Sigeng

Ray Comfort Books edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Sigeng,

I added back the list of books for Ray Comfort.

I don't think the consensus is right in saying that a small selection of books should be posted. Wikipedia is a tool for everyone who wants to look Ray Comfort up and see ALL the books that have been written by him. Otherwise, if someone wants to see if Ray wrote X book, goes on Wikipedia and doesn't see it listed, may think that he wasn't the author for it.

I'd appreciate if we can leave the list (even if extensive) as is. After all, he is a writer and best-seller author.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brambmanu (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but no. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. On the article's talk page, you will no one calling for a complete list of Comfort's books, and many instances over time calling for the list to be cut.

It is easy to find exhaustive lists of information such as all of Comfort's books (Amazon for example). A short list of books which best represent his views and contributions is more valuable information - more signal, less noise. The subheading clearly indicates the list is selected and elsewhere the article says he wrote 70 books and tracts, so it is not misleading. Also, I do not believe Comfort has ever made a bestseller list so his claim to being a bestselling author may be dubious. (Which book was bestselling?)

-Sigeng (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Brambmanu, I checked your edit history and said to another user that you are a personal assistant to Ray Comfort. As such you have a financial conflict of interest in editing Ray Comfort's article, since advocating for him is part of your job. You may wish to review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.

-Sigeng (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sigeng,

Thank you for your comments.

You said, "I do not believe Comfort has ever made a bestseller list." Wikipedia is not for believing or not, it is for facts. Right?

Regarding the "best-selling author" claim:

<< The most straightforward measure of bestseller status would seem to be the number of copies a book actually sells. However, there is no magic number that people in the publishing industry agree should equal “bestseller.” Some say it’s 10,000 copies. Some say 35,000.>> http://www.laeditorsandwritersgroup.com/what-is-a-bestseller/

Hell’s Best Kept Secret has sold well over 100,000 copies.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brambmanu (talk • contribs) 10:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn't asking how many books sold, but whether he had ever made a bestseller list. Anyone can claim to be "bestselling" or assert they sold a lot of books. A bestseller list would be audited confirmation; you provided an unverifiable claim instead and argued about the definition (citing what I'd consider an unreliable source). As his assistant, you're in a position to know if he were on a bestseller list. I think if he actually were on a list, you would have told me that instead. You made it clear that he's not.

–Sigeng (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

2014 March edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sigeng,

please tell me which sources re John G Lake you feel that I need to provide and I can paste them back into this section. The message you left on my talk page did not really specify what you wanted me to give you

Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Morton (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sigeng,

ok, I can easily find the source material (prob all from newspapers going on memory) on all these statements. If I have time tonight I will add them. Tommorrow is more likely, but I will add soon.

Re Burpeau, yes, he went to extensive lengths to find out about the "seminary" in Newberry, MI, and found out that it did not exist. The local Methodist church historian told him about a "sunday school" that existed, and Burpeau maintained that this is what Lake attended. In any case, this did not happen. I read through the Newberry newspaper for the relevant years and Lake was not at the Sunday school, nor was he ever in Newberry. His wife was from Newberry, but the newspaper indicates that she and her mother left her father (marital separation?) and moved to Sault Ste Marie, where the Stephens family lived a couple of doors down from the Lakes. I don't know how much you care, but check their original houses at Google Street View, 705 Bingham Ave, Sault Ste Marie, Lake house is green.

Burpeau's book is full of things like this--every time he finds that Lake did not do as he claimed, he creates a cover tale for him. Dozens of instances of this. Anyway, I have a lot of new material on Lake.

