Talk:Community Chapel and Bible Training Center

Untitled

The article regarding Community Chapel should not be deleted, because it pertains to significant events in the history of American Churches, and also the history of Religious cults and brainwashing in the United States. Community Chapel has been covered in the following published books, one of which was written by Professor Ronald M. Enroth, with a PhD in sociology.

Anderson, Sandra (1998) Angels can Fall. Mukilteo, WA: Winepress Publishing.

Barnett, B.J (1996). The Truth Shall Set You Free, Confessions of a Pastors Wife. Mukilteo, WA: Winepress Publishing.

Enroth, Ronald M. (1992) Churches that abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Summers, J. (2005) ocCULT, They didn't think it could happen in their church. Las Vegas, NV: Global Strategic Resources.

Additionally, Community Chapel was the subject of hundreds of newspaper articles. Citations to numerous articles have recenlty been added to the main page for "Community Chapel". Community Chapel

Speedy deletion

This article was nominated for speedy deletion. However, the references have led to its retention. Nonetheless, the article needs a large amount of work including:

• renaming the article;

• sourcing the claims in the article from the independent sources cited;

• more clearly identifying why this church is notable in church history.

Capitalistroadster 03:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was recently re-named as "Community Chapel and Bible Training Center"

Added a Lead Paragraph

I added a lead paragraph that I hope explains more clearly why this church is notable and worthy of interest. Also, I plan to add soon a section which discusses the doctrine of Community Chapel in the context of church history, particularly in that of American revivalism and Pentecostalism.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chapel and Pork

Alcohol was banned for the same reason other Pentecostal groups ban it, not due to Barnett's interpretation of Judaic laws. Pork and shellfish were not exactly banned - many members consumed them, although members were specifically asked not to bring them to picnics or other potluck events. Also, they weren't allowed in the dormitories. The belief that these meats were "unclean" wasn't based on Judaic laws (note that Don was against circumcision), but on the belief that the New Testament showed them to be so.

Don made a distinction between "demon possession" and having a demon in one's life. He did not teach that Christians could be demon possessed. He did indeed attribute [what he regarded as] rebellious attitudes to demons. Moreover, he blamed most sin, including his own, on demons.

Onesimuss 02:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onesimuss (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

An Odd Slant

Yes, Onesimuss, there is an odd slant to many of Xanthius' facts. They don't read as if they come from somebody who was a member, but rather from somebody who learned about the Chapel mainly from books and newspaper articles. However, he seems to feel rather proprietary about the Chapel topic. Xanthius, care to comment? Were you a member of the Chapel? Did you ever visit the Chapel?

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chapel and Pork/Odd Slant

Hey guys (or girls.) To answer your question, I have never been a member of Community Chapel and don't know anyone who has. My information on the group comes from newspaper articles and books. On one hand that could be perceived as a negative by former members because I have no "first hand knowledge" of Community Chapel, however, it can also be a positive thing because my outlook comes as a third party observer and it is probably going to be much easier for me to work on the article with a neutral point of view than if I was a former member with an agenda of either defending or harming the group's reputation.

I want to say that I am very impressed with the amount of sources currently in the article, it is obviously the thing that kept it from being deleted even if the quality of the article was not quite up to wikipedia standards. What I am in the process of doing right now is trying to incorporate more information from those sources into the article, along with clear citations indicating where each piece of information is coming from.

If any of the information I have currently added is wrong, please know that it comes directly from news and book sources, and so the best way to correct me is to provide a source with a differing take on that piece of information. I want the article to be as clear and accurate as possible, but unfortunately we cannot rely on anecdotal evidence/personal stories, and instead need to work with Reliable sources. As far as the pork/alcohol stuff, I will recheck the source I pulled that from tomorrow. I may have misquoted and used the word "banned" when the word "discouraged" would have been more appropriate.

One thing the article could use is a picture of some sort. Does any one have a picture of either (a) the Community Chapel logo (if they had one), (b) a service or building that was a part of Community Chapel or (c) some sort of picture of pastor Barnett? In order for us to use it you would have to have taken the picture yourself or get permission from the person who did, but if anyone does have something like that it would be a great addition to this article. Let me know, thanks!

Xanthius 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Community Chapel historiography

Xanthius,

The fact that you weren't a member is not a problem to me. Perhaps your claim of neutrality has merit.

However, it seems that if you are interested enough to write about our former church, you ought to avail yourself of the opportunity to learn about it from those of us who were there - this could be done through the internet forums. Surely, at least some information could be gleaned.

Of particular concern to me are the parameters you seem to have set in determining facts. I can appreciate that a personal anecdote from someone such as myself wouldn't weigh as much as comments by Ron Enroth in his book. But surely a reliable consensus can be discerned on some points of fact through actual interaction with former members.

Whoever wrote that "oreo cookies were forbidden" didn't research their facts. The fact that this anecdote was published somewhere shouldn't allow it to trump personal testimony of those who were actually there. I had a child in the private school operated by Community Chapel. Children brought snacks to school to share with others. Parents were asked not to bring snacks containing lard. Oreos contained lard. These facts were embellished to create the legend that oreos were banned in the congregation.

In summary, I think the dismissal of personal testimonies as "anecdotal," while giving credence to those ancedotes that were published in a newspaper, is a bad model for the historiography of Community Chapel.

Onesimuss 12:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Oreo/alcohol sentences, as they seem like minor points. In response to the comments about my "parameters in determining facts," they aren't really my parameters, they are wikipedia's. Have a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. It is standard Wikipedia policy that the information in Wikipedia needs to be attributable to a reliable source, and though it might seem odd, information being attributable to a reliable source is more important than the perceived "truth" of the statement. While I do want a truthful, fact based article: even if I did choose to spend time on the ex-CC forums, it would be of little use to this article because none of the information gathered could be used. It thus would be a much better use of time (for me and other wikipedia editors) to delve through attributable sources rather than ex-member forums. I do think, however, that it is important that the forums be linked to from the External Links section, for readers of the article wishing to find out more about The Chapel from ex-members themselves.

