Talk:The Burning Bush

recent edit warring

Watchman1234, could you please familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:ISNOT, WP:RS and probably a whole bunch of other guidelines and policies? The continued reversal of your addition of personal opinions/interpretations/whatnot to this article is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. In any case, after your additions were reverted, you're not supposed to start edit warring, but take the matter to the talk page and discuss then issues there. (Please see WP:BOLD). Your additions to this article are inappropriate and obviously contested, so instead of stubbornly restoring them each time that they are removed, please discuss the issue at the talk page. Cryptic edit summaries are not enough. Continuing to edit war will only lead to a WP:BLOCK. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Randykitty, I think it is arrogant to remove a substantial portion of someone's article without consulting him by simply saying that it is the writer's personal opinion when what was removed is substantiated facts. The courteous way is to question each part if you disagree with it or to reword the disputed part to make it appear more objective so that others can review and see if the reworded part is indeed acceptable. I'm not sure that you are really objective when you have approved the article when it had this part, "Consequently, the Rev Tan Eng Boo, pastor of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church, criticized the publication as "once an edifying magazine" which has since been "targeted to combat non-VPPs" and "put down B-P pastors and elders who are not supportive" of the VPP doctrine," when it first appeared without any material then present in the article (based on substantiated facts) to challenge it. One can only be objective or non-opinionated in allowing both VPP and non-VPP views expressed by those involved in the controversy (i.e., Life BPC, FEBC, Jeffrey Khoo, Tan Eng Boo, etc.) to appear in the article. The person who contributed the afore-mentioned statement, "Consequently, the Rev Tan Eng Boo, pastor of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church, criticized ...," was certainly of the view or opinion (was he not?) that the Rev Tan Eng Boo's criticism was true or had merit. Similarly, my contribution on the Rev Tan Eng Boo's view being incorrect as substantiated by independent facts (which were not my creation) should also not be deleted -- as was unfairly done by you. I believe you put up the notability templates to remove The Burning Bush and also Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others. If I'm correct here, you would clearly be prejudiced or opinionated against VPP, FEBC, Jeffrey Khoo, Timothy Tow, etc. --Watchman1234 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Watchman1234, please also read WP:CIVIL. No, it is not arrogant to change somebody's contributions. That happens here all the time. As for your apparent impression that this is "your" article ("someone's article without consulting him"), please see WP:OWN. As for why the text that I removed is inappropriate, it's difficult to even start because there's a myriad of reasons. Let me list just a few. 1/ "a wealth of historically and ecclesiastically valuable articles" is unduly promotional. You can only say something like that if you have a reliable source independent of the subject that says so. As it stands, there's no source at all. 2/ "The criticism is apparently without basis as The Burning Bush continues to have news, reports, books reviews and articles not related to VPP (although some of these also made brief mention of the preserved words of God)." This statement is sourced to the journal homepage. Apparently it is your interpretation of the contents of the journal. That is original research, which is not allowed here. Again, you need an independent reliable source for statements like this. 3/ "The Rev Dr Jack Sin, a member of FEBC’s faculty until 2007 (he is so listed until the January 2007 issue of The Burning Bush), should know that the above verses cited by him were never used in the articles in The Burning Bush by proponents of VPP in the way he had portrayed but only used as a foundation or initial argument against VPP opponents who do not believe that God’s words have been fully preserved before the next argument is made, based on the logic of faith, that these perfectly preserved words are found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text underlying the English King James Version Bible – see Verbal Plenary Preservation." No source at all. Apparently it is (again) your opinion that in "should know" certain things. This is again original research (or, at best, synthesis), which is not allowed. You need sources for this.

I could continue phrase by phrase because the things I wrote above go for everything you wrote. WP is not the place to fight out feuds (and I have noticed that the same weakly sourced stuff has been added to several other articles). If a feud is notable, we report on it in a neutral way. "Rev so and so should know better" is not exactly neutral...