Removal of the CIFS quote edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

The following section contains a discussion of a quotation from an author whose replaced his name with "name withheld", sometime after first being quoted in Wikipedia. Out of respect for this person's privacy, I redacted all uses of his name from this conversation. -Sigeng (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sigeng, You have been editing the New Covenant Ministries International (NCMI) wiki page (NCMIWP) for several years now and your edits account for 43% of all edits. By now you should be well versed with the Wiki content policies:

I paste them below so that they are clear. But first here is the quote, your comments and references that you placed on the NCMI wiki page, that violate the Wiki content policy:

"REDACTED, former pastor of Coastlands International Christian Centre[66] and former NCMI team member, wrote a brief account of his experiences for Cult Information and Family Support (CIFS), an Australian anti-cult group. REDACTED writes,[28] "NCMI in my opinion has all the hallmarks of a cult.... I gave almost a quarter of a century of my life to its 'vision and values' and have not one [...] friend left to speak of.... The leaders are generally all uneducated, and know of little else except the manuals and 'NCMI speak'." CIFS notes in their disclaimer that "an account from one person must be read as that" and they encourage "readers to research widely before forming an opinion.""

"REDACTED. "Sunglasses and salesmen – an ex-pastor's story of sophistry and the soft cult". Stories - CIFS. Cult Information and Family Support Inc. Retrieved 21 October 2013."

REDACTED (1995). God's glory is perfected and His purposes revealed through the miraculous (Audiobook on cassette). Marlston, South Australia: Coastlands International Christian Centre.

Wiki Content Policy: Verifiability

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1]"

"In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source.

"it is definitely not good enough for you to (perhaps wrongly) believe it to be true. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true; you are absolutely prohibited from adding any material that is un-verifiable, with zero exceptions"

Wiki Content Policy: neutral point of view

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

Wiki Content Policy: Reliable sources

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."

Sigeng, I assume that you read the article "Sunglasses and Salesmen– an ex Pastor's story of sophistry and the soft cult." And I assume that you know that this article does not meet the Wiki criteria of a "Verifiable published article" but is rather a statement of personal opinion.

Let me remind you about the Wiki Content policy regarding self-publishing sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

And regarding points of opinion the Wiki Policy states:

"There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person.

Also, the policy of of neutral point of view requires that an editor present all the significant differing views from verifiable reliable published sources. When you just present one side, and that from an unverified source, you are acting as a biased editor. But my question is why? Why would you do that?

Leaving these violations of Wiki content policy aside, in your diligent 'investigation' to determine the reliability of the author of the "Sunglasses and Salesmen" as a source on NCMI, what verifiable documentation did you check to determine whether Mr. REDACTED was a reliable source? Did you look into any of the history or events that precipitated Mr. REDACTED leaving NCMI? And did you seek out any verified documentation to present the other side so that your quoting of him and your comments would be balanced? What means did you use to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topics that Mr. REDACTED raised?

Why did you put the quotes from Mr REDACTED in a Wiki article and only present one side?

You present yourself as having a desire to be an unbiased editor and yet you host a website/blog that vehemently opposes NCMI. With a bias like that, why are you acting as the predominant editor (43% of all edits are from you) of the Wiki page on NCMI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuzickMaker (talk • contribs) 03:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see that you are new to Wikipedia. Welcome. There is no reason to quote policy at length; it's a waste of your time and mine. I am quite familiar with it. Simply provide references to the policy you feel is infringed and why. For example WP:RS.

I have edited this article since October 2013. That is not "several years"; it is less than one year. I happen to prefer small edits, sometimes several in a single sitting so they can be discussed in isolation if necessary. Incidentally, it does inflate the number of edits I appear to make. I will not dispute that I made major contributions to the article, which, I might add, was rather awful before I started to work on it, full of insider language and (possibly copyrighted) NCMI material verbatim.

Going through the list of your accusations (there are quite a few), I must add that I do not host any website or blog that opposes NCMI, or any personal website at all for that matter. Nor do I have any affiliation with NCMI, REDACTED, or CIFS. I am aware of the various blogs that oppose and support NCMI, having done diligent research over several months and scouring the internet for quality sources.

I checked the CIFS page and it appears that REDACTED's name has been replaced with "name withheld". If you wish, use archive.org to confirm that his name was once posted there. I concede, however, that it is no longer verifiable that REDACTED is the author of that account, and his name should therefore be struck from it. However, the article remains accessible to editors who wish to verify its contents.

