are not wp:RS, they are footnotes. The inline links are a distraction, and should not be there at all.
• "Just take a step back and thing about the rule lawyering" - Your content has been left in, challenged. This certainly shows that EVERY INTERESTED EDITOR has taken a step back to let you address the problems that needed to be addressed before adding the content. Please wp:AGF... your statement does not. Please don't do that again.

sinneed (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian Research Journal, Growing families international are both reliable sources. jbolden1517^Talk 18:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Either my browser is broken, my brain has fried, or you have not cited them, or a combination of those (CRJ and GFI).sinneed (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nope. Not there. Searching the code shows that you mangled some of your footnotes, and some of your content and references are simply not included in the article. Please Please consider putting the text up in a test space somewhere, and reading wp:MOS, getting rid of the weird inline links, and put the ELs in the EL section.sinneed (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• IDEA - If SGM has commented in a cite-able way about the blogs, *THAT* can be used in this article, potentially, as a wp:RS.sinneed (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

jbolden1517, there are a number of issues about what you've stated.

1) It would appear to me that you're operating under the assumption that SGM is in fact a cult ("I think wikipedia has an obligation to present the fact that dozens of people have come forward with awful stories about this abusive cult."). In a discussion about neutrality of a wiki article, this doesn't strike me as helpful. However, I could be mistaken here in understanding your intentions by that phrase. (It also should be noted that the blog in question does not apply the term "cult" to SGM - here)

I agree you are asserting down below it is a loose confederation of churches. Honestly I think an authoritarian hierarchical organization with a defacto episcopal structure might be a far way to describe it. Cult is an insult word though, I'd agree it won't be in the article.

As for the post that's from Jim's blog not Kris'. Your picking a blog from one of the footnotes, not the main link. He uses the typical evangelical "if it ain't heretical it is not a cult". I don't think SGM is heretical either, outside the normal right wing reformed issues which aren't specific to them. jbolden1517^Talk 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

2) The problem that I see with saying that allegations of abuse (of various types) against particular churches within SGM does not inherently connect the same allegation with SGM itself. I'm not saying the allegations are true or not, but saying X is true about one member of a group and thus making it a universal truth about the whole group is a logical fallacy of hasty generalization. On this basis, it's improper to say the websites should be included because there are issues in particular churches within that group.

I would agree with you that incidents that are specific to churches shouldn't be generalized. The article should only deal with policy. That is those types of abuses that have occurred at many churches over an extended period of time. That IMHO would be writing an honest article.

So for example Jim's claims are fair because they address policy. Problems with SGM's disciplinary model are fair. If you are OK with an honest conversation about policy rather than wiki lawyering we can make progress.

OTOH if the game is going to be "best reliable sources" then heck yeah specific abuses at specific churches are fair game. Scientology has pages all over wikipedia about the Wollersheim case and that 30 years ago on a boat that doesn't exist anymore involving people who are mostly dead. But Scientology has a long of suing everyone so everyone makes sure that the articles are highly factual even at the expense of being misleading.

So I guess the question is what is your goal a good article which is accurate and fair or the best article that can be created in an environment of wiki lawyering? All I think that is needed is a line or two describing the situation that is actually happening. jbolden1517^Talk

3) Regarding the Baker story, this point is similar to point 2. The instance, from my reading, happened over 15 years ago in a single church within SGM. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that her story must be true of the whole and therefore the blogs must be mentioned.FenderPriest (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand your Wikipedia point, FenderPriest. SGM is *ONLY* a grouping if churches. In a sense it *IS* the actions of those churches.
  In a real sense it doesn't matter what ANY of our personal assumptions are or are not, and it is best not to dwell on them... they are none of each-the-others' business. Please focus on the content.
  Only Wikipedia's rules (which include, for example, "don't break the law here") matter to Wikipedia. If the content is created because I like purple sharks, that is fine, as long as it complies with Wikipedia's rules, guidelines, etc.sinneed (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! That's the problem. SGM doesn't have 10 million members maybe 1/2% of that. The best RS are going to be essentially random.