Xanthius 17:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Nature and Scope of "Spiritual Connections"

Xanthius,

You are selectively reading the published material on the Chapel to give a misleading, unecessarily narrow characterization of "spiritual connections" at Community Chapel. Your lack of personal knowledge about the subject is showing. Yes, of course, dancing was prominently involved and it was usually with somebody else's spouse, but their essence was much broader than that - the lead of the article should indicate this, since the body goes into the details that dancing and others' spouses were usually involved.
Steve Born, Seattle, WA 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Nature and Scope of "Spiritual Connections"

I meant to say my above message is to accompany the change I made restoring the last sentence in the lead paragraph after Xanthius had changed it before me. The change in the history list is marked only with my IP address since I forgot I wasn't logged in when I made it. (Steve Born, Seattle, WA 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Re:

The physical aspect of dancing needs to be mentioned if it is going to accurately reflect what the church is famous for. If you'll look at almost every source listed, in Churches That Abuse as well as in the newspaper articles, the dancing with members other than one's spouse is what made Community Chapel so controversial. The way it has been re-written now is very vague and does not reflect this:

The group became famous for a practice its leaders advocated known as "spiritual connections," in which, they taught, members of the church could experience fellowship with the "glorified Son of Man" (Jesus Christ) through spiritual union with other members of his body, the church.

"Spiritual union" could mean anything, but the psychical act of dancing (and other things) with someone other than your spouse is what was the main controversy. It is why this church is still talked about decades later. Perhaps somebody can suggest a compromise between the two extremes. Here was my last attempt:

The group became famous for a practice its leaders advocated known as "spiritual connections," in which married members of the church danced with someone other than their spouse in an attempt to experience fellowship with Jesus Christ.

Xanthius 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Compromise

OK - I am content to wait to see versions suggested by others.

By the way, I do want to thank you for all the work you've done on the site. In general, the changes have been a big improvement.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Compromise

I like the new version. Good job. Xanthius 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC

"Reliable"

Yes, it does seem odd that a source could be deemed "reliable" irrespective of whether it provides accurate information.

Surely lawyers are behind such a phenomenon.

But thanks for indulging me, and explaining the workings of Wikipedia. One could perhaps appreciate the discipline involved in compiling the information, while at the same time lamenting the inflexibility that doesn't consider those with intimate knowledge of the subject as reliable sources, if they haven't found a publisher interested in their story.

Onesimuss 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

The idea that correct information about CCBTC can be achieved by "reliable sources" is in my view impossible. All sources are quoting people who may or may not be accurate in their statements. Furthermore I have never read even one media story that did not have many factual errors. Finally I met in person Ronald Enroth when he visited CCBTC. I commend him for actually coming in person. I don't commend him for not being willing to actually see what he was going to write about. I asked him if he wanted to see first hand in person things that he later blatantly misrepresented. He declined my invitation and then later wrote his own ideas. From that I did not form a very high opinion of him.

Re: Untitled

Speaking for myself, having spent nearly ten years as a Chapel member, I want to say that both Ronald Enroth's work and this Wikipedia article give a fairly accurate idea of what CCBTC was all about. The Wikipedia approach does have its limitations, but, as Xanthius pointed out, it does at least also give a list of external links to sites that include both Chapel apologists and Chapel critics. There, interested readers can pursue the subject further and decide for themselves. If the Chapel has such a compelling case to be made for it that needs to be brought to light, certainly a site that does that can be found somewhere on the Internet. If you know of one that is not in the list, please feel free to add it.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thinking More About This

On the other hand, I do have to say I agree neither "neutrality" nor citation from "reliable sources" are guarantees of truth or accuracy. In fact, they can obstruct one from getting at the truth of the matter.

Here's an example of what I mean...

The article, quoting from newspapers, says that Don Barnett "instituted" dancing, and that later the leaders of the Chapel "instructed" members to find partners to "connect" to, giving readers the impression that both dancing and connections were implemented from the top down. However, anybody who was there knows that both were definitely more of a "bottom up" occurrence. The members discovered by themselves they 'wanted' dancing and connections. They broke out spontaneously, not in the eldership but more at the level of the common membership - dancing at the Christian School retreat in the fall of 1983 and connections at the Ulysses, Kansas, church in the early spring of 1985. Don was at first leery of both phenomena and made attempts to put the lid on both before becoming convinced that they were "of God" after all.

However, because these facts, common knowledge to members of the Chapel, aren't documented anyplace in a published source, they can't be mentioned in the article but are rather relegated to the category of "anecdotal evidence," losing their eligibility for inclusion.

That's too bad in my opinion; it's what I mean when I myself say the Wikipedia approach has limitations and weaknesses. It does protect the article from apologists for the Chapel and its doctrine, but it can lead to distortions in the other direction also, beccause information that is necessary to understanding the nature of the Chapel fully does end up getting excluded. In this case, one misses keys to how spiritual deception operates. It's not always simply a case of a leader directing people into something they wouldn't otherwise find for themselves when they are outside of traditional boundaries for whatever reason. The fact is, without the guidance of truly sound doctrine, human thought and behavior inclines in certain characteristic directions that can easily result in disasters like the Chapel. Pentecostalism, in rejecting traditional Christian doctrine, makes itself prey to various kinds of trouble by nature. The particular kind and degree of trouble is different according to the personality and teaching of the leader of any given Pentecostal movement, but the underlying instability is always there. Don Barnett himself is as much a victim of Oneness Pentecostalism as any of the rest of us.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 16:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thinking More About This

Steve,

I do seem to recall that the trial transcripts from the Barnett v. Hicks case contain testimony (possibly by Barnett) about the "origins" of the spiritual connections phenonemna, including the role other satellite churches played, and other information regarding "spiritual connections". These transcripts are all posted in section 1.6 of the wikipedia article. If someone so desired, it would be possible to read through these transcripts, find the various references to spiritual connections and cite them into the article. The only downside is the transcripts are 2,293 pages, and they are not text-searchable.

