Talk:United Pentecostal Church International/Archive 2

Archived and refactored March 27, 2009

Reversion for racial commentary

A gentle reminder to those of you who may have concerns of race. Racial issues are legitimate, and may figure in to the history of an organization. However, if you cannot frame those concerns and issues in a way that does not sound neutral, or reasonable, you are in violation of the NPOV of the wikipedia. I for one, am well aware of some of the historical concerns of the UPCI, but those roots should not be phrased so as to give a newcomer to this page an immediately negative picture of the UPCI. The UPCI is an organization, like so many others, with a unique history, and record of many things both good and bad. Again, it is ok to include those historical interests in the wikipedia, and even on this page. BUT, you can't state them with such obviously biased language. I've reverted all changes from the 22nd of August onward. I am considering the previous racially biased changes to be vandalism, and I will act accordingly in the future. Firstdivider 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive Menu Added

I took the liberty of adding a nice little archive menu. [Unsigned comment by User:Firstdivider]

More racial garbage and sloppy editing in general

Two things: First please stop adding racial commentary to this page. References to Jim Crow are totally inappropriate. Second, I've noticed that many of the edits to this page are juvenile. In particular, the comment discussing the "evils of television" is probably inappropriate on any page in the wikipedia. Please think before you edit. Firstdivider 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is little more than a church pamphlet. With the constant suppression of discussions of race and any controversies involving the UPCI, this violates the Wiki NPOV rule concerning religious bias. To characterize any deviation from the UPCI party line as "vandalism" is POV. I intend to flag it POV. Therefore 22:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll personally own up to the edits keeping some of the racial discussion from this page. The edits adding racial concerns to this page have been flagrantly bad. Much of the racial discussion was inserted randomly into the text, and was also badly written. I am well aware that the UPCI has had a checkered past when it comes to certain racial issues. Unfortunately, I don't have that information, nor a reliable source for it. If someone adds a thoughtful, sourced discussion of some of the past racial problems within the UPCI, I have no objection to that.

Remember that this page is open for anyone to see, and that the UPCI isn't some inanimate object. It is an organization filled with people who will be represented by this article. I believe that the wikipedia should seek to fairly recognize that organization with balanced discussion. To that end, inclusion of controversial or unflattering information is fine, but please check the quality of your writing, and make sure you identify opposing viewpoints.

I added a "Controversies within the UPCI" section to the page. Please discuss your opposing viewpoints in that section.

Thanks Firstdivider 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Churches

Please don't add your church to the UPCI page. Every religion has numerous places where people gather, but this article is not the place. Please keep your additions and discussions to the organization. [Unsigned comment by User:Firstdivider]

External Links

I am removing below External Links Except UPCI Website.

• PCminister Web-based training program authorized by UPCI
• Rick Ross page on UPCI
• Support group for those leaving the UPCI

Reason: I don't think those links are worthy to be placed. The Major reason is the Geniuiness of information Provided by these website. Specially the Rick Ross Page on UPCI. There is no reffrence record or Proof to most of the Document.

Links in External Section should provide geniuine sources and other points of reference related to the topic. But the above links Fail to see how these are usefell in educating people about the organization.

So please don't make an attempt to add those links again. It will be a waste of time for you. Pastor Linu

"So please don't make an attempt to add those links again. It will be a waste of time for you." You are implying that you'll engage in an edit war rather than abide by policy regarding whether these links will exist in the article? The fact that you don't agree with the content in these links has nothing to do with whether or not these links belong in the article. These links are added in order to add a balanced perspective to the article as the article s overwhelmingly reading like a tract rather than a Wiki article.-Psychohistorian 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Ross's site does indeed belong there along with other balancing points of view. For every entry into a respectable place, one must give room for critics. Critics only make you stronger. And the critics should be there forever. [Unsigned comment by User:Systemsguy]

• Due to the constant editing of any negative information, we now know why many universities no longer allow wikipedia entries to be used as references. The "truth" will stand up to scrutiny, right? [Unsigned comment by unidentified user]

• All editors please note. There are a number of irrational zealots that attempt to remove honest criticism of this organization. There are respected scholars that have written about the organization in a professional manner and readers deserve to hear the other side of all controversial organizations - or non-controversial organizations for that matter. When shopping for a car, we should visit several sellers and ask about their competition. This is the free exchange of ideas. A free society depends upon spirited debate, and not closed-minded zealots who cannot defend their views. Furthermore the only check against dangerous organizations is the free exchange of ideas. This must continue. We must not let the fear of the Dark Ages of ignorance return. [Unsigned comment by unidentified user]