I disagree with your assertion that CIFS is not a reliable source. I encourage you to read the disclaimer that CIFS posted, something that I took the unusual step of briefly quoting in the article. "CIFS notes in their disclaimer that "an account from one person must be read as that" and they encourage "readers to research widely before forming an opinion." An organization that makes such statements demonstrates that it is functioning with a degree of editorial integrity; they are concerned about facts and opinions. I do not think I could have made it more clear the quotation contains an individual's opinion of NCMI, not an assertion of fact. When the article is clearly presenting a person's opinion, we must be clear that the source is a reliable source for that person's opinion, not that the opinion is fact. See WP:BIASED.

Regarding WP:NPOV, respectfully, you may not have read certain nuances to how this policy. It is quite acceptable to quote and discuss opinions so long as the article itself does not espouse an opinion. An article may say, "REDACTED writes, 'NCMI has all the hallmarks of a cult'"; it may not say "NCMI has all the hallmarks of a cult" (at least, not without considerable evidence). The article on the whole must be neutral. I would argue, to the contrary, that removing the quotation may upset neutrality since it could be construed as presenting a whitewashed image of NCMI that ignores detractors. If you are aware of a formal response from NCMI regarding REDACTED's allegations, I would also be quite happy to include that. I am quite happy to use any reliable material about NCMI, since there is a serious shortage of independent viewpoints given the reported size and influence of the organization.

Based on this discussion, I intend to reinsert the quotation with changes to remove the ex-pastor's name.

If you have a connection with NCMI, especially a financial relationship, your editing of this article may be an unethical conflict of interest. I am not accusing you of this, I am simply saying it because it is possible. If you do indeed have a connection to NCMI, NCMI would do well to publicly engage REDACTED's account rather than trying to expunge it.

-Sigeng (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

MuzickMaker (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)First, Sigeng, I owe you an apology. In reading through the large number of edits in the edit history I mistook you for an editor of the NCMI site who admitted to hosting an anti-NCMI blog. I will have to go back and re-read that talk exchange.Reply

Secondly, I know that it is easy to misinterpret heart in text because it is not a face to face dialogue. So let me say up front that everything I say to you is with a heart of gentleness and a desire not to attack you, but to deal with some things that I believe, from reading through your activity on the NCMI Wiki page, indicate that you are approaching editing the NCMI page with a bias against NCMI.

I trust that we can find answers to these concerns in a very amicable way.

Sigeng, you missed the point on the question of both REDACTED and CIFS being reliable sources. You asked me to refer to the sections of the Wiki policy in my text to you, assuming that you know what these sections say. I cannot just refer to the sections of the Wiki policy that say "questionable sources" or "verifiability" or "neutrality" etc. that you are violating because it appears that you don't see how your editing violates these policies. Let me point it out again:

"Questionable sources are those.... which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead...The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

The point is that Mr. REDACTED's article is, by Wiki definition, a questionable source on NCMI for several reasons: 1) It is personal opinions and contentious claims about third parties and institutions; 2) It is fails the "original research" criteria in that it refers "to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. 3) The article is self-published media of the exact kind wiki says is not allowed. 4) It violates the "contentious label" guidelines by using the "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult..." which are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources (Reputable published sources) to describe the subject...". 5)The issue is not whether CIFS as a source is reliable, it is that CIFS did not print the article from REDACTED as an expert published source on NCMI or as a research document on NCMI, but as a self-published anecdotal "story" from a person. Mr. REDACTEDs article is in the "stories" section of their webpage.

But again, in this matter, I would respectfully challenge your integrity as a Wiki editor. You say you are quite familiar with the Wiki policy for editors. If that is true then your editing demonstrates your bias and disregard for Wiki policy. Unbiased editing is, and I quote, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Sigeng, it is YOUR responsibility as an editor to be neutral and unbiased by specifically seeking out and presenting ALL significant verifiable published views from reliable sources. If you as an editor cannot find significant verifiable published views from reliable sources that present the opposing view to that of Mr. REDACTED's, what are you doing posting his view in the NCMI wiki article?