--Natedawg1604 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thinking More About This

Thanks, Nate - that's a good idea. However, I just tried several of them and something seems to be wrong either with the .pdf files or with the Wikipedia mechanism for downloading and viewing them. Only the first page downloads and then my browser (IE 7.0) freezes. I have to kill it with Task Manager. Is anybody else seeing the same thing?

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PDF Files

Steve,

this is probably happening because your browser's PDF viewing utility does not like large PDF image files such as these transcripts. These PDF files are scanned images, which are much larger than files converted from another electronic format. You should be able to view the transcripts by downloading the files to your hard drive, and then opening them with adobe acrobat reader.

Re: PDF Files

That worked. Thanks, Nate!

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

I have been reading about the history of connections. Having been in the service at Burien CCBTC, I was there when one of the Christian School teachers who had just returned from a retreat (I'm pretty sure it was the Xian school and not Bible College teachers), gave a testimony of how they were worshiping and praying and singing to the Lord when suddenly they began dancing with each other, with some forming some kind of strong "connection in the spirit". In this service Don came to the pulpit and (having been raised in strict Pentecostal tradition..as he often said..."I don't dance and I don't chew and I don't go with the girls that do". He was horrified at first when approached with the teacher's information but as usual was never going to ban what appeared to be a new move of God.

For about two years prior to this event, there were many prophesies (mostly from Barbara Barnett)about getting our houses in order as a new move was coming from God and if we take this move to our own, Community Chapel will become a bye-word and will fall). The singles were wondering why God had not spoken to them, the married's (it would seem) didn't really know what the prophecy was about. I remember a testimony from Lanny Peterson about how he was painting his house and fixing his fence. I don't blame Lanny for this as most CCBTC marriages were pretty solid, and the prophecy was not very specific.

In hind sight, we were not as prepared as we thought and while there was a world of hurt at the time, there was also a new step up into the knowledge of God's love. This has been planted within us and as with most moves of God, the first few are just a forerunner and preparation of a move to come which will not end in many hurts and tragedies, but in the "rapture", at the end of time we will need to have this love to sustain us.

The fact is that only a minority were hurt by the move, unfortunately the hurt was deep, the rest of us have moved into a new understanding and appreciation of God's love. I feel that in future times there will be move moves like this until the final one comes...we are His servants and are here to spread His love,

To blame Don Barnett for the entire problem is ludicrous, however, just as the prophecy said...we must put our houses in order, he had a problem and apparently did not apply the prophecy to himself. However, it is easy to point fingers at others but..as the Bible tells us "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Leyde (talk • contribs) 03:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Audio

With the wealth of audio information related to the subject would not this information (actual recorded statements) from various participants be available as reference material to clear up the picture? As an example Steve commented on the clean versus unclean foods issue. No doubt there are sermon tapes extant that deal specifically with this issue and would bring additional clarity. Any thoughts?

Wonderboy777 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)wonderboy

Wonderboy, there is a web site that has acquired thousands of tapes from Community Chapel services, meetings & Bible college classes, and is in the process of posting them all online. The sermon tapes can be indexed by subject, date, or speaker. I do hope you realize what you are getting into...

Sermons tapes [1]

Bible college tapes [2]

--Natedawg1604 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not what you think

There is an element of truth to much of the "information", but there is also great exaggeration and much distortion of many of the events. Keep that in mind when you read this. 63.226.210.83 10:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: It's not what you think

Can you give us any examples of exaggeration or distortion in the article? As a Chapel member myself, I'm not aware of any; I'm trying to make the article as accurate a representation as I can of what I now know the Chapel was because I think its rise and fall teaches some important lessons about the pitfalls of some common trends in modern American faith.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

church dissolution and church-entity status post-1988

I noticed that introductory paragraph to the article states "before shutting down in 1988 amidst numerous lawsuits brought against Barnett and others in the church leadership for sexual improprieties". I wonder if this could be slightly re-worded to indicate that the church did not completely "shut down", but rather it saw greatly reduced attendance at a fraction of its former self after 1988. Also, section 1.7 of the article is titled "church dissolved", apparently based upon the newspaper articles stating that church elders filed a petition to dissolve the church. However, it is clear that the elders petition for legal dissolution was denied by the court in late 1988. The church did not "dissolve" per se after 1988, although it did have to sell the East Campus building (I don't know the exact date, although I'm sure it can be found). The "elders group" of community chapel continued to operate under Jeff McCregor with relatively substantial facilities compared to churches of a similar size (several hundred people). The elders group kept the name "Community Chapel and Bible Training Center" until approximately 1996, when they adopted a D/B/A of "resurrection life assembly". Also, Barnett's group formed their own church, which continues to operate to this day. --Natedawg1604 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: church dissolution and church-entity status post-1988

That's a good point, Nate. Since I've been re-reading all these legal materials I've realized the same thing. Although Community Chapel had physically split into "the elder's side" and "Don's side" by the summer of 1988, effectively ending its existence as most of us had known it up until that time, it still existed on paper and in its meetings at the east campus under some of the elders for some time after that. Also, I've said in the article about Don that he founded the Church of Agape in 1988, but that's probably not correct. Certainly he formed the group that later became the Church of Agape in 1988, but I'm wondering when he legally established the church known by that name. Do you know?

I will think about how we might re-word the opening paragraph - or feel free to take a shot at it yourself if you like. The research into the legal aspects of all this that you've done, and now made available on the Web, is impressive.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've revised it a little bit. See what you think - but still feel free to revise it yourself if you'd like. (Steve Born, Seattle, WA 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

---"dissolve the church" was really an attempt to dissolve the corporation. And that was legal advice given at that time. None of the elders wanted to "dissolve the church." Realize that the court battle between the elders and Don B. was over corporate law. If the corporation could be dissolved then CCBTC would just be a church where removing Don B. would be much easier. (eyewitness) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.24.194 (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Too much information?