I've restored the Ross link as it is a notable criticism. The help group does not appear to meet our external links policy and so will be left out. JoshuaZ 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

These same zealots are making many unsigned changes to this page. They have decided this page is an evangelistic tool rather than an encyclopedia. They are obviously members of the UPCI and as such cannot be objective. Wikipedia articles are not about you, your friends and their views. (Seenitall 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Differences between UPCI churches

The problem I see with this site is that not all UPC churches hold to the same standards of Doctrine (not on Godhead). I have personally talked to many from within the UPC church and rarely do I get the same answers from each of them. The majority I've talked to claim that a person doesn't need to speak in tongues to be saved as this site proclaims. I been reading where a lot of UPCI churches are removing the "dress standards." I guess my concern is that is that not all members of the UPCI are being correctly represented. [Unsigned comment by User:Whitsitt3]

Concerning the differences between UPCI churches** You are correct in the fact that between the many UPCI affliated churches we do have differences in the area of Holiness standards. If you were to look at a number of churches in the same district, you would find some differences in the standards that are taught. Most of them are the basic teaching of a stong seperation in dress between the sexes. These "dress standards" are defined in God's word, and then subject to interpretation by the Pastor who is reading and teaching the standards. It's just like everything else, when the human factor is involved there will be different perceptions of what is being read/taught. Yet I feel that most UPCI churches have the same understanding. As to the majority of UPC people saying you don't need to speak with other tongues to be saved, they are misinformed. This is not a doctrine or standard subject to interpretation, but very clearly stated in God's word. The UPCI does believe in the evidence of speaking in tongues when the Holy Spirit comes into your soul. This is a core doctrinal belief, and will always be!! The UPCI takes criticism for maintaining modesty, and being seperate from this world. We also are sometimes maligned due to our stance on the Oneness, but that is nothing more than a pagen spirt trying to undermine the truth of Jesus' Name!! Hear Oh Isreal the Lord our God is One Lord!! One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism [Unsigned comment by unidentified user]

• The UPCI is definitely not changing its opinion on speaking in tounges. The organization still holds the opinion listed on this page, and being a member myself, I would estimate that more than 95% of churches agree with this. As far as Holiness standards, there is a lot of variation between churches. There are some churches that are very conservative, requiring their members to only wear long sleeves, to wear absolutely no jewelry (no wedding bands or watches), and for women to wear their skirts at a length that reaches below the ankle. And there are other churches that allow short sleeves, wedding bands & watches, and shorter skirts. As the above user stated, the Holiness standards are interpreted differently by different pastors and groups of people, but again, most UPCI churches still hold to some sort of standards. There are a few churches that are relaxing these standards considerably or taking them away completely, but most of those churches tend to exit the organization, either by their own choice or because of the organization revoking the pastor's license. Sherlock (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

UPCI Deletion

I have deleted the Ocean Side church because it does not meet the requirements of the notable churches section first and formeost the size of the congregation.

Does my explanation go on the discussion page of the UPCI?

Yes. Any changes of a controversial nature should be discussed on the discussion page (and I'm putting this discussion there) before making the change. Personally, I think that whole section needs work, because it doesn't establish a definition for "notable", but until that definition is established, let's hold off on removing a church. The thing we need to establish is the what criteria to use to label a church notable. Size? Community activity? Notable membership? None of this is defined in the article, and should be before asserting the notability of any specific church. Oh, and please start signing your discussion comments. You use ~~~~ to sign comments. --GoodDamon 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In most lists of notable items on Wikipedia, notability is established by the existence of an article. Also, we should avoid creating link farms in lists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable Churches vs. Notable Preachers

Notable Churches

I've added and subtracted some churches to the 'Notable Churches' section of the article. I think a good guidline to go by for addition to the Notable Churches section is attendance. For a church to be 'notable' (significant or great enough to deserve attention or to be recorded), the attendance should be at least 1,000. The list that is current as of 5/9/2007 includes 14 churches that I know to be over 1,000 congregants. There may be more, but those are the ones I know of. Dcmcgov 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I also think that we should have a standard for the "Notable People" section also. The people should be nationally known among the organization. If we list Notable People from every state, we will have hundreds of names. I have removed the following from the list for this reason:

Rev. Robby Emery, Youth President of the Michigan District UPCI.