One final remark. Please refrain from making accusations about editors being prejudiced or such (please see WP:NPA). Comment on the issues, not the people. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Randykitty, What was deleted by you was, as you were probably aware, mainly my contribution. It is clear that I don't claim everything in the article was written by me: in other words I don't claim I owned the whole article. As is clear, I pointed you to ""Consequently, the Rev Tan Eng Boo, pastor of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church, criticized the publication as "once an edifying magazine" which has since been "targeted to combat non-VPPs" and "put down B-P pastors and elders who are not supportive" of the VPP doctrine"" which you seemed to approve as you made edits after this had appeared without removing it (but decided to do so now). Bpc.sg, independent of me as well as The Burning Bush, had in Gpedia: Articles for deletion / The Burning Bush written: "Considering its (The Burning Bush's) worldwide circulation, ... Further, it contains a ton of historically and ecclesiastically valuable content such as a primer on the doctrine of preservation, festschrifts, memoirs, ..." If you think "a wealth of historically and ecclesiastically valuable articles" is promotional, this may be amended with reason stated that anything promotional is not permitted even though one may verify from the articles in the many issues in The Burning Bush that what Bpc.sg said is true (and not merely promotional). There are articles written by VPP proponents (including those in the FEBC) which did not use any Bible verses to say that the original Scripture words or texts underlying the King James Version are the original verbally and plenarily inspired Scriptures and the readers are referred in "see Verbal Plenary Preservation" to see this point substantiated or its sources. The references cited of Jack Sin being a member of the FEBC faculty until 2007 is also substantiated (although further evidence may be provided) and it is clear from this that the Rev Dr Jack Sin should know (since he was in FEBC -- common sense will tell us that such knowledge can be expected of him by a reasonable person (should this not be so?), including Biak who had written that Rev Dr Sin was not or could not be honest or objective) of the happenings in the FEBC and the Rev Dr Sin was obviously referring to the FEBC (and not another body or person) quoting the Bible verses cited by him, no matter how often, as being unable to prove that the original language words or texts underlying the King James Version are the originally verbally and plenarily inspired Scriptures (the autographs) -- when the FEBC never attempted to do so (see Verbal Plenary Preservation). Should the Rev Dr Jack Sin not know (since he was in FEBC)? What "independent sources" are we talking about? Even if there are independent sources, their sources of information would also have to come from the sources involved in the controversy. The weekly bulletin of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church which contributed to the entry, ""once an edifying magazine" which has since been "targeted to combat non-VPPs" and "put down B-P pastors and elders who are not supportive" of the VPP doctrine," cannot be independent since the Rev Tan Eng Boo, the pastor of the church, is non-VPP. But when this was put in, as mentioned above, you did not delete it. We should have facts from both VPP and non-VPP sources put in the article so as to be balanced and objective. Although no longer consequential, since I was advised in another place that I was wrong, I'd appreciate it if you could advise me on who was/were the person/s who put up the notability templates to delete The Burning Bush and Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others if you should happen to know. If you don't know, no problem and thanks for your kind attention. --Watchman1234 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you completely failed to understand what I wrote above. The article Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others was never marked for deletion. It was (with ample justification) marked for lack of notability by StAnselm (as you can easily see from the article history). But this is not the place to discuss that article and its merits or lack thereof. The (exceedingly) paragraph that you posted just above has all the problems that I pointed out above. It is full of reasoning by you about what things are supposed to mean. That is exactly what we mean with OR and SYNTH. As a WP editor, I don't care whatsoever about what you or I or any other editor think ourselves about a certain subject. The only thing what counts is what reliable sources write and we base our articles on that. Anything else is inadmissible and must go. Please take the time to read the guidelines and policies that I have linked to in this comment and the others above. Like it or not, we have to adhere to those guidelines in what we write here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice that the article Khoo Jeffrey and others v Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and others was marked for lack of notability by StAnselm. Following your indication that this is easily checked from the article history, and just to be complete (since I didn't have your advice on this), I checked on the The Burning Bush and it seemed that the lack of notability template here was put up by you Randykitty -- please correct me if I'm wrong. Notwithstanding, I'll not want to say that you are prejudiced since you have indicated that you're not, and Wikipedia's policy requires us not to regard fellow editors as biased or prejudiced. Thanks for guiding me through on this. -- Watchman1234 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Tahc I wonder how Randykitty’s version is much better when my last version, before your [Tahc’s] edit, was identical to Randykitty’s version at the beginning except that Randykitty used “established” when I had used “first published” in “The journal was established in 1971 as a newsletter of the college,” and I had included Bpc.sg’s “[albeit without a digital object identifier (DOI)]” which Randykitty removed. While I don’t see any issue with Bpc.sg’s contribution here, I’ll not fight tooth and nail over this, as this is not critical. The lack of mention of any DOI in The Burning Bush means that Bpc.sg was probably right in adding in this piece of information. No problem with removing it, if you and Randykitty insist.