I am wondering if the end sections of this article aren't getting a bit long. One of the tenants of Wikipedia is that it is not an "indiscriminate collection of information." I am not sure but it seems like every minute detail of the various trials and court proceedings doesn't need to be explained in the article. Maybe some of this very detailed information would belong more appropriately on a website somewhere, with a link provided to it from the External Links section, while the major events of Barnett's ousting could still be described in a more overview fashion. Thoughts? Xanthius 05:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Xanthius,

you could be right about the length of the article. However, I can assure you that the events that occurred at Community Chapel surrounding Barnett's ouster were highly disputed by those involved, including each of the details I included in the article. Each of these details were highly disputed by various factions within the church, and even to this day other web sites contain articles and discussion posts about why Community Chapel split, and whether it could have been prevented or handled differently. For anyone who attended Community Chapel or was close to the situation at the time, most of the newspaper articles do not provide anywhere near enough details to add any meaningful information. The amount of information is article contains may exceed the scope of information desired by the average reader. It is still the case that for those who attended community chapel or study its history, nothing about the church was simple. It is also very easy to take information from newspaper articles or books and make broad, general statements that may or may not be accurate.--Natedawg1604 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Xanthius,

I reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines RE: indiscriminate collection of information. These Guidelines list the following categories of information that are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. They are as follows: (1) lists of frequently asked questions, (2) travel guides, (3) memorials, (4) instruction manuals, (5) internet guides, (6) textbooks and annotated texts, (7) plot Summaries, (8) lyrics databases and (9) statistics.
The only category that could even possibly apply might be "textbooks". Wikipedia's entry defining "textbooks and annotated texts" states as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource"
It appears the article about Community Chapel does not fall under any of these 9 categories as an "indiscriminate collection of information". What do others think?

--Natedawg1604 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Too much information?

I think both of you have a point. The amount of detail in the article about the court trials and other legal maneuvers during the Chapel's last few years is becoming a little overwhelming. On the other hand, this information has not been readily available before and many people who are interested in the Chapel will find it relevant to their experience there; it helps them to understand a confusing period in which almost all of this was hidden to them at the time.

The solution may be in organizing the article into sections in a better way. Have a main body with its own subsections which summarize each period and aspect of the Chapel; then have another section with subsections that give the details about the various court cases and their part in the Chapel's end.

I know that it will be difficult to keep the two separate, especially when it comes to the eldership hearings that resulted in Don's being disfellowshipped, but I think it is worth the effort.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply RE: Too much information?

Steve, I fully agree with you about having the article broken up into sections and time periods. I also agree we should have a totally separate section devoted to the various legal proceedings, and a separate section on the chapel's theology and beliefs organized by time periods. I will try and start working on this. --Natedawg1604 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Unexplained Changes

Chapelhistorian, I've noticed you've been making changes to the Community Chapel article, many of which are unsupported by the cited material and which seem to represent a biased point of view. What is your interest in making such changes? If you disagree with the existing content, and have a good reason for changing it, please explain your reasons here. Thank you.

--Steve Born, Seattle, WA 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Unexplained Changes

"Talk", you recently made an addition to the section of the article entitled "Elders put Barnett on Special Status", section 2.2. You added a comment to the effect that "Don Barnett himself" gave testimony before the eldership hearings. Please note I have deleted this sentence, because this paragraph, as clearly stated, is a direct quote from the minutes of the senior elder meeting dated February 10th, 1988. A copy can be found here: [3] The phrase "by Don Barnett himself" was not found in the elder minutes dated February 10th, 1988. If you want to add a statement somewhere else in the article indicating that Don Barnett gave testimony before the eldership hearings, this would certainly be fine. However, it is not appropriate to add statements to quotations taken from documents, when those additional statements are not found in the documents themselves. I'm sure this was unintentional. Regardless, there are certainly other sections of the article where this issue could be discussed.--Natedawg1604 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Added links to audio files

I added links to the audio files of the elders meeting with the congregation on Feb 26, 1988 and Don Barnett's rebuttal on Feb 28, 1988. These files are are on my own website.

Dave Kenady 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple of minor changes in The Dancing Revelation section

I changed the first sentence in the 3rd paragraph of this section. It originally said

The practice often led to marital friction, however, the members were told that intimate spiritual experiences with members of the opposite sex, other than one's spouse, could help defeat the "demons of jealousy" and open up the person to a deepened experience of the love of Christ.

I changed it to:

The practice often led to marital friction. The members were told that intimate spiritual experiences with their spiritual connection could help defeat the "demons of jealousy" and open up the person to a deepened experience of the love of Christ.

Though the practice among the congregation generally always involved "members of the opposite sex, other than one's spouse," this was not what was taught from the pulpit. The pulpit directed us toward whomever our spiritual connection(s) was. Though I attended the Chapel for almost ten years, I never heard the phrase "members of the opposite sex, other than one's spouse," until I read it in the newspaper. The phrase is more of an interpretation of the pulpit's message rather than an accurate representation of what was said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverbee (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: I made a couple of minor changes in The Dancing Revelation section

Dave,

Notice that the sentence you changed was a reference to information cited from Enroth. It did not purport to be words spoken from the pulpit of the Chapel. It was worded that way (not by me, by the way) to highlight the inherent contradiction and dangers involved in directing one to a "spiritual connection" as a method of healing one's marriage. However, the sentence you corrected did originally contain some awkward grammar, so I brushed it up a little more in order to keep the grammatical improvement while clarifying the intent of the original sentence.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve.

Fair enough. I think the 2 changes better reflect what happened.

Dave Kenady (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsupported, subjective content

Skramer65,

I've undone your revision, which, as I mentioned in the change description, bore the marks of a subjective and biased advocacy of Don Barnett's teaching, not objective reporting. Your changes were unsupported and had no citations to show they had any basis in fact.

If you feel you have information which could make the article more accurate, please explain why here when you make the change so the merits of the proposed change can be discussed.