Sherlock (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you stand by your criteria for "notable" churches then you must remove Dallas First Church and it's Pastor - Tom Foster. Tom has never ran more than 500 people, contrary to the reports of "GREAT REVIVAL" in Dallas. I personally worked on staff there for several years, as well as based my evangelistic ministry out of there for 9 years as the "Resident Evangelsit". They did "claim" hundreds to have recieved the Holy Ghost during the "Godwin Revivals", however, most of them didn't stay and few were ever baptized in Jesus name! Tom's numbers have always been characterized as "inflated and untrue", even the Texas District and Section 6 have infered as much (of course as is the Modus Operendi of the UPCI - rarely is any correction given or anything done about character issues, moral dilemas and violations of the black and white in the scripture ... as long as the preacher signs the Affirmation (whether he abides by it or not), makes his ladies abide by enough "extra biblical standards" and has the right last name, he is OK. Of course, I believe that Pastor Foster, is just another man who has been so pressured by the religious system to perform for all and give an outer disply for others validation, and in the process ... has actually began to believe his own press. I urge you to go to his church - anytime - and count the numbers for yourself and you will see the truth ... and it will set you free! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.93.102 (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Critics

There are critics of every denomination in religion. We do not need to list them on this page. Also when putting up notable people please put people on there are nationally and globally known for impacting the UPC. [Unsigned comment bby User:Ninety9]

Critics Section & Irrelevant Links

Being a minister in the UPCI, I often hear about the "notable" critics of our movement... but I have never heard of any of these so-called "notbale critics" that have been recently added to the article. It's as if somebody googled anti-upci sentiment and then created a links section to the first 6 websites. I think you must 1.) define what constitutes a "notable" critic, and 2.) choose the appropriate context to add them. The most common way is to introduce a "controversies" section into the article (check out the Southern Baptist Convention article), where some of these sources are cited. But to create a section of the article dedicated to nothing but personal websites against the UPC, and then to try to justify it by mislabeling it "notable" is pretty juvenile. There is a correct way to do things on Wikipedia, and that's not it. Dcmcgov 06:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am removing a link from the External Links section that leads to an article about the "Jews Killed Jesus" article. This is not a relevant link to the article for the United Pentecostal Church International, and has no place here. Dcmcgov 07:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Once Again please cease from posting irrelevant articles about Jews Killed Jesus and other pointless criticisms of the UPCI and please only add churches to the Notable churches piece that meet the criteria [Unsigned comment by User:Ninety9]

Vandalism

As you are a minister of the UPCI (referring to the gentleman above), then you are obviously uncomfortable with criticism of your organization. That is understandable, but it does not make criticism irrelevant. That you have never heard of the organizations listed does not make them irrelevant either. The very idea that you have never heard of Rick Ross (to name only one of them) is frankly mindboggling. Several of the other links go to published authors who have books on this subject.

I am not the person who posted the links, but I support the right of the readers to hear both sides. Watching this page get repeatedly vandalized really makes me wonder what else these critics have to say because the UPCI seems awfully anxious to hide it from everyone. If people would stop vandalizing this page, it might be possible to develop a more thorough section on criticism and controvery surrounding the UPCI as you suggest. At this point, it is difficult to keep even LINKS to controversial issues and criticism on this page (look at the history, and how many people have tried). It is disappointing that ministers behave so childishly, and I think that says a lot about the organization. [Unsigned comment by User:Mikkirose]

As I suspected, you are totally missing the point. I am not uncomfortable with criticism, and this is not "my" organization. I am a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I happen to belong to this organization because I believe in what it is trying to accomplish. However, as I stated below, I am uncomfortable with uncited statements like "Throughout it's history, the UPCI has been the subject of much criticism". Says who? I'm 3rd generation UPCI, and I am certainly not insulated to the criticism of this organization, but to say it has been "much" criticized? In what context? I would say the Jehovah Witnesses and the Catholics would constitute organizations who have been subject to "much" criticism. I would not put the UPCI in that category, and to do so is both ignorant and foolish.

As far as the link to the article about Jews Killed Jesus; what bearing does that have to a wikipedia article for a governmental church-structure organization? One immature pastor decides to act like a donkey, and gets a link on the wiki page for an ENTIRE organization. Again, ignorant and foolish. I can think of at least a dozen baptist pastors who have done things far worse than Maurice Gordon, but you dont see links to those articles on the Baptist page. Why? Because there is a place for this criticism of Maurice Gordon, but the wiki page for the world-wide organization of the UPCI is NOT THE PLACE! That is the true vandalism, not editing irrelevant garbage from this page. What's really disapointing you? That people are upholding the common rules of Wikipedia on this page (citations and NPOV!!!), or that nobody has been able to craft a criticism section the RIGHT WAY? There is a wrong way and a right way to do things on Wikipedia, that is the point.

