Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
COI & Overly Detailed Tags Added
The tone of the article needs major rewrites. "out of a heart to serve the church and to see it move forward with unity and clarity of vision" ? Calling a single church leaving the organization an "Insurrection" ? First, who cares...second, a bit charged if we do care. Various stances taken on one side; zero balance or effort to provide much beyond the issues with the organization. This is not a blog post. Also a lot of extraneous info not needed on Wikipedia like a list of their current churches; I would contend this does not belong in an Encyclopedia (esp due to constant changes). ~ Gargarlinks (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is my first time posting an entry, but is seems as if the entire article is biased in an Anti-Antioch direction. Calling it a cult is (by wikipedia's definition) a pejorative term and is "considered deviant." Why is the beliefs deviant? Because they believe homosexuality is a sin? Because they have a ministry for victims of human trafficing? Because they believe marriage is between a man and a woman?
- I hope there is a better reason for calling the church a "cult" other than it does not agree with one political or social worldview. 76.235.248.210 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- A recent major edit has corrected the tone to be more neutral and professional. Also removed were several overly detailed redundant parts of the page that described the same incidents. These issues have been adequately addressed and resolved. Thank you for noting it. Austin613 (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- The tone is hardly neutral. COI tag is still appropriate. Section headings like "Unethical and deceptive church planting" without further elaboration on why they are unethical (and not even super clear why they are deceptive) are again not things that belong in an encyclopedia without further sourced facts. It's not to say that these bad things can't be true but if they will be on wikipedia they must have appropriate tone and cited data. Those are opinionated statements. This is one small example of which there are plenty of others still in the article. The article can be highly critical while still maintaining a neutral tone and some effort at balance. Right now it's mostly a laundry list of complaints loaded with biases language. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's contrary to complain about an article being overly detailed yet after it gets edited, complain it's not detailed enough. When you make overly reductive edits, obviously the article will become weaker and suffer. If articles need further elaboration, many should be restrengthened with carefully worded expansive additions. I don't quite see the issues you speak of with the sourced facts. Sourced information should not be removed from the article even if you think it is biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage. Austin613 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not having enough good sources, using biased language, and being overly detailed are all separate topics. Additional quality sources are always appreciated. I have not removed any section for having biased language; only the section that was not relevant for placement on the article referenced elsewhere on this talk page. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like we don't have consensus, although "Unethical and deceptive church planting" definitely could benefit from some expansive elaboration after the reductive edits. I thought the prior content was very self-evident to the subheading, I wouldn't say I'm confused about why their lack of transparency, secretive international missions, breaking laws in other countries are to be described as unethical/deceptive. Frankly, many articles have been whittled down recently, perhaps a bit too much. Austin613 (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not really sure thereductive edits you're referring to (again, I have not been making many substantial changes to the article other than the two referenced here on the talk page), but you can open a discussion about them in a new section; I don't believe the edits you're referring to are from me and if they are please open a thread about them with specifics to discuss. COI and overly detailed tag per this discussion is definitely still relevant and will stay in place until the article is cleaned up. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would refer to the recent edits mostly by Wdonghan. I see you recently added a citation needed for Antioch Waco's encouraging Grace Alliance as a substitute for Mental Health professionals. Upon review, it seems the needed citation was deleted by Wdonghan. That's something that you