The NPOV policy states, (and this is what you are NOT doing):

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are."

When you do not present all such views, if you know the Wiki policy on bias and neutrality as you say you do, then you are deliberately weighting toward one perspective BECAUSE of your bias. According to Wiki, it is not a reader's or another editor's responsibility to find some verified reliable published source that presents an opposing perspective or that refutes someone's allegations and opinions to NCMI that you have edited into the NCMI article, it is yours! It is your responsibility to be neutral according to Wiki's definition of neutrality, by presenting reliable sources for both sides. And it is your responsibility to NOT post views that present one side, whether they be detractors or proponents, without presenting verified, reliable, published sources that presents an opposing perspective.

You say that "NCMI would do well to publicly engage REDACTED's account rather than trying to expunge it." You are not just breaking the wiki policies I have mentioned, you also have missed Wiki's some of Wiki's primary purposes and what Wiki is not, which very much concerns me.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground

"Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals."

Wiki is not a venue for opposing sides to debate or defend perspectives, as your invitation to NCMI does, and that you think it is begs the question as to whether you should be editing, especially a wiki article on an organization that you apparently are antagonistic towards.

I want to say this to you as gently but as forthrightly as I can. I do have an allegation against you, and it pertains to the question as to why you have not followed the wiki policy I mention above. Why would you choose to post a view like Mr. REDACTED's that is pejorative to NCMI, and that contains a contentious lable like "cult" knowing, as you have admitted, that you have not found any published view from a reliable source that presents a balancing perspective? Your actions indicate that you, in fact, are yourself biased against NCMI. The questions I asked you about what you did or did not do in researching the REDACTED article were rhetorical. But I asked them to get you to think about what you are doing in breaking the wiki reliable source, bias and neutrality policy. I asked you, "Did you seek out any verified documentation to present the other side so that your quoting of him and your comments would be balanced? What means did you use to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topics that Mr. REDACTED raised?"

My allegation against you, regardless of whatever good that you have done in editing the NCMI Wiki page, is that from looking at the language you use and the choices that you have made in posting what you have on the NCMI Wiki article, it appears that you are purposely, knowingly, willingly using Wiki as a vehicle to vet your bias against NCMI. The fact that you would choose an article like Mr REDACTED's without following the Wiki protocol of neutrality is one evidence that this is your agenda.

In order to clear the air regarding wether or not you are operating out of a desire to control the content of the NCMI Wiki site to reflect your bias against NCMI I have two requests: (I trust you will have the integrity to answer these requests honestly)

1) Please list in your talk area here for all to see, all of NCMI's ideas, beliefs, doctrines, and historical practices that you believe are doctrinally or ethically wrong.

If you are unwilling to do this, I can make it easy for you by going through the NCMI Wiki site and pull out every point that you have edited and you can answer a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether or not you agree the NCMI view or NCMI actions.

2) Please list here any urls of websites or blogs where your comments have been recorded in which you have taken detractors position on NCMI's ideas, beliefs, doctrines, and historical practices or in which you have shared your perspectives on NCMI.

I think Wiki readers have the right to know if an editor who has done 43% of the edits of a Wiki page is editing because he is a protagonist or a proponent of NCMI's ideas, beliefs, doctrines, and historical practices. I think they have a right to know why you have taken it on yourself to be the majority editor of this page.

I don't believe you have to agree with everything about NCMI to act in a neutral way, but if you don't agree with many things it speaks to why you have included some things and not others in your edits and how you word things. It also speaks to why you would want to spend so much of your time controlling what is put on the NCMI site. Even if your motive for editing the NCMI site is to highlight things about NCMI that you disagree with so that people can be "informed" about things that you think are wrong with NCMI or that you feel need to be "exposed" about NCMI you are functioning with a pejorative bias.