If you want a criticism section, add it, but do it RIGHT. Give citations and use NPOV, but dont randomly add irrelevant and obscure links. This is not a resource center for anti-UPCI sentiment anymore than it is a resource center for pro-UPCI sentiment (which is why I have removed several pro-UPC links that dont belong here). It goes both ways. Dcmcgov 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The So-Called “Notable Critics” Section

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things on this website. And what this section is doing is totally contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This page should not be void of the criticisms of the UPCI, but neither should it be a links page for anti-upc sentiment. You simply cannot throw a dozen links up and call them “notable”. I think you must 1.) define what constitutes a "notable" critic, and 2.) choose the appropriate context to add them. The most common way is to introduce a "controversies" section into the article (check out the Southern Baptist Convention article), where perhaps you can cite some of the aforementioned links. But to create a section of the article dedicated to nothing but personal websites against the UPC, and then to try to justify it by mislabeling it "notable" is pretty juvenile. There is a correct way to do things on Wikipedia, and that's not it. Dcmcgov 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you would like the section expanded, please feel free to write one. You seem to feel strongly about how it should be done, so please provide an example of this, and maybe we will see what you mean. However, please note that the admins have already issued warnings to several users for removing the links section and referred to it as vandalism. So perhaps you are a little unclear on Wikipedia policy. Mikkirose 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am unclear. I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while, but maybe I'm dead wrong on this one. I strongly agree with you that this page should not be void of criticism, but I also strongly feel that it should be done the right way. I dont think posting a list of links is the appropriate way of doing it. There is no precedent for that style of editing on any other religious organization article, so I dont see why it should apply here. To get a sense for the prototypical "criticisms section", check out the Southern Baptist Convention article. The SBC is an organization very similar to the UPCI, so it's a good place to start. You can see that the criticisms section was weaved fittingly into the context of the article. There are some links to citations, etc, but there isnt a full page of links to anti-SBC websites. If that is the precedent that is set on this article, then who is to stop someone from posting another full page of links to pro-UPCI websites? I dont think that makes for an article of any integrity. But like I said, I could be wrong. Dcmcgov 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is beyond stupidity for an entire article on the UPC not to reference the two most scholarly critics: Gregory Boyd, and Thomas Fudge. And, no, the UPC is not the same as the SBC. The SBC is a respectable organization; the UPC never was. Also, calling many of these church leaders "Rev." might be a bit extravagant, because much of the UPC "rev's" are not educated people, and probably have no idea what a seminary is. [Unsigned comment by unidentified user]

There is no need to reference critics period. Every organization has critics. The UPC is a very respectable organization and for you to have the nerve to call not respectable and not have the "education" to at least give an example or facts as to why is beyond stupidity. The title of Rev. has nothing to do with education. When you are called by God you are called. Going to Seminary hardly qualifies you to be called Rev. Obviously you have a PERSONAL problem with the UPC so you are going to bash it. Again if you are going to take shots at the UPC at least have theres that word again the "education" to give facts or actual examples. [Unsigned comment by unidentified user]

What are the qualifications for ordination within the UPC? The answer to that question reveals its respectability. Are you willing to post the answer? What are the credentials of the posted "Notable" people in the article? Let the world know who you really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.231.196 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Irony

By the way, the funny irony of this revert war is the link to the "Jews Killed Jesus". That link was put in this article by a member of Maurice Gordon's church in Denver, a UPC church, to show viewers the media attentioned garnered by his controversial marquee sign. So you anti-UPC'ers are helping to uphold the editing done by a UPC'er. Good job. Dcmcgov 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And that IS ironic.  :-) Mikkirose 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page continues to be changed by people with no sign in names. How do we get their IP addesses blocked? (Seenitall 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Report their IP addresses to Wikipedia. These people should know they are risking their privacy by logging in on their IP addresses. It doesn't make any sense. Chuwils (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Holiness and Modern Society" Sub-section