I think you know that SGM's position today on Ezzo is nuanced. SGM's position then was full throttled endorsement. The reliable sources indicate full throttled endorsement. The reliable sources indicate SGM disciplines people for disagreeing. I'd have no problem proving that, I just happen to think it is false.

But lets be clear, this was a public excommunication that was contested, and brough before a national audience when the Ezzo controversy erupted. And to this day C.J. still hasn't overturned it and restored the family. If we write an article based on RS we get something that is factual but misleading. I don't think that is helpful to wikipedia's readership but it does point in the right direction.

Ezzo was very popular in the 1990s throughout HomeSchooling churches which include SGM. SGM endorsed him, they carried his books and they integrated his ideas into their curriculum. Baker objected because she felt (rightly IMHO) that Ezzo constituted child abuse and at the very least was harmful not helpful. SGM kicked her family out of church basically for the same sort of "pride", "not being teachable".... i.e. vague charges. The fact that she could be convicted of this sort of nonsense is indicative of a systematic problem that SGM still has, they have a discipline system designed to convict the innocent. So the case is 15 years old but the underlying problem isn't corrected.

I'm not sure wikipedia is the right forum for that. I think Church Discipline is going to handle that the right way. They have the right audience to discuss disciplinary failings in SGM. I'm not even sure we should mention them and if we do I think "complaints about church discipline process" should be the extent of the mention.

So anyway ball is in your court. Can we get rid of the headers, construct a sentence or two which is accurate link to a few sites for further study and leave it at that? jbolden1517^Talk 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• The wp:burden is on the adder of content. The flags stay until the problems are fixed. That is what flags are for.sinneed (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• "The best RS are going to be essentially random." Please, what in the world does that mean?sinneed (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That SGM doesn't get a lot of press coverage nor any AFAIK academic coverage. So the way it gets coverage is in connection with other things be they CBMW, quiverfull, Ezzo, incidents with members, leadership splits.... And those may be years and years apart. So the effect of using "best sources: is a like taking all of SGM's history grabbing .1% at random and covering that. You don't get an accurate picture at all. jbolden1517^Talk 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• If those are the only things that are notable about the church that are interesting to you then they are not random. They are what they are.sinneed (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the ball is in my court. I still see no valid reason for including even a mention of the blogs via a line or two. As sinneed has said, the burden of proof is in your court on this. Potentially I'm misunderstanding things here, but I haven't been convinced that a blog of this nature is a justifiable, reliable source in creating a wiki page about SGM istelf. Forgive me if I'm not following adiquately, but from my reading of fringe sources, I think the best option is to permit these blogs to be self-defined on their own page as I suggested before, and not on this page proper.FenderPriest (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A source getting over 1000 hits a day is not a fringe source. Neither is the better bible crowd (http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/). Neither is church discipline. Besides both of you are confusing reliable sources, what goes in the article with, external links. I think these should be handled as external links in an EL section, but when this started these was a demand to get them in the article. But Jim's articles are a reliable source, a person talking about things he did or personally witnessed is automatically reliable (WP:SELFPUB). WP:ELMAYBE #4 is clearly the correct policy here as far as most of the external links.