Thanks,

Steve B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveborn (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve --

I completely disagree with your arbitrary decision to delete my changes. As a former member, I was attempting to expand on what I view as an over-simplified presentation of what happened. The presentation in the current article (yours?) is analogous to saying, "He enrolled in medical school and became a doctor." It isn't incorrect but it clearly doesn't address the many events that happened between enrollment and getting the MD, just as there were many things (as discussed in this forum but which you expunged from the main article) that came between dancing before the Lord and the fall into adulterous relationships and the demise of the church.

Skramer65 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Removed unsupported, subjective content

Skramer65,

My decision wasn't arbitrary. Two of Wikipedia's policies that editors of its articles are required to follow are neutrality and verifiability. Your changes were not in the interest of either policy, and that is why I removed them, changing the content to what it had been previously. I did not write that part of the article, by the way; in fact, the article was created by somebody else and most of it was written by others than myself. I myself would prefer to see less on the scandals and lawsuits over "connections" and more on the anti-Trinitarian theology of the Chapel as the real centerpiece of its tragic rise and fall, but that would likewise be too subjective and unverifiable under Wikipedia's content policy.

Please see Wikipedia's content policy page here: Wikipedia Content Policy.

Steve Born, Seattle, WA (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Article needs complete rewrite

We do not base encyclopedia articles directly on primary court documents. The article should be completely rewritten to rely primarily on secondary sources (books, articles, newspapers, etc.). We should not have any links to court documents in the body of the article. If that means excessive detail must be removed, that's what needs to happen. An encyclopedia does not do original research based on court documents. This article appears to be primarily such original research. Yworo (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal that article be deleted

I am here per Dispute Resolution Instructions: The article relating to Community Chapel and Bible Training Center should be deleted because it contains numerous inacurracies, is missing a lot of facts and details and does not speak for the entire community of approximately 3000 members. Furthermore, the references only appear to be a select group of individuals, a book written by the pastor's ex-wife (which may have biased, unobjective information in it) and one newspaper agency is named repeatedly. Having many links or court documents does not necessarily prove one's opinion. Additionally, the church has been accused of being a cult by other denominations which does not automatically count as verifiable evidence to such an allegation. Many individuals have reported positive experiences gained while attending the church and college and those hundreds of testimonies were not included in the article. This article should be deleted (or edited at the minimum). A lot of the statements from people that I read below are weak in their reasoning to malign the church such as the 'clean and unclean' meats law and the Pentecostal belief that God is One and not Three in One (as the Trinitarian doctrine suggests)... Many churches all over the world uphold the same beliefs on these topics and are not being maligned such as this church is. Although there were apparent problems and issues within the church, this article is a very imbalanced, inaccurate view of CC&BTC. Who is the author of this article? R W Royce (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you.

I have moved this post to the correct place, given it a title and signed on behalf of the editor.
I agree that there is an over-reliance on primary sources, as has been discussed before, however, court documents are normally considered reliable sources.
I have already explained to the poster that they need to identify "specific points which you think are wrong, explaining why, and citing reliable, third party, sources to support your opinion; and if necessary, citations to show that the existing references are incorrect." - Unfortunately, all we have is an unsourced general comment, which is difficult to respond to. Arjayay (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Arjayay: How can you know the "specific points" I am referring to when I haven't stated them all? As it stands currently, Wikipedia is allowing an author's opinion of what happened at this church over a period of years and relating to approximately 3000 people (who do not all agree with his account of events on a number of points) to remain for public viewing. This is clearly not right and is damaging and slanderous to many individuals. As you can see even by the comments on the article's talk page there is much disagreement and the page should not be allowed to remain as it is. R W Royce (talk)

You seem to be misunderstanding the comments above, Arjayay is asking you to identify specifically what you consider is wrong. Theroadislong (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As Theroadislong has explained, I made it clear that you needed to "identify specific points which you think are wrong" and you have not done that.
The only specific point you have raised, about clean and unclean meat, is not in the article at all - but that shows exactly how this talk page works - someone provided a logical argument for its exclusion, and it is not in the article. The same opportunity is open to everyone, including you.
If you want the article changed, it is up to you to question specific points, and show that they are given undue weight, compared to what has been published in other reliable sources, and/or provide reliable sources showing that the sources cited are either questionable, or incorrect. All Wikipedia articles should only be based on verifiable, independent, reliable, sources - please note these words have very specific meanings in Wikipedia - click each word for a fuller explanation - this also means that your experience, and personal knowledge are not acceptable, as they are not verifiable, or independent.
Although you have refactored your comment above, to remove it from your post, please also understand that neither I, nor any other editor, will be "researching it's credibility on all points".
The article is not based on "an author's opinion", it is based on published, independent, reliable sources, and has evolved over more than 7 years, with contributions from numerous authors.
PS I have no knowledge of, or any interest in, the Community Chapel and Bible Training Center, I only came to the page because you had misspelled "received" as "recieved".
Arjayay (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Arjayay: I edited the section above so it would more clearly state the point I was trying to make. I prefaced my statement about clean and unclean meats in my section to show that I read about it on the Talk page (not the article) and it is an example of different points of view and slander that exist about this church and college. The problem is that a lot of the author's information (narration) does, in fact, appear to be his opinion and accounting of events mixed with references. Please remember (as stated above in someone else's comments) that links to books and newspapers articles are not necessarily reliable or prove anything as it can just be reporting on what 'has been provided to them'. So a person can reference them and then narrate the scenario with their own experiences and opinions, etc. and then you have a situation that you wrote about above and which should not be counted as reliable information. There are numerous points within this article that need to be corrected... The entire article is too convaluded (even though there are links of references) and slanderous to represent the entire community and to be considered fit for public viewing and it should be removed. Additionally it doesn't seem appropriate to include court precedings in this Wikipedia article and others have commented on this as well includeing a Wikipedia representative. If you need more information, how/where is that to be given? R W Royce (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you.