Criticism section

I wonder why Randykitty’s “established” is the right or the much better word to use in place of my “first published” when page 60 of Magnify the Lord for the January 1971 milestone of the FEBC, which you also have as the reference, reads as follows: “The Burning Bush, the official organ of FEBC, was first published.” Perhaps you can enlighten me on your preference. Did you not check what was written on page 60 or you had placed your complete trust in Randykitty that what he wrote is definitely better or more accurate (no matter what)? Randykitty removed the entire “Criticism and Credibility” section. But he did not do so when there was only criticism of The Burning Bush with no contribution to defend it against the criticism. When my contribution defending The Burning Bush was added, the entire section was removed by Randykitty. You have now reinstated the criticism without allowing my contribution countering the criticism and now want me to discuss with you anything I wish to add back before I do so. This is rather unfair as you have not applied the same rules to yourself in removing my contribution entirely. You have also now reinstated the criticism (without the counter) with your reworded version as follows: “The Burning Bush and its publishier [sic] uniformly support verbal plenary preservation and it has been criticized as combating people personally that espouse other views and for writting [sic] on few other topics anymore.” If you look at the Rev Tan’s article, he had written: “It was once an edifying magazine, but today, it is used to put down B-P pastors and elders who are not supportive of their cause. There is nothing edifying in this magazine which publishes only about VPP.” Rev Tan said “this magazine publishes only about VPP” but you seem to be helping him out of his ludicrous claim by saying that The Burning Bush is “writting [sic] on few other topics anymore.” Is this not OR or your own opinion? Mine was: "Notwithstanding the Rev Tan's criticism, The Burning Bush continues to have theological papers (not all of which are VPP), sermons, festschrifts, testimonies, book reviews, college news, and alumni reports." You have now removed my contribution regarding the Rev Tan’s attempt with others to put down VPP by calling it “heresy” (and those who believe in VPP are heretics). Since it is Wikipedia’s policy that editors should not regard fellow editors as biased or prejudiced, I shall leave you to explain how your contribution here is unbiased (if this means fair to both sides) and encyclopedic (if this means “full” or “comprehensive” in coverage) if you removed what I wrote and presented only the view of the non-VPP side. You have also removed my contribution that the Singapore Court of Appeal, which is neutral and clearly unbiased (or are you disagreeing with this?), did not agree with the view of Life B-P Church and the Rev Tan that VPP is not heresy or a deviant doctrine. Are you adopting WP:NPOV? You may edit what I contributed to bring them in line with WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH but you should not be removing my contributions entirely if these are substantiated by facts and sources and can be re-written to comply with the policies. Is it fair that I need to discuss with you my contribution, but you don’t need to discuss with me your contribution, before my contribution is put in? --Watchman1234 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Watchman1234: While I am not going to reply everything you wrote above, I will talk to you about the article so-long-as you (1) talk about just one thing at a time (2) make your statements much briefer (3) make efforts (on an as-needed basis) to understand Wikipedia policy.

Please note: a criticism section of a Wikipedia article (if there is one) is (1) normally about criticism only and (2) normally is short compared to the article as a whole.

I did remove (nearly) all the criticism section of this article because it was (not only full of WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH but also) poorly written and hopeless confused. It made such great efforts to refute any and all criticism that I could very rarely tell which was the criticism and which was the counter-criticism.

When I tried to recreate (at least) one sentence out of the mess I chose the one sentence to be about criticism (and not counter-criticism) for what I think are obvious reasons. Also note-- I did invite you add more after discussion here in the edit summary.

Here is my advice to you. (1) Stop (for now) explaining to other editors and myself why you did not like our/my edit(s). (2) Do write here on the talk page a new sentence or two of content to add to the article. If there is WP:consensus here on the talk page to add the sentence(s) to the artcle itself, we can do that. (3) If you think we can make article even better by removing or changing a sentence that is already in the article then you can talk about that here and seek WP:consensus for that change-- so long as you tell us exactly how you want to change it. (4) If you do not, at first, gain consensus on your small change, then the process to do so will help you understand Wikipedia policy, and and the next edit you propose will (hopefully) gain consensus much faster.