And if that fails Baker is an independently verified source published in a journal and reverified by two additional sources, one of whom made on the record comments. That's WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. Right now I'm just using Baker to get the general link for SGM specific exit counseling and support in the article, because I think that's what the readers really need. jbolden1517^Talk 17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "A source getting over 1000 hits a day is not a fringe source." - False.
• "Besides both of you are confusing reliable sources, what goes in the article with, external links." - Remove your focus from me *IMMEDIATELY*. ELs belong in the EL section, and these all fail wp:EL. You are not attempting to add ELs to the EL section. You have added wp:OR to the article. Take it out or source it.
• If you want to create an article about each of those sites, then quote them about themselves, you are correct, they will be wp:RS about THE SITES.
• "And if that fails Baker is an independently verified source published in a journal and reverified by two additional sources" - sadly you have not included this in the article. Why don't you add it?sinneed (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• The ELs you are attempting to include under wp:SELFPUB fail:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These fail, as there are most certainly claims about a 3rd party. If there are not, then they don't belong in the article because they are unrelated.sinneed (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They are also explicitly listed under "...to be avoided."...blogs and discussion sites, at wp:EL.sinneed (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to post my final thoughts here, and leave it to sinneed to decide. (I'm not really sure how these issues are finally resolved.) Because the purpose of the blogs in question are to express personal grievances, this to me marks the blogs purposes as being mainly personal opinion sources, and thus excluding them from being reliable information regarding Sovereign Grace Ministries. Thus, judging the blogs are unreliable source material for the purposes of Wikipedia, they should be excluded from all linking on the page, either in a mentioned format via a couple lines, or an external link notation. I believe that this is the best direction to comply with Wiki's requirements for the neutrality of it's articles.FenderPriest (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "leave it to sinneed to decide" - not at all. I am not taking it out. I'll just keep the flags up. I have taken out a lot of minor self-promotion, lots of overly complex wording, but this just really isn't an article that interests me much. I mainly was trying to figure out what a couple of other editors were trying to say. Someone will fix or remove the addition or it will stay here forever. As best as I can tell, the point is "I want this in the article, there are no wp:RS so I am just goign to put it in." This isn't unusual. And if no one cares enough to say "that is not sourced and is disputed, taking it out", it will stay.sinneed (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, we wait to new editors show up. As for failing 3rd party, articles about things a person himself did are 1st party not 3rd party. Jim was a leader in SGM jbolden1517^Talk 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "was" = 3rd party. The information about his bitter parting is in the article already. VERY 3rd party. (ed-Sorry, remembered wrong name.)

• 3rd party means stuff you aren't involved in [5]. The stuff in the article is about another leader and a different controversy. jbolden1517^Talk 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Or anything about a 3rd party. Such as a former employer.sinneed (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "deal" - there is no deal. This is not a horse trade or a prisoner exchange.sinneed (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, FenderPriest. The disputed content need not be re-added unless it is attached to wp:RS. Please remember the wp:burden is on the adder of content.sinneed (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All these links specifically fail wp:EL (ed to add: they are blogs and/or discussion group sites, and specifically listed as "to be avoided"). They *MIGHT* be included, if consensus is reached that they are an exception, as you pointed out... IF. But there has never been such a consensus and there is not now. Because of the way these are published, there is no way for the Wikipedia community to know who is talking, or exactly what was said. A self-published source that might normally be given an exception is that HERE the SGM web site is used. We certainly could not use it as a wp:RS in an article about, say, a departed minister.sinneed (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC) edited sinneed (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• In reference to the restored section correctly deleted by FenderPriest. While it can be deleted by anyone at any time (challenged and no wp:RS, I will leave that up a day or so more to give you time to introduce the wp:RS you have stated you have found. Then I will kill it again. The wp:burden is on the adder of content. You have not produced the wp:RS you describe as "random" or any other. This content is disputed, and challenged, and it will not stay without wp:Reliable Sources.sinneed (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New section for ELs.

wp:MOS explains where to put the wp:EL section. I think it even explains what to name it. No need to create a 2nd EL section. No editorial lead-in is needed, and it won't stay. Idea: you might try to create a new article about exit counseling for people leaving SGM-style churches. There may already be such an article. You will need wp:RS.sinneed (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with restyling the content. I have problems with not including it at all. Under WP:LINKFARM I don't think there is any need to break this out into a separate article but if someone wanted to found it, I wouldn't object. jbolden1517^Talk 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"I have problems with not including it at all." - but Wikipedia has problems with including them, per the cited and repeatedly upheld rules for wp:EL. Please don't re-add them. Please review the history and see the repeated appeals for and grants of article protection, the appeals for outside comment, the resulting comment (like mine, like those I got at BLP notice board, those at AIV), and stop beating the wp:dead horse. Those particular ELs won't stay.sinneed (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of long-running claim that the article fails wp:NPOV

The archive and the discussion page above contain many long wrangles over external links, perhaps most strongly for sgmsurvivors.com but extending to others. Some of those who have attempted to gain consensus to add links of this general type have argued that leaving them out violates wp:NPOV.