I have asked you three times, once on my talk page and twice on this, to identify specific points which you think are wrong, explain why, and cite reliable, third party, sources to back up your concern - but you have failed to do this. Until you do, there is little that I, or anyone else, can do. - Arjayay (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Arjayay:
1) I have asked you several times (here and other site locations) for direction so that I am using Wikipedia tools correctly and several times you have not provided answers to me - - In my message above I specifically asked you "how/where is that to be given" (the points in question)?

2) Why is the article allowed to remain active and slanderous to the larger community when I (and others on this talk page) have submitted information to reflect the article in convaluded? This is irrisponsible reporting on the part of the author(s) and Wikipedia for allowing it to be posted until proven to be correct narration, etc.

3) Why doesn't the author(s) of the current article have to provide objective third party information (newspaper articles only contain what has been provided to the reporters and may only be the accounts of select individuals)? Once again, and as stated above by other parties), the accounts in this article seem only to represent the minority, not the majority. R W Royce (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC) R W Royce

OK let's take this slowly - I have divided your last post into separate paragraphs for clarity

1) You will not have to use "Wikipedia Tools", all the discussion can take place in plain text on this page.

a) You should copy the specific text you think is wrong, preferably no longer than a sentence, certainly no longer than a paragraph.

b) You should explain what you think is wrong with the text and either propose it is deleted (which is unlikely to occur if it has a good reference), or amended - in which case suggest the amended text.

c) You should cite verifiable, reliable, third party, sources to back up your proposed change - your opinion, your memory, claims that you represent "the larger community" are not acceptable.

d) I suggest you leave the opening paragraph, the lead, until last; as that is a summary of the article. I also suggest you do this slowly, starting with what you perceive to be the biggest problems - a vast screed of text or multiple requests is likely to be ignored - we are all volunteers, and work on what interests us; as explained above I have no interest in the Community Chapel and Bible Training Center.

2) Without wishing to be pedantic, no article can ever be "slanderous", and Wikipedia does not "take down" articles simply because one reader does not like them.

Wikipedia articles are emended, by consensus, based solely on what has been published in reliable sources. We do not "report" we "aggregate" - only using existing information. The article has been here for well over 7 years, and has evolved over that time. Although you keep claiming that certain things are false, you have yet to provide any evidence, whatsoever, in support of that claim.

3) I am not sure what you mean by "objective third party information" when you immediately try to discredit newspaper articles, which often provide precisely that. Where do you think such "objective third party information" can be found?

Moreover, much of the article is based on direct quotations from Barnett, The Elders, or Barnett's attorney, whilst other parts are based on court papers - which are, legally, "the truth", even if you disagree with it.

This is not a vote, the majority versus the minority, it is solely a question of facts - and the article should not "represent" any particular faction - only report the facts as found in reliable sources.

I have already acknowledged the use of Court papers is a problem, as these are "Primary" sources, whilst many are "deadlinks", so need re-sourcing, but as a UK citizen some of the US legalese is confusing to me, so someone else would need to resolve these.

- Arjayay (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Arjayay: Thank you for responding, and as a new user I appreciate your effort in trying to be a little more explicit with your answers. I have a some comments to make regarding your last message and will continue to seek help as needed. First, it sounds like you are saying any requested changes need to be written about here on the Talk page but I think that would be a detailed, cumbersome process and I wonder if Dispute Resolution (or some of the other option) would be a better method. Second, Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines state that an article is to represent the majority and not the minority of what is being written about. Even though you suggest I am the 'only one' who implies the article is not acurrate, there are other postings on this very talk page that reflect that is not the case (along with many other people who have not been represented). You wrote that you don't have an interest in CC&BTC, but please be aware that there are people who are being/have been negatively impacted by the misrepresentation in this article. Also, I didn't immediately discredit the media as you wrote. Media reporting can be correct and may not be correct ... newspaper and media reporting does not automatically equal fact (that is why celebrities, for example, take issue with media reporting that they feel is not true and even sue in some cases). An article written that is not acurrate 'can' very well be slanderous. Third, yes, it's a question of facts. The media references and legal documents which are given as reliable references appear to be linked to specific allegations, and they are separate from the narration given in the article. How can Wikipedia prove or consider the 'narration' of this situation to be factual by just one or a few people? How does Wikipedia know whether or not the author of this article has a personal issue with the church, or was working with media and/or lawyers, etc., and therefore has a slanted perspective? The article is also missing a lot of details and information, and should never have been allowed to be dispayed as a factual account of events. The court information that we have corresponded about doesn't belong there either - Is someone looking into having this corrected? At the minimum, a clarifying paragraph which states at the beginning of the article that the article was written by one or few persons and that it doesn't represent all parties should be allowed - Are you the Wikipedia representative who removed the paragraph I inserted at the beginning of the article for this purpose? R W Royce (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your help, R W royce

It was indeed Arjayay who removed that paragraph (as you can tell by clicking on "View History" at the top of the article). But any experienced editor would have done the same. That paragraph was no more appropriate there than in any other Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you for responding. An article only written (narrated) by one or a few people representing 3000 people and omitting a lot of information and detail is what is inappropriate. It seems clear there are existing biases relating to this article. How is a clarifying statement inappropriate? R W Royce (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC) R W Royce

This article was not written by "a few" people. It has over 30 contributors, not counting bots and IP addresses. And it is not editors' duty to "represent 3000 people", but to describe the subject, concentrating on its notable features.

If an article is missing important information, that information should be added. If it is biassed, the bias should be corrected. Wikipedia's policy is always to improve articles, rather than to precede them by disclaimers. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maproom: Thank you for responding. It states in Wikipedia policy that an article 'is' to represent the majority and not the minority... 30 Compared to 3000 people is definately an imbalance. I'm working on the corrections that can be submitted. Nobody answered my questions above as to whether or not the 30 or so individuals are the same individuals involved with legal representatives and media (an important point relating to the article and how it was written). Additionally, no one got back with me regarding whether or not the court documents were removed (also see Yworo's comments above). R W Royce (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you, R W Royce

Wikipedia articles are based on facts, not opinions, and those facts need to be verifiable in reliable sources. I am not sure exactly which Wikipedia policy you are alluding to, in your vague statement "an article 'is' to represent the majority and not the minority"; please cite the exact policy you are trying to refer to. The only mentions of "majority" in WP:Consensus is "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view" and "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)".