My purpose in asking you to do these two things is so that you can demonstrate that you do not have a significant bias against NCMI that is affecting your interest and decisions in editing this site.

To answer your questions about who I am and my connection to NCMI. I have been an NCMI trans-local team member for 5 years and have lead a church that has related to the NCMI trans-local team for 11 years. I am not South African, and have never been anywhere on the African continent. I have lived my whole life in North America. I have no connection to the finances of NCMI. I have never seen a financial report from NCMI. I have never been included in any financial decisions of NCMI. And I am not now involved in any decisions regarding how NCMI finances are spent whatsoever. I can't say that I represent NCMI in any official capacity, but I can speak to numbers of things that you have posted that are inaccurate. misleading and misrepresentations of NCMI.

My motivation in this communication with you and in being involved in the editing of the NCMI Wiki page is clear. I read the NCMI Wiki page and was disturbed at the bias you have shown in your editing. My desire is that whoever posts to the NCMI site does it fairly and without an agenda to discredit NCMI or to highlight things they disagree with about NCMI. I have no desire to use the NCMI Wiki page to promote NCMI or to paint NCMI in a positive light. I do, however, want to make sure that what is posted on the NCMI site is accurate, neutral and not driven by a pejorative agenda.

MuzickMaker (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Sigeng, Let me humbly rescind those inappropriate requests, with an apology. Namely:Reply

1) Please list in your talk area here for all to see, all of NCMI's ideas, beliefs, doctrines, and historical practices that you believe are doctrinally or ethically wrong.

If you are unwilling to do this, I can make it easy for you by going through the NCMI Wiki site and pull out every point that you have edited and you can answer a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether or not you agree the NCMI view or NCMI actions.

2) Please list here any urls of websites or blogs where your comments have been recorded in which you have taken detractors position on NCMI's ideas, beliefs, doctrines, and historical practices or in which you have shared your perspectives on NCMI.

I don't think I can demand that you post all that on here.

I apologize for asking that of you in that way.

However, I do feel it is right, if you are taking the position of editing the NCMI page to the degree that you are, that you make your motivation for doing so clear. And I think you should be honest about whether you are a proponent or a protagonist concerning NCMI.

I think that if you are a protagonist and that you are operating out of what you feel is a need to expose what you feel is wrong with NCMI or even a need to present information in a way that discredits NCMI in people's eyes or sets off warning bells in them regarding NCMI, you should seriously examine with honesty in your own heart whether it is ethical for you to be acting as the primary editor of the NCMI Wiki page, because that is a serious conflict of interest. It would be just as much a conflict of interest for me to use this site to promote NCMI as it is for you to seek to discredit NCMI.

I hope you are an honest person and that you do not hide your motivations. And I hope that you are willing to allow your motivations to be open to the scrutiny of the Wiki administration if you are operating out of this kind of conflict of interest in this matter.

I appreciate your rescinding of those requests.

Regarding conflict of interest, I hope it is clear that your affiliation with NCMI means that you have a conflict of interest as a matter of fact. In legal terms you have a material conflict of interest. While you may not be paid by NCMI directly, it's quite likely you that receive indirect financial benefits, and in theory one could put a price on those benefits. Wikipedia policy recommends that you use the edit request protocol for your edits. It is also suggested, but not required, to disclose your affiliation(s) on your user page.

If I have any conflict of interest, and I do not concede that, then it would be different by degree and category - not material. That may not seem fair, but the difference is simply that I have no affiliation, no financial benefit. Under strict definitions of the term it's not logically possible for me to have a conflict of interest without an NCMI affiliation.

That said, let me steer what you are now asking for about my motives in a different direction. The policy is to assume good faith and focus on individual actions and editorial decisions rather than motives.