These blogs and discussion groups and hybrid blog/discussion groups address stated concerns by people, often believed by many to be previous senior members of the SGM leadership or the leadership of SGM member churches. Some of the stories contain excoriating, detailed statments about the bahaviour of individual churches, individual church leaders. Some of them detail criminal behaviour, others detail actionable behaviour, some simply detail behaviour of which the poster disapproved or with which the poster disagreed or no longer aggrees.

While blogs and discussion groups can be used in Wikipedia by consensus, as an exception to the wp:External Links rule specifically excluding them, there has been repeated and strong resistance here. I, myself, was concerned that I would expose Wikipedia to risk, violating wp:BLP by including them, but while 3 much more experienced editors stated they links did not belong, their argument was based on the wp:EL no-blog, no-discussion-site rule.

The page has been protected repeatedly to protect against wp:Vandalism when a new objector began repeatedly inserting the links against consensus and against wp:EL. If needful, it will be again.sinneed (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I would offer both SGM refuge (which does not include that) or church discipline (which prohibits named discussions) as alternatives if the goal is to avoid legal liability.
2. There is no consensus against including them as indicated by the fact that they keep getting included by multiple authors.
3. I am an experienced editor and I fully concur with these earlier posters that the page as it existed is completely in violation of NPOV. The reason there are so many citations of unethical, immoral and illegal acts on discussion groups involving SGM is because they are happening. To say district attorneys, civil court judges, sexual abuse counselors, expert in church discipline, former leaders repenting of their own acts, former members... are simply lying about SGM stretches the bounds of credibility. That is exactly what wikipedia is effectively claiming by continuing to treat this as a non issue.
4. There is precedent on how to handle these controversial churches Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology controversies

jbolden1517^Talk 04:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The goal is to have articles in Wikipedia which are derived from wp:RS. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, rather than primary sources.
• "There is no consensus against including them as indicated by the fact that they keep getting included by multiple authors." - There is clear consensus against including them. They will be deleted again. Repeatedly adding these links which fail wp:EL explicitly is wp:vandalism, as shown by repeated granted appeals for protection for the article to stop it.
• "There is precedent on how to handle these controversial churches" - Indeed there is. Perhaps an interested editor may choose to follow those precedents and create an article titled, perhaps, Controversies regarding SGM. But that, too, will require wp:RS, and I suspect it will be speedied. If there is sufficient controversy to be wp:notable, there will be wp:reliable sources covering it. Until the news organs are interested, Wikipedia in a formal way is not interested either.sinneed (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please make a temporary page wp:sandbox for your test edits.

I am killing the mangled section again. Please consider creating a test page, and debugging the code.

I am killing the controversy section, see wp:controversy.

Adding more wp:OR is not needful. Ms. Baker can have her own article, this one is about SGM. I am killing her section. Please gather consensus before making such additions to this contentious article.

If you would like one, and don't want to create it in your user space, I will be happy to do so in mine, and invite all interested editors to edit in it.

sinneed (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The new code is also a mess. If I could understand what was to be communicated, perhaps I could help. The article is not about Ezzo. Indeed, there *IS* no article about Ezzo. Babywise redlinks him as a self-published author. This article is not about Baker, indeed there IS no article about Debra Baker.sinneed (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the point *SEEMS* to be that the church excommunicates (which means that members should have nothing to do with them) members who disagree with the church. I believe this is clearly stated by the church. I think a real addition can be made here, but this is not it. I *THINK* I understand this new section is to provide a specific example of a couple who were excommunicated? I want to encourage that editors adding new content explain the plan, then make it after gaining consensus.sinneed (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is simply to indicate that SGM officially endorsed (or actually the RS would indicate endorse) Ezzo. Ezzo is tied to child neglect / abuse by taking authoritarian parenting and applying it to infants. So here we have a case of SGM encourage child abuse, and excommunicating someone who tries to raise concerns. jbolden1517^Talk 12:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK here is an idea, and WAY too much work for me and this is NOT a ready-to-add version AT ALL:

section head: Church discipline at SGM churches
flag: main article church discipline
SGM follows principles of Church discipline, teaching that regular members should defer to church leadership (elders).(maybe a ref or 2 form the CD article) A specific incident was reported in "Publication name". Members x and y Baker disagreed with child rearing practices taught by the xxxxxyyychurch, a member of SGM according to its web site (Ref to church website page with that info might work - I don't know) and were involuntarily released from membership and barred from even unofficial church functions. Zzzzmagazine reports that a letter from xxxxxyyychurchname here to members x and y Baker said "We have released you from membership at Covenant Fellowship.The pastors philosophy on family life represents many fundamental differences which we will aggressively teach in the future. Wisdom would dictate that you need a church home which supports rather than challenges your strong opinions." Appeals by the Bakers to rejoin have been rejected by xxxxyyychurch.(Ref to the article).

• The focus is not on church discipline, but the misuse of church discipline. The problems in SGM's church discipline are documented CD website here but that is another controversy. I'm a little concerned about WP:SYN in tieing the Baker to SGM's policy of invalid discipline. I think we need to keep those as separate controversies. The focus on Baker in the RS was Gary Ezzo not the excommunication jbolden1517^Talk 12:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Move section about harassment of departing leader here, maybe?

• Larry can go in the controversy section jbolden1517^Talk 12:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence about exit counseling (that would not need a citation, I should think)like:Some members who are subjected to Church discipline take part in exit counseling.

• You would use it generally for members who want to leave. jbolden1517^Talk 12:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A see also for babywise might be worthwhile.

Expanding the babywise article with the ezzo scandal-thing and doing a see-also here might be worthwhile.sinneed (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I went to the Babywise article and it is weak. It doesn't have the Babywise conflict widely covered, focusing on the physical safety of the babies (which is good), and leaving out the religion-attached piece (which is unfortunate for us). This may simply be because it needs an SME to work on it.sinneed (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well yeah, Babywise is physically dangerous to children. The connection with SGM belongs in this article. In Babywise the focus should probably be on McArthur (see the Christianity Today article on the controversy). SGM/Baker is just one of dozens of similar controversies for Ezzo. jbolden1517^Talk 12:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source

Fender --

If you wish to claim that an official church action supported by SGM for over a decade is not SGM policy find a reliable source that says this. Otherwise stop asserting it, the policy on wikipedia is reliable sources not "I don't like it" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) jbolden1517^Talk 13:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

jbolden1517, as mentioned before, the burden of proof for the adding of material that is not compliant to RS is on the adder, not the one who removes it. As I mentioned in my edit, the issue at hand is a single issue at a church within SGM, and as I would see it, not implicitly related to SGM as a whole. Moreover, you quote Baker's personal blog, where personal family issues, grades, etc, are discussed in no reference at all to the issue you cite it for. This fails RS at bold face. It's not properly shown to be relevant information to SGM as a whole, nor shown to uphold neutrality of the article. It is not merely an issue of not liking it, it is an issue of not being appropriate for this wikipedia article. As suggested before, why not merely create a different wiki for the information? Please refrain from personal accusations and warnings merely because I am editing according to what I believe upholds Wiki standards. I have been polite through our conversation these past few days, and have only made two edit sections in the past day, hardly reason for the charge of vandalism my friend.FenderPriest (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First off the burdon is met. The DB material is from multiple reliable source. Deletion at this point, given the history is vandalism.

Blogs related to principals are allowed, they are first party not 3rd party. The say way that we can link to Josh Harris (which in fact I'm adding). We need some way for Ms. Baker to have a voice and express herself if we are going to discuss her. That is staying with the spirit of BLP.

As for not related to SGM as a whole, this was policy. It was upheld. You don't think it is representative of SGM then you need to present a reliable source that says that. I am providing reliable sources that say that it was/is policy. The article on the catholic church mentions their child abuse issues and it was never church policy at any member church to have sex with children. The Catholic church strongly discouraged sex with children. That's more than SGM can say about starving, hitting and neglecting them (as per Ezzo). jbolden1517^Talk 14:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

TNIV/ESV, section.