In any case, you are a minority of one - you cannot claim to speak for anybody else whatsoever, let alone 3000 people - so any statements you make are merely your own personal claims, and will be ignored, unless you can cite reliable, independent, sources to back them up. Furthermore, you have a clear conflict of interest, as is shown by your attempt to "whitewash" the article, by remove all the cited facts about what happened at the CCBTC on four occasions, which led to your being blocked.

I have, repeatedly, asked you to identify "specific points which you think are wrong, explaining why, and citing reliable, third party, sources to support your opinion; and if necessary, citations to show that the existing references are incorrect." you have repeatedly failed to do that, and keep trying to change the tack of your argument. Having done a quick Google search, I can only assume that the reason you have not cited any reliable sources, is that the sources there are, all appear to refer to the material already in the article. Unless, and until, you can identify specific errors, and come up with such sources, there is little for us to discuss. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Arjayay: Perhaps because you are a volunteer you feel it is ok to conduct yourself in an uprofessional and accusatory manner, but it is not ok. I did read on this site that an article is to reflect the majority and not the minority so as not to misprepresent a topic. Additionally, I 'can' speak for others because I am in contact with them. I did not 'whitewash' the article as you accuse and I have already written to you several times about this stating that I am new to the site and did not know the process of how to make changes and even requested help with no response. Please stop your accusations and assumptions, and using words like 'vandalising', 'edit war', 'whitewash' and 'changing tactics', etc. When I saw the inacurracies in the narration of the article, I simply tried to make changes without much experience using the site. I stated in my last message that I was working on the specific changes to the article for submission which you obviously overlooked ... in the meantime please stop berating and accusing. If you cannot be a volunteer to professionaly and objectively represent Wikipedia then let someone else who is more helpful and polite assist people. Furthermore, you failed to answer the questions in my last message which is intersting: 1) Are the 30 or so authors of the article the same individuals involved with legal representatives and media (an important point relating to the article and how it was written)? 2) Is someone working on the removal of the court documents in the article (also see Yworo's comments above pertaining to this)? R W Royce (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you, R W Royce

I repeat the following -

1. "Wikipedia articles are based on facts, not opinions, and those facts need to be verifiable in reliable sources." Who you claim to "represent" is irrelevant, the only thing that matters are verifiable facts.
2. "I am not sure exactly which Wikipedia policy you are alluding to, in your vague statement "an article 'is' to represent the majority and not the minority"; please cite the exact policy you are trying to refer to."

You have stated "Please stop your accusations and assumptions, and using words like 'vandalising', 'edit war ..."
As you wish to stop "accusations and assumptions" please point out exactly where I have used the word 'vandalising'; whilst 'edit war" only appears in the preformatted template issued on your talk page, prior to your being blocked, so was clearly entirely justified.

With regards to the two questions you want answering:-

1. We cannot tell whether "the 30 or so authors of the article the same individuals involved with legal representatives and media" as many people write on Wikipedia anonymously - you can see the history, by clicking the "view history" tag at the top of the page. However, although we encourage those with a conflict of interest not to edit, as it is difficult for them to give a neutral point of view, we assess edits based on whether they are based on verifiable facts from reliable sources, not upon who posted them.
2. I have asked for assistance with the court documents, but, so far, have not received any.

As you are unhappy with my responses, I am more than happy for another editor to respond to you in the future, but I will be watching edits to the article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly removed some sections as the references were all dead links to court documents, if other references can be found I'm not averse to the content being restored. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Theroadislong: Thank you for your response. Arjayay: You do not need to keep repeating yourself. I have stated twice now (this being the third time) that I'm working on corrections that can be submitted (and checking on who wrote the article relating to my inquiry above). Additionally, I have repeatedly made you aware that I am a new user and have tried to ensure a more balanced view is given relating to this article (or have it removed for lack of information and inacurracies) and I haven't appreciated your insinuations (such as 'whitewash' and 'changing tactics', etc.) ...and feel you should be operating in "good faith" towards contributors. I do think it would be best to have another representative step in ...and it really doesn't matter to me/us whether you watch the page or not. R W Royce (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you, R W Royce

Question: I checked the history area of the article as directed (above) to see the names of the 30 or so authors that Maproom stated contributed to this article but I only see two names. Can you direct me to where the other names are provided? R W Royce (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you, R W Royce

If you click on the "View history" tab at the top of the article, you will find these names: Arjayay, Theroadislong, R W Royce, Flyer22, Moony22, PKT, Fraggle81, Chris the speller, John of Reading, Aboutmovies, Yworo. Then follow the "older 50" link at the bottom of the first "history" page, and you will find more names, and another "older 50" link; etc. Maproom (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you. I went to the area you named above and only found two author names. I was told there were 30+ authors related to this article. I'm looking for their names (not Wiki rep names). Please let me know where this information is provided? R W Royce (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you, R W Royce

I do not understand your distinction between "author" and "Wiki rep". Wikipedia articles are created and improved by volunteer editors, including you, me, and Arjayay. About thirty such people have contributed to this article (as well as some unregistered editors identified by IP addresses, and some bots performing mechanical processes). Can you explain what you mean by "author"? Which are the two names you see that you regard as authors? Maproom (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you for responding. I was told there are 30+ authors for this article in response to my inquiry pertaining to who wrote it (and as it appears to be a slanted account of events, were the authors involved with personal media and/or legal activities). Therefore, with regards to my research, I'm not intereseted in knowing which Wikipedia volunteers participated in the creation of this article and I don't see more than two names given in the history pages you referenced (I checked all pages). Where are the other "actual" authors ...or are you saying there are only two non-Wikipedia authors that wrote this article? R W Royce (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you, R W Royce

