Wsparkman

OPC Demographics Edit Discussion

Dear Wsparkman,

The racial and political demographics of a group are indeed relevant information for an encyclopedia article. The citations in this section are more abundant than in any other portion of the article. If you do not like the racial or political demographics of the OPC, you are free to work within your denomination to try to change them. But you are not free to delete an accurate encyclopedia entry on the historical and current racial and political demographics of the OPC.

You claimed that this section editorialized. This is a rather bizarre claim considering another section of this article actually claimed to identify the most important part of the Bible?!? What could be more editorialized than that? Without the full demographics contributions, this article is mostly just plagiarism from the OPC's official website. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia wing of the OPC website. And it isn't the encyclopedia wing of OPC ministers. It is a neutral forum. The OPC has really said, done, and published the political ideas and racial reports that I have addressed. If you are embarrassed by this, then you are free to work with the OPC to change. But you are not free to delete an encyclopedia entry.

The demographic sections that you continue to delete are written from a neutral point of view and follow all of Wikipedia's rules. Feel free to add to it or make minor changes. But if you continue to delete this whole cloth I will report you to Wikipedia's editors.

You have started in an edit war, trying to control the OPC's wikipedia entry to reflect the marketing of the OPCs official website. This is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. This is not what an encyclopedia is for.

Reply to 31.6.58.19

Greetings.

Let me consider this a test attempt to contact you regarding this matter. I don't see that you have a Wikipedia user page, and so am not sure that this will reach you.

Upon reply, I will be glad to take up some of the issues that you raised.

Thanks.

wsparkman

Reply to wsparkman

Dear Mr. Sparkman,

This is indeed a good way to communicate.

I invite (indeed encourage) you to help make this section (and others) better. But the tactic of deleting material for no good reason will not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.203.242 (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings: Sorry for the delay, but I will try to come back tomorrow (Sat.). Family health has taken precedence.

02/05/14. Back now (finally). Stomach flu, etc.

I'm not a member of the OPC, but was asked by a friend to make those edits. So no, I'm not engaged in any "edit war." I see where the confusion might arise however. Reviewing the edit history, it appears that at least one other person had previously tried to edit those sections. Also, I will readily admit that I'm still something of a novice on Wiki, and haven't reviewed the Wiki standards in quite some time. In this, you've done me a service and I recognize that I do need to review that material. The edits that I made were made with the promise that new content would be provided shortly. Who would have thought that anyone would miss such content for a few days?

To your one point, I can certainly agree that those two section headings may well be appropriate to the page. The contention however is that the content, as it currently stands, is not neutral, but rather, is more or less prejudicial (particularly in the Politics section).

In the Racial section, much of your information is based upon a 1974 report--40 years old! Much has undoubtedly changed since then. How to evidence that change? The best point of access that I can think of would be the OPC's New Horizon magazine, though I haven't the time to ferret out the evidence, if it's there. Anecdotally, I can at least say that one New York state OPC congregation that I visited years ago had a good racial mix. But then, that's only anecdotal evidence, and just for one congregation. Also, a minor point: In the Presbyterian system, committees are always dissolved after presenting their reports, unless perhaps the report is considered incomplete in some fashion. Dissolution of a committee is not a negative thing. Nor are committees empowered or tasked with effecting desired changes.

In the Politics section, you raise a number of interesting topics, but again, I simply don't have the time to respond substantively to each. But as I read what you've written, the sense you convey as the writer is that you expect the reader to be shocked and repulsed by what you've revealed about the OPC. That is not a neutral presentation of the material. Nor, accordingly, do I think your presentation is correct in all its aspects. [otherwise I guess I'd be shocked and repulsed! :o) ] What would be particularly helpful and even foundational in that section would be a discussion of the OPC's view of what is known as the "doctrine of the spirituality of the church." That prevailing doctrine in the OPC, albeit unofficial, provides a different picture that informs and nuances all else under this section. Speciifically, the Church, as the Church, may not meddle in politics. They may speak to moral and ethical issues, but no more. Individuals in the Church may be politically active, but may not speak politically on behalf of the Church. [Here, to speak to one of your points, had a Republican president promoted homosexuality in some fashion during his or her term, I think it safe to say the OPC would have addressed the matter in the same way that they did under a Democrat president].

I have far too much on my plate to be further involved with other people's business, and so won't be making other edits on the OPC page. But I will make time for you, if you care to continue this discussion further. For one, I would like to ask you a few questions--mainly, what is your expertise in this matter? Why does the OPC matter to you? Clearly you are not just some nerdy editor looking to perfect the random Wiki page.

-wsparkman