This is just refs for now. Probably won't make sense yet.

[6] [7] [8]

ESV issues: [9], [10], [11] jbolden1517^Talk 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Linkbacks

This should be linked in here for later reference. There was a discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive57#Sovereign_Grace_Ministries where the resolution regarding SGMsurvivors was discussed the recommendation was an RFC:

I just read over the protected article and didn't see any BLPN issues. I looked over the article edits since 21:51, 7 January 2009. The only dispute I saw is whether to include "http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ A site dedicated to members, present and past" in the external links section. There is no BLPN issue in that text. An official consensus on whether sgmsurvivors.com meets Wikipedia:External links would help resolve this. The official consensus could be a five day discussion with admin conclusion and top and bottom closeing tempaltes. A way to get this is to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. At the end of the discussion, post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to have an admin close the discussion with a determination on consensus. In the mean time, the EL probably can be kept from the article until the issue is resolved. -- Suntag ☼ 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The log shows the above unsigned post was by jbolden1517

sinneed (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There are also results of the wp:ANI that make clear that endlessly removing the links without wp:RFC is not acceptable, and that any further insertion or deletion of the links without an RFC is unacceptable.sinneed (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Sinneed's summary of the ANI discussion. jbolden1517^Talk 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

After the ANI

Well since the strong arming you all tried didn't work I'm going to make another good faith offer. I'd like to get rid of the section on online controversy and the section on Debra Baker in exchange for bring the exit counseling section back, something like this version. We can include disclaimers for things SGM Survivors (wikipedia doesn't endorse content). That allows us to list a few high quality sites and I don't have to make this into a hatchet job just to indicate there are problems with SGM. Obviously at this point adding or deleting those links is considering tendentious editing according to Ed.

So you game or we leave the article like this until someone feels like putting together an entire RFC on the matter? jbolden1517^Talk 22:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I would advise an RFC. It would be a public service to do so, because it might stop the addition and removal of the links for a while.
2. Including a phrase in the actual article, commenting on the exit sites, that says Wikipedia doesn't endorse their content is certainly not appropriate. We also have a guideline that forbids disclaimers in articles.
3. My personal opinion (which is worth about two cents) is that a section on exit counselling is not justified unless you find reliable sources that have commented on those sites. It is Wikipedia's mission to accurately reflect what reliable sources have written, so if nothing is yet written in WP:RS about those sites, then we have no obligation to include them. It *really* shouldn't be that hard to find sources, though. At least there should be newspaper articles that have recorded some complaints about SGM.
4. Taking a look at the boxed-up section at top of this page, I see editors on this page have tried dispute resolution in the past. I'd suggest that, if a new RFC is held, you guys ask an uninvolved administrator to close it, one way or the other. That might give some finality. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks for commenting. I agree with the RFC. Do you think it might make sense if we are going to open this to an RFC to address the more general issue, anti-church discussion boards? This effects numerous churches it is not specific to SGM. We have a general problem that the only (or at least best) place to get information about "bad stuff" regarding churches is from these sorts of internet discussions. Often the people on them are WP:RS since they are making statements against interest. But... those same discussions include all sorts of questionable materials from semi-anonymous posters. Sure there are lots of materials about Seven Sisters churches but when we get to denominations with 2,000 - 100,000 things get much dicier.

Several of the sources BTW on exit counseling are reliable sources. Jim (host of SGMrefuge) is a former leader out of Florida, many of the articles talk about things he did or witnessed personally. As far as references about SGM in mainstream news, yes there are but they are unrepresentative sample. What's driving the critics is a policy of spiritual abuse which effects dozens of areas, and at least to the best of my knowledge those resources don't exist in a comprehensive format. Nor do I think we want to cover every possible type of case. That's the reason people want SGMSsurvivors on here.