Hello, I'm a member of the UPCI, and I'm a bit concerned about the "Holiness and Modern Society" section. It gives the impression that the UPCI is actively condemning television use (which it has done in the past). Recently, however, at the 2007 UPCI General Conference in Tampa, Florida, the ministers of the UPCI passed a resolution that doesn't specifically allow TV use, but it does allow member churches to advertise on television. I can't find any reference to this on the UPCI website or elsewhere (I'm still searching) but I'm certain that it took place. I just thought this needed to be brought to the attention of those who are editing this article Sherlock (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Sherlock. Tell us how you would write the section. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a place for PR for your organization. The 2007 UPCI General conference is relevant however the 1952 UPCI articles of faith are also relevant. Both have restrictions/condemnations of Television that are different from other Chrstian groups in general and from Pentecostals in particular. Remember this is not a theological debate. Just the facts. [Unsigned comment by User:Seenitall]

Yes, I completely understand that this isn't the place for PR for the UPCI. Here's how I would add to the "Holiness and Modern Society" section:

During the 2006 and 2007 UPCI General Conference Business Meetings, there was debate over a resolution to allow local churches to broadcast and advertise on television. A decision was postponed during the 2006 meeting. During the 2007 Business Meeting at the UPCI General Conference, the resolution was passed by a vote of the licensed ministers present.

Sherlock (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are these resolutions available to the public? So that we can cite them as reference? (Seenitall 02:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

I've been searching through the UPC website, and I found the minutes of the business meeting, but it only lists the resolution numbers and if whether or not they were passed. The only other mentions I can find of it on the internet wouldn't be considered reliable resources (i.e. blogs, forum posts). Sherlock (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That is one of the problems in verfying information on any religious group. In reality they are private corporations and whatever information they give is generally all the public has. Or you get information from former members but that is always tainted to some degree. Just like verifying membership numbers. I have been discussing this with some others. There is no perfect way to verify any groups numbers. The Catholic Church (for example) claims so many members. How do you verfify it? Not very easily. If you have information and you include it as a fact and they deny it, then you have nothing. When I read almost any religious article on wikipedia or in other places, I see a measure of self promotion on the part of the group. The older the group the more believable to the public. Or in some cases the better PR machine the group has the more agreeable or believable to the public. None of these are wikipedia standards. (Seenitall 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Racist

We do not need Racist and Untrue Statements about the UPCI in the History Section of the page. It is by no means necessary to mention splits from the organazation. It is also not necessary to put links of other organizations on the UPCI page. 11/27/2007 [Unsigned comment by unidentified user]

Hello. Please sign your comments using this: ~~~~

Anyhow, on to your comments... Having read that section of the article, there are a lot of statements in it that aren't supported by reputable citations, and should probably be removed, rephrased, or properly cited using a reliable source. It definitely needs some work. I strongly encourage you to alter the text accordingly, with proper encyclopedic citations. --GoodDamon 00:24, 28 November 2007

(UTC)

I will make more relevant comments. But my deleting of info on the UPCI page is not just me randomly deleting things to be like that I am deleting things that should not be on the UPCI page such as splits references to the UPCI and links to other organization. 11/27/2007 [Unsigned comment by unidentified user]

I wanted to respond to this directly. The history of an organization -- including references to splits within it and links to offshoots and related organizations -- is standard encyclopedic content and absolutely does belong in the article. It doesn't matter whether that history paints Pentacostalism in a positive or a negative light; this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion... or bashing a subject, for that matter. We find relevant sources, we create material based on those sources, and we properly cite those sources. That's all. --GoodDamon 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The history of Pentecostalism is one of racism and division. Both are relevant to history, church history and Pentecostal history. All of these are relevant topics for an encyclopedia. We do not make the UPCI article (or any other organizations article) more accurate by ignoring racism or trying to explain it away. The Azusa street revival is generally agreed to have happened, in part, because of racism. As, Seymore was not permitted to minister in white churches in LA. There is plenty of historical reference to racism in and out of the Pentecostal movement. Perhaps some work is needed to cite those. So, let's properly document this whole article before someone decided to eliminate the whole article because it reads like a PR piece for the UPCI. That is the view from my porch. Not even the UPCI, which you claim to represent, agrees with you. Their official web site says the UPCI came from a merger that was part of a split (with the AG) a generation before. This is why you (member of the group), your friends and those associated with the group are not objective on this subject. Racism and splits are part of the history whether we like it or not. (Seenitall 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)) seenitall (UTC)

That all may be true, but the history section definitely needs serious work. The citation at http://thebereans.net/prof-onep.shtml is a very bad one indeed, not at all a reliable source. It would be better to find an academic paper or news article to reference for that information, and there are a lot of statements on this article that entirely lack citation whatsoever. The person going in and wholesale deleting the content is in the wrong, but the existing article is both extremely biased and poorly written. --GoodDamon 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Good point. The Bereans have an agenda. Let's find a better source our there. (Seenitall 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)