This article, like all Wikipedia articles, was created and edited entirely by volunteer Wikipedia editors. No "non-Wikipedia authors" were involved. When I look at the article's history pages, I find the names of all these editors. You say that when you looked there, you "found two author names". Can you please help me to understand this, by stating what two names you found? Maproom (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Maproom: I checked out the history area again and went to the very end. I came up with 19 author names, not 30+ as I was told. It appears two of the authors were former members (S. Born and J. Leyde) per their comments on this talk page (which differ in perspective) and it looks like the other authors/editors are mostly Wikepedia representatives who have no experience relating to the church, college and history, etc. Steve Born has his own web site on this topic which reflects his personal experiences, opinions and accounting of church history and events (which many people do not agree with) and it is very similar to the narration in the Wiki article. So, in summary, the article was essentially initiated and written by just a few people (former church members) with Wikipedia volunteers adding to/adjusting the narration, correct? R W Royce (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your help, R W Royce

I have checked, and I find a total of 36 names, excluding IP addresses and bots (and my own, as my contribution to the article was more recent than my estimate of 30). "Jan Leyde" was not among them. I wonder if you have been looking at the history of this talk page, rather than that of the article itself?

The most extensive contributors to the article are Natedawg1604 and Xavthius. I observe that Natedawg1604 has contributed very little to Wikipedia outside this article, whereas Xavthius has contributed to many articles. This tends to suggest that Natedawg1604 may have come to Wikipedia to present his personal views about the subject, whereas Xavthius is more likely to have a neutral viewpoint. Wikipedia prefers the latter. It strongly discourages people from editing an article about a subject in which they have been personally involved, as they are likely to have a conflict of interest. Maproom (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you for responding. Steve Born was a former church member and it definately seems the article is written from a biased perspective and a conflict of interest is apparent. I also need to know whether any of the authors were working with legal and/or media representatives. Xavthius was most probably a former church member or perhaps just used information provided by Born or other members. In light of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, has anyone checked on any of this? Please let me know. R W Royce (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your help, R W Royce

I do not know whether any contributor to the article was working with legal and/or media representatives. If they were, they would have been wise not to reveal it here. I also do not know whether anyone here has checked on any of this; I think it unlikely, as they would have no way of finding out. Maproom (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Maproom: Newspaper article links or not, it is apparent the article is narrated by just one (or a few) former church members who have a slanted opinion about what took place, left out a lot of information and may have been involved in media/legal relations. How do you know the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy has not been violated if no one has taken the time to check? 174.24.204.180 (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you, R W Royce

I would not be at all surprised if some contributors to the article do have a conflict of interest. Anything by a current or former church member is in danger of bias. I would be wary of those, like Natedawg1604, who have contributed nothing, or very little, to other articles: see single-purpose account. Maproom (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maproom: How can an article be posted for public viewing if it is uncertain about whether or not the initiators and contributing authors wrote from their personal views, experiences and potential biases? Shouldn't it be that an article has to have objective authors and conflict of interest guidelines checked out before an article can be posted - rather than posting the article without verifying these things and then having to take time to rebuttle it section by section? R W Royce (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your help, R W Royce

Maproom: Can you please respond? Why weren't conflict of interest guidelines checked before this article was posted for public viewing? As it stands, the initial few authors appear to be former church members with adjustments/additions made by Wikipedia volunteers. R W Royce (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your help, R W Royce

I don't know why you consider it my job to respond to you. Particularly as you appear not to read my responses anyway. I have already explained to you that there is no distinction between "Wikipedia volunteers" and the "initial few". But I shall give you one final answer. When this article was created in 2007 by Natedawg1604, it was easier than now to create an article without any vetting process. And I think it likely, though I haven't checked, that any bias introduced by Natedawg1604 was anyway corrected by the actions of a neutral editor, Xavthius.

I will also point out that you, R W Royce, with your view that the article should "speak for the entire community of approximately 3000 members", clearly have a conflict of interest yourself. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maproom: My request that you respond was genuine and out of a valid need for clarification. I don't know that I felt it "your job" to respond other than I was raising a request for clarification directly relating to the last message that you sent to me, so naturally it would be addressed to you. I don't understand the reason for the deroggatory comments towards me in your last message. Regardless of when the article was written, it should still be subject to conflict of interest guidelines. The purpose of my question to you is to ensure accuracy and balance if the article is to stay posted. I don't believe that constitutes a conflict of interest on my part - and it doesn't negate that a conflict of interest may 'already' exist for the article as it is posted for viewers to read right now. What is the process within Wikipedia 'currently' to investigate such a matter (this is the crux of my inquiry)? R W Royce (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you, R W Royce

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Community Chapel and Bible Training Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929221433/http://www.ccbtc.info/Chapel/CRI_ChapelStatement.htm to http://www.ccbtc.info/Chapel/CRI_ChapelStatement.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/Barnett_v_Hicks_Lawsuit/Trial_Exhibits/Exhibit%202.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/Gabrielson_v._Community_Chapel/Gabrielson_Record_excerpts/Pleadings/JudgmentOnJuryVerdict_11-23-88.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Pleadings/PetitionForDissolution_03_21_1988.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Mark%20Yokers%20Deposition_4-19-88.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Drake%20Pesce%20Deposition%204-13-88.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Dubois%20Deposition%204-6-88.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Hartley%20deposition%204-12-88.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Krenelka%20depo%204-6-88.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/David%20Motherwell%20Depo_4-20-88.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Discovery_Docs/Wyman%20Smalley%20deposition_4-13-88.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/Barnett_v_Hicks_Lawsuit/Pleadings_and_Orders/Sub.47.5_OrderReContemptMotions_06_06_1988.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccbtcresearch.com/CC_Court_Records/In_re_CCBTC_Dissolution_Proceedings/Pleadings/Order_DenyingTRO_08_17_1988.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106122002/http://www.ccbtc.info/Chapel/Default.aspx to http://www.ccbtc.info/Chapel/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)