I'll pick an example,the fact that SGM encourages early marriage we can document. The fact that early marriage churches creates lots of sexual problems in their members we can document, but really likely belongs in a separate article. That SGM doesn't have a pastoral staff with the right training to deal with this we can document (I think). But... putting this all together is WP:SYN. And what can't be documented is how this plays out in individual cases: excommunications, divorce, spousal and child abuse. There will be references to that eventually, but in the meanwhile we could potentially help a few hundred to a thousand couples by letting them know. We can't directly say "do not counseling from your SGM pastor who has had 0 psychological training, talk to a real therapist" but I'd like to at least point them to someone who would say that. What we can document is the misconduct that SGM engaged in 10 years ago but I'm not sure how helpful this is. We just aren't set up to deal with the range of problems, it isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. What is IMHO appropriate for an encyclopedia to indicate, in some vague way, that we are dealing with a very troubled church and where to go for help. jbolden1517^Talk 15:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's up to you how you want to phrase the RFC. But the wider you make it, the harder it will be to get consensus of the participants. Incidentally, while I see that Christianity Today (a reliable source) has commented on Gary Ezzo, I don't see any sources to justify the Debra Baker paragraph. We are not allowed to use her personal blog as a source for any matters of fact. Your remark ..in the meanwhile we could potentially help a few hundred to a thousand couples by letting them know is not an argument that Wikipedia policy allows us to defer to. We are not here to publicize good causes or warn people about questionable things; we just summarize what reliable sources have said.

Regarding ..the only (or at least best) place to get information about "bad stuff" regarding churches is from these sorts of internet discussions, once again, see What Wikipedia is not. We are not a soapbox, a guidebook, or a cautionary tale; we just tell the facts as they have been documented. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed Christianity today is just to establish there is a Gary Ezzo controversy. The Christian Resource Institute articles and the Ezzo responses are the ones with the Baker information (do a search for Baker in those 4 refs). I don't site her blog anywhere to establish anything other than her continued activity. And I understand our policy regarding reliable sources, I've been around for a while. That's why I started putting together the stuff for SGM's involvement in the TNIV/ESV controversy. jbolden1517^Talk 04:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that helps. I still think that the reference to Debra Baker's blog should be omitted, and suggest that this section has no citation except to Baker herself:

The excommunication has been questioned online and as a result of this Debra Baker remains active in SGM exit counseling [46] as well as in anti-patriarchy groups

Her blog can be used for her opinions (if they are significant) but not her activities, in my view. Also, 'questioned online' is kind of weasely since we don't say by who, and we are probably not allowed to use whatever site it was that questioned the excommunication.

It would be good if the earlier part of Baker's paragraph could be rewritten, because there is a direct-quoted passage and it's unclear which of the many references is being quoted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All 4 references confirm the quote. If memory serves, 1 reference contains the quote (as per the article), 1 reference has a lengthy discussion verifying it and more context (longer version). 1 references has pieces of the longer version and 1 reference paraphrases the short version. They all assert the quote is correctly understood, and all 4 agree that SGM is standing by it as policy. That's why I made it so central, it is by SGM and we have lots of RS that agree they said it and they meant it.

As for as questioned online activities, one place I can think of that has questioned it is Church Discipline which has been cited by the Texas bar journal (reputable 3rd party publication) as experts on church discipline. Iffy as an RS in an unrelated matter since it is self published and the citation was on a different case. But on the other hand they've written directly about problems with SGM discipline model [12] based entirely on what we would consider a reliable source (members handbook for covenant life church), Maheney's own statements.... Another possibility would be to pull this material out and use with permission.