When I said, "NCMI would do well to publicly engage REDACTED's account rather than trying to expunge it" - perhaps here I was unclear, but I was temporarily taking off my Wikipedian hat and offering an aside. It seemed to me that you were using Wikipedia as a battleground for the case of REDACTED. (Why the focus on REDACTED in particular?) My point was that addressing critics is a better policy. While I do not know the details of REDACTED's story apart from his anecdote, it sounds like his experience was painful, and my hope is that someone would make an effort to reconcile. I have never met Mr. REDACTED and no personal stake in his plight or personal axe to grind here.

Regarding the quote, first I would have to say given that CIFS does serious published academic research on cults and the Australian Senate solicits their opinion, we have to take them as a reliable source and an expert on cults. Their decision to showcase REDACTED's story, then, extends to it a measure of credibility; clearly, they view it as an example of cultish experience, or why else would they publish it? It is, however, problematic that we do not have explicit commentary to accompany the anecdote. Their disclaimer also indicates that the anecdote should not be construed as a definitive statement. I concede that the anecdote may be "therapeutic" - REDACTED's recollection of events tinged by emotional turmoil, for his benefit, as part of his recovery, not necessarily a journalistic record. So we have a credible source, providing an anecdote framed in an unusual way.

I believe in adding that I did not pay enough attention to policy about contentious terms, and I recall another editor changed my softer description of CIFS as a "support group" to "anti-cult group". REDACTED's recent decision to go anonymous also must play a part. You have convinced me that it is probably better to make a statement that captures the idea "CIFS published an anonymous anecdote from a former NCMI leader". That shifts the emphasis from REDACTED's statement to the fact at hand, that CIFS decided to published this anecdote. If NCMI were to respond officially, that would of course need to be cited as well.

-Sigeng (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

MuzickMaker (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Sigeng, A couple points regarding COI policy. Your statement, "Under strict definitions of the term it's not logically possible for me to have a conflict of interest without an NCMI affiliation." is not true according to the COI policy. You can be in COI without having a direct affiliation with NCMIi if, as the CIO policy states, "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests..."Reply

WP:COI goes on to say that "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." And that, "Conflict of interest is not simply bias.[7] Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest."

Sigeng, I am 100% committed to act in the best interests of Wikipedia over any personal interests that may exist because of my relationship with NCMI. I am also 100% committed to making sure that anything that I edit, whether it be additions, changes or removals are exactly in line with all of the Wikipedia content and editing guidelines. And I invite the scrutiny of editors and the Wiki administration to insure that I am following ALL of the Wiki policies and guidelines.

In order to facilitate the scrutiny of and input of Wiki editors and administration regarding my and your editing regarding the REDACTED quote I will be moving all further discussion regarding to the New Covenant Ministries International (Talk) section.

(UTC)Regarding WP:COI, Sigeng, may I say respectfully, you purport to have no conflict of interest, but according to the WP:COI guidelines you do not have to have a relationship with the organization the page is about to be biased by personal interests. However, as you can see, according to the COI guidelines you may very well have a COI because you may have personal interests that you are seeking to advance in the editing of the NCMI site.

The COI guidelines go on to say regarding editors who may have personal interests that may create a bias editing that editors "are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors.

In view of these Wiki guidelines I would respectfully ask you again to honestly disclose your "personal interests" in editing the NCMI Wiki page on your Sigeng (talk) page , especially in view of the fact that you have 43% of all edits to this site, over 130 of the last 150 edits and that almost 70% of all current content of the NCMI site has been posted by you.

I also ask this in view of your posting of the REDACTED quote, which as I have stated, I believe violates the WP:RS, the WP:verify, the WP:NPOV policies. MuzickMaker (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Sigeng, I am not going to reverse the revert you did on the REDACTED quote. I won't start an editing war on this. Rather, according to the guidelines we now need to continue this on the NCMI talk page, not in your talk anymore. If you and I cannot resolve this disagreement on the REDACTED quote, we will need to bring in administration to look over the quote and it's source.Reply

I am doing some research on WP:RS regarding the REDACTED source to determine if it meets the WIKI policy as a RS for this quote. I will get back to you with what I find out as soon as I know. I would appreciate you following the WP:CON guidelines on this quote since the quote is a controversial and the final content of the page should be arrived at by consensus.