You do not have to follow this advice, but I think it is your best path to impoving the article in a way that we can all agree with. tahc ^chat 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tahc: Thanks for your message. I’d appreciate if you can advise on agreement to changing "The Burning Bush and its publishier (sic) uniformly support verbal plenary preservation and it has been criticized as combating people personally that espouse other views and for writting (sic) on few other topics anymore" to "The Burning Bush and its publisher uniformly support verbal plenary preservation and it has been criticized by the Rev Tan Eng Boo, the pastor of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church, as combating people personally that espouse other views and for publishing only about VPP. However, The Burning Bush continues to publish few other non-VPP topics.” The above change can be supported as the Rev Tan Eng Boo wrote that The Burning Bush now “publishes only about VPP.” The last statement on the journal continuing to publish few other non-VPP materials can be supported by a reference to The Burning Bush website where readers can verify from all the issues if The Burning Bush also publishes non-VPP topics. Alternatively, certain issues of The Burning Bush with non-VPP topics can be cited as references to support the statement. --Watchman1234 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Basic isssues I have with your purple version above are (1) we don't need so much info about Eng Boo... it should either be "Eng Boo" or "Tan Eng Boo" (2) don't use "VPP" on Wikipedia. I will rewrite with a better version (IMO) and ask you and others of even bigger issues with it.

The Burning Bush and its publisher uniformly support [verbal plenary preservation] and the journal has been criticized by Tan Eng Boo, as combating people personally that espouse other views and for publishing only about that doctrine The Burning Bush continues to publish sometimes on other topics.

(3) Dose anyone else besides Tan Eng Boo make serious criticism of The Burning Bush? If he is the only one making serious criticism of it, then maybe this article doesn't need any criticism section at all. If others besides Eng Boo are also making the same criticism, then we should not need to name Eng Boo like this since he is still named in the reference and others do make these criticisms.

(4) Even if Eng Boo claimed The Burning Bush publishes "only about VPP" do we really think Eng Boo meant absolutly literly nothing but verbal plenary preservation. This interpatation (while it is a seemly straitfoward) is tough to show. It seems more likly that he meant "nothing useful" or "nothing much" besides VPP. Even if you think this view, IMO, we would need a longer quote and we would be need a much more reliable sources than this link, for Wikipedia to make this claim, even if it were not a dead link. If other people also claim literly nothing but verbal plenary preservation, how do we know this is not the case? If (as is more likely) other criticize it for mostly about verbal plenary preservation, then let's just use a claim of "mostly about verbal plenary preservation" since that is a more realitic criticism.

(5) After all this... if we still include this claim at all, why do we have to say all overt again that "The Burning Bush continues to publish sometimes on other topics"? That was already covered in more detail under thw content section! tahc ^chat 18:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) I have no problem with writing “Tan Eng Boo” or “Eng Boo” without including “the Rev” title.

(2) I’m not sure what you meant by “don’t use VPP on Wikipedia” – as my version used verbal plenary version (with Wikilink) like yours. However, if you mean don’t use Wikilink here, this is also fine with me since the Wikilink for verbal plenary preservation is already in the sentence “The journal focusses on verbal plenary preservation” under the earlier “Content” section and there is no need to repeat the link with later reference to the same term. I have no issue with the new version suggested by you and have added the live reference to augment the dead reference. The dead reference was live when the initial contributor (whoever he/she was inserted who had it in 2015) and was so until November last year. The version with all the references would be as follows: The Burning Bush and its publisher uniformly support verbal plenary preservation and the journal has been criticized by Tan Eng Boo, as combating people personally that espouse other views and for publishing only about that doctrine.” The Burning Bush continues to publish sometimes on other topics. I have no problem with deleting “However” at the beginning of the second sentence that was in my version.

(3) As my write-up is based on written evidence or proof, I’m unable to answer you on whether there are others who have serious criticism of The Burning Bush since I don’t have the written evidence or proof. As such, I have indicated Tan Eng Boo as making the claim instead of making it appear that there are others making the claim. Tan Eng Boo may or may not be the only one making the claim. My view is that we should not speculate which is more probable but simply state that it is Tan Eng Boo who is making the claim (since this is supported by his article).