A for Baker's blog Baker is a first party witness (WP:SELFPUB) against SGM on the issue of Spiritual abuse. In other words her blog contains her understanding of what happened and why and her understanding is pertinent since she is a first party to the Debra Baker incident. If we agree on that I can deal with the weasel word by just quoting her and deep linking to the blog (I think). jbolden1517^Talk 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUB, item #2, can you quote Baker in such a way that she does not make any statements about third parties :-). I think that would be difficult. If a murder happened, we would not quote from the personal blogs of all the witnesses as though that were a good source of information. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are using the terms in the same way. From Baker's perspective she is 1st party, SGM and the ministers directly involved would be 1st or 2nd party and say someone like Mike Dever (who endorses) SGM is 3rd party. Assuming you are using that definition then absolutely I can. jbolden1517^Talk 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We may actually be in agreement on this. Rather than use up space on article Talk, if this discussion needs to be continued perhaps it could be on User talk. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK we have her stuff. This is IMHO getting WP:UNDUE, I think moving some of this to footnotes makes sense. But I want to get agreement on text first. jbolden1517^Talk 04:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I alone now? No response for a while. If I'm alone I'm just going to implement what the mediator suggested in 2008 which IMHO was a much more reasonable approach than what this article has become. I think the mediator was correct. So if you are out there speak now otherwise I'm just going to go with the mediator's suggestion. jbolden1517^Talk 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The mediator, Steve Crossin, gave his advice in very general terms. Why don't you spell out here on Talk the actual text you would add to the article, and give people a chance to react? If your proposal is large, you could put it here on the Talk page in a collapse box. EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is to get rid of the section about online controversy entirely. Collapse Baker to a sentence on using excommunication to achieve social conformity. Add back in ELs for SGMsurvivors, SGMrefuge, I kissed dating goodbye... plus some other like spiritual tyranny and church discipline. Give these appropriate descriptions. And that's it.

And then if we can move on to discussing areas to make this a quality article, like doctrinal distintives and ties to homeschooling. TNIV/ESV deserves mention but I'm still not sure how to do this fairly without writing an editorial. jbolden1517^Talk 13:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal to reduce the Debra Baker material seems right. The very large quote that you've taken from Baker's personal blog seems excessive, since it is unlikely her narrative has been commented on by any reliable sources. If it had actually been discussed in the press, you could use their comments instead. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stopped by on this page today for the first time in a while, and I was rather disppointed with what I found. Many of the issues have already been discussed above, and I'm hoping the editor will make some of the changes to get this up to a quality article again. Here are some additional thoughts--

• The Baker if it is to be kept story needs more detail, such as dates, pastors involved, etc. It also needs a desription of current status; I don't know whether Covenant Fellowship still endorses the Ezzo method, but it would be good to know, just as the fallout with Larry is given a historical timeframe. It's my understanding from Church Discipline's blog that this happened some time ago, possibly over a decade ago, and the other details should be available there, too.
• :Personally, I don't think the quotation is appropriate. What's prevent anyone to quote their own words as a reliable source (pro or con)? Then it simply becomes a piece of opinion couched in a citation. Frankly, that's how it reads now.
• The cite contains information about SGM Survivors, but it lacks a reference to the other main SGM-crticial website, SGMRefuge. Per the comments above, I think it's probably more appropriate to include those as citations rather than endorsements.
• The "SGM Uncensored" blog section should probably be moved to the criticism section. Additionally, I would like to see the topics organized better. Here is a proposal: Overview, History, Doctrine, Publishing, Music, Criticism. Appropriate subtitles could be added.

Finally, a disclaimer. I'm a member of CLC, and I like this organization. I have no problem with critics contributing; however, the criticsms written here are predominantly anecdotal evidence with very little substantiation. It would be preferable to cast criticsm in the context of SGM's own documents rather than vague, ill-defined references to things like a "cult-like culture." For example, if critics disagree with SGM's practice of xxx, link to SGM's statement on xxx and discuss its weaknesses. Nfitzkee (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

One fallacy of what you are saying Nfitzkee about referring to SGM documents is that many of Sovereign Grace Ministries policies aren't always written in their statements. There are a lot of unwritten rules that are imposed on members various ways. They aren't all written. Geocacher301 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Geocacher301: Given the sheer number of SGM sermons, conferences, church websites, etc. posted on the web, I find it extremely hard to believe that there are significant policies that can't be documented properly without having to resort to conspiracy theories about 'unwritten rules.' These sources are all perfectly legitimate according to WP:RS, and many have served as a springboard for criticism of SGM. Nfitzkee (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

If I go for a more general RFC I want to keep a few other examples. Invisible Pink Unicorn is another article with the same problem. This is an article about a usenet meme and so the best sources are on usenet. There are lots of reliable sources that mention the meme but don't go into detail. jbolden1517^Talk 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)