I am willing to work with you to arrive at a consensus on this.

There are a few other items in the NCMI page that are not factual or worded in a way that is misleading. I will leave them for now until the REDACTED point is resolved and until you have posted your personal interest in editing this site.

By the way, on the whole, even though I think there is some bias that indicates that you have some personal interests that may have affected your editing, I think you have made some real improvements to the page.

Please be brief. This may be your day job. It's not mine.

You obtained the opinion of an other editor/administrator who reamed you out for asking for an account of my beliefs and stated in his opinion that the quote stands. (My username was mentioned, so Wikipedia notified me of the conversation.) He also advised you to gain experience working on some other topics, which would help to support your claim of commitment to Wikipedia in general rather than NCMI advocacy. And yes, he said the article was in poor condition and relies too heavily on NCMI sources for its material - duly noted. Although, as I've mentioned, there aren't enough independent reliable sources to make a high quality article. It stands to reason that efforts to improve the article should lean towards reducing its reliance on NCMI primary sources.

Your continued inquiries about my personal interests and beliefs are not welcome. My track record shows my commitment to improving the article. (I once asked an administrator to remove some pejorative edit summary vandalism, for example.) You may accuse me of some bias; very well, but remember we have established that you have an established, actual financial COI. You have yet to take any action that is inconsistent with an agenda of NCMI advocacy, including this line of inquiry.

Since REDACTED has opted for anonymity, we should respect that. I will remove all references to his name on my talk page in a few days.

I appreciate that you are now making an effort to engage the points raised by the other editor and me. -Sigeng (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

MuzickMaker (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Sigeng, We have not established that I have a financial connection to NCMI because I have no financial connection with NCMI whatsoever(please read my disclosure statement on my page). I have no conflict of interest because I am committed to following the Wiki Policies and Guidelines completely above anything else. It was a mistake to ask you about your personal beliefs. I apologized to you for that. I did that within the first two days of my being an editor. Like I said to the editor I asked to assist me with understanding the guidelines, it will not happen again.Reply

That said, if you are unwilling to disclose your personal interest in editing the NCMI page, for the sake of peace, I will not press it any longer.

I have no interest in advocating for NCMI. And other than my questioning you about your beliefs everything I have asked you has been in keeping with the Wiki policies and guidelines, which I am trying my hardest to encourage you to follow.

My interest in being involved in editing the NCMI page is single - that the content of this page conform to the Wiki content policies and represents the high standards that Wiki requires. The reason all the WIKI policies I have mentioned to you exist is to insure that you and me both are functioning according to them and to insure tthat the content of the pages we edit are accurate.

Let me say it clearly again, I am very willing to let everything I say and do on here be scrutinized by anyone. That is how committed I am to following the Wiki Policy over any other purpose.

But let me return to what should be, for both you and me, of highest importance: the quality of the NCMI page, and it's content conforming to the Wiki content policies and guidelines.

The editor I asked about WP:RS and pro/con content did not say the quote in question meets the WP:RS standards. He said that "As long as referenced opinions critical of the group are represented properly as opinions, and are representative of the range of opinions, pro and con, about the group, then those opinions belong in the article. But if the overwhelming range of opinions from independent sources is positive, then negative opinions are fringe, and should not be over-emphasized.

The point here is two things: Does the quote and the referenced source meet the WP:RS criteria. And does the quote represent the range of opinions, pro and con, from reliable independent sources.

If, as you say, there are no reliable independent published sources that have presented a pro side then the con quote you have inserted does not represent a range of pro and con opinions.

I would point out the guidelines in WP:controversialfacts "Try to arrive at a consensus with whomever participates in the discussion."

Are you willing to follow the WP:controversialfacts policy and guideline and work toward consensus?