(4) If we don’t want to violate NOR, if I understand this correctly now, we should not be drawing our own conclusion that Tan Eng Boo did not mean what he said (even if this is obvious, which I think is not). We should accept what he wrote was what he had meant (even if he was wrong). He did not simply say that The Burning Bush now (today) “publishes only about VPP.” This is what he had said or written in full in the article which has re-surfaced on a new live link: “It [The Burning Bush] was once an edifying magazine, but today, it is used to put down B-P pastors and elders who are not supportive of their cause. There is nothing edifying in this magazine which publishes only about VPP.” The words speak for themselves. The source for Tan Eng Boo’s article is the weekly of Grace Bible-Presbyterian Church where Tan Eng Boo is the pastor. So, even though not independent, it should be reliable (regarding what he said) as the weekly is his own church's – written and/or edited by him. It is not possible to always get independent sources on church matters when there are not many outside persons writing on churches that they don’t attend or visit or have not much knowledge about unless such churches have put up a lot of materials on the internet for persons who are interested to put in time and effort to understand them. Independent sources usually obtain information from the direct sources themselves. When Roland Chia, a Methodist minister wrote on “What led to the formation of the Bible-Presbyterian Church?” he relied on Bible-Presbyterian sources for his write-up. As such, I think the rule on independent sources should not be applied strictly in certain circumstances like articles on churches and generally in Asian matters where news reporting is not as intensive or as extensive as in the U.S. and we don’t have that many reporters and journalists to form independent sources. Independent sources, which are not only considerably reduced, are also not always reliable. For example, John Arul of the New Paper in “Church sues Bible College directors” had his facts wrong when he wrote that True Life B-P Church registered the college as a charity organisation in January 2004 without Life B-P Church’s knowledge. If Arul had taken the information from documents filed by Life B-P Church, then the source here (which is independent of FEBC) was incorrect as True Life B-P Church was not yet registered as a society (an unincorporated association) or charity when FEBC registered as a charity. This could have been verified from documents filed in the proceedings by FEBC (the direct source) or from records filed by FEBC with the Commissioner of Charities and accessible also by the public. Since there is no evidence regarding what other people claim, whether The Burning Bush publishes nothing but VPP or it publishes mostly VPP, I think no personal view should be formed regarding which outcome is more likely. If we do this, would it not be OR or personal opinion?

(5) As Tan Eng Boo’s claim is questionable, it would be logical to put “The Burning Bush continues to publish sometimes on other topics” after his claim to show that it is so. In my view, the previous “The journal focusses on verbal plenary preservation, reformed and Calvinist theology, contemporary and practical issues, festschrifts, chronological milestones, …” does not show Eng Boo’s claim to be questionable as it was put up for a different purpose to list the contents of ' 'The Burning Bush' '. As such, it should be okay to say “The Burning Bush continues to publish sometimes on other topics.” – this time simply without repeating the long listing of all the contents of the journal.--Watchman1234 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If want me to follow this thread please do not make your posts quite so long, and if you hope to have anyone else follow this thread besides you and me, you should definatly make your posts shorter.

Watchman1234, I don't know what to make your claim (as I understand it) that Tan Eng Boo may or may not be the only one to make serious criticism... since of anyone reading this I am guessing you are the best informed person on that question.

Basicly you want to quote Tan Eng Boo word for word and (for some unknown reason) consider his words "proof" that his words should be taken literally. Your claim of ignorance on the number 3 issue also does not add anything to your view that Tan Eng Boo should be interpeted literally.

I now hope some third (or more) person(s) might weight in at this point such as @Randykitty:. To Randykitty (and others), I feel our only semi-good options are these below. Which do you like?

A-- Leave the current live version,as of today, as it is.

B-- Remove the whole criticism section, as most articles do not need a criticism section-- assuming that Eng Boo is or may be the only known critic.

C-- Keep the criticism of "as combating people personally"-- assuming that the criticism of a journal being mostly about only one topic is (to me at least) not that big a deal even if true-- and drop that part.

D-- Change the text "Tan Eng Boo" and "publishing only about that doctrine" as Watchman1234 wants-- but leave it for the reader to interpet the quote. In other words we still do not add that it "continues to publish sometimes on other topics" since that is (i) is covered elsewhere and (ii) would be Wikipedia interpeting Eng Boo literally with only a vague quote and a not very reliable source and (iii) if truly meant to be literal would proably be an non-crediable criticism anyhow. tahc ^chat 17:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a fifth alternative which are the words in green in (2) above as follows:

E-- The Burning Bush and its publisher uniformly support verbal plenary preservation and the journal has been criticized by Tan Eng Boo, as combating people personally that espouse other views and for publishing only about that doctrine.” The Burning Bush continues to publish sometimes on other topics.-- since A is Wikipedia not interpreting Tan Eng Boo literally and what is covered elsewhere is not near to indicate that the first statement is questionable. -- Watchman1234 (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

contents section

I'm not going to wad through all the above (Watchman1234, please have a look at the advice given in WP:TLDR. I think that before we can address the criticism issue, we should first have a look at the contents section, which (among other things) claims that "[T]he journal focusses on verbal plenary preservation...". The reference given is the journal homepage, which doesn't say anything like that. Removing that claim makes the (very weakly sourced) criticism rather moot. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Randykitty, Since the other reference (under criticism) is about The Burning Bush seemingly only covering the issue of VPP, I fail to see why we need any other reference that it is about VPP at all. tahc ^chat 18:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Have yu seen that reference? The links are dead... --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see the link at febcblogspot.sg where the same article re-surfaced in January 2017 as the link to http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg became dead (probably in November 2016)--Watchman1234 (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Clicking that link gets me the message "blog not found". And blogs are only very rarely considered to be reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't get the same "blog not found" message when I clicked on the article in the new blogspot at febcbpc.blogspot.sg. The url for Tan Eng Boo's article in the new blogspot is http://febcbpc.blogspot.sg/2017/01/a-very-sad-state-of-bible-presbyterian.html. The blogspot in this instance posted Tan Eng Boo's article in its entirety. --Watchman1234 (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The link you now give works indeed. However, this is not a reliable source (in the WP sense). We'll need a better source for this statement, or it should go. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that the link now works for you. http://febcbpc.blog.spot.sg is no different from http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg which first posted “A Very Sad State of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore Today” and inserted in The Burning Bush on 22 September 2015 as an “independent source” for reference. A good number of other editors have posted since, which is about one and a half years ago, without raising any concern about the reliability of the source. Interestingly, you were the first other editor on 30 September 2015 to edit after http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg first appeared as a reference and you did not raise any concern on reliability until now. --Watchman1234 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That I didn't see something for a while, doesn't mean that I approved it, that other editors checked and approved it, or that nobody now can ever say something about it. BTW, the link in the article is still dead, so nobody could check this stuff until you posted the correct link above. In any case, Grace Weekly does not appear to be an outlet with rigorous editorial control, as required by WP:RS so this is unusable as a source (even if it were still available on the original site and not reposted on a blog). --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don’t’ think The Burning Bush was that lengthy as of 30 September 2015 that WP:TLDR applied and you didn’t read or see the link or reference (there were only four references as of that date) or the remarks “inserted indp source” in the summary of the edit. The link http://febcbpc.blogspot.sg/2017/01/a-very-sad-state-of-bible-presbyterian.html was always there and I simply repeated the link after you had indicated that you could not find the blog. I don’t think you were honest when you replied, “The link you now give works indeed” as this gives readers the impression that I had given the wrong link previously. You are apparently asking me to do an impossible task to restore the link http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg/2009/02/very-sad-state-of-bible-presbyterian.html as I don't own the blog http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg which has been removed. I also did not give you the wrong link http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg/2009/02/very-sad-state-of-bible-presbyterian.html, which is now dead, so there is no question that I now need to post the correct link. You should check the link as posted on 22 September 2015 by the original contributor (I think this is only reasonable as it can be easily done) to satisfy yourself that I had now given the wrong link before asking me to post the correct link (if a wrong link was posted by me in the first place, which I believe is not the case). If your intention is to give readers a negative impression of me, then I can only say that you have acted unfairly or unconscionably. I also do not control the website “Grace weekly” so I cannot have the article “A Very Sad State of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore Today” posted again at my will. I’m not sure if "Grace Weekly" needs to have perfect English, if this is what is meant by rigorous editorial control. Tan Eng Boo, the pastor of Grace B-P Church, is certainly a credentiated member of the editorial staff of “Grace Weekly": WP:RS. His article “A Very Sad State of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore Today” was posted in its entirety on http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg/2009/02/very-sad-state-of-bible-presbyterian.html (and now on http://febcbpc.blogspot.sg/2017/01/a-very-sad-state-of-bible-presbyterian.html) and what is used in The Burning Bush is from the article itself and not from comments (if any) to the article posted by readers of the http://vpplawsuit.blogspot.sg blog. The relevant part here is about Tan Eng Boo's claim that The Burning Bush now "publishes only about VPP" -- which is plain to understand. BTW, I clicked reliable source (in the WP sense) and I saw "this page Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact title." I saw on WP:List of policies and guidelines that one of the five pillars is that "Wikipedia has no firm rules." As such, I wonder if there is a need to stick rigidly to the rules if common sense dictates otherwise. -- Watchman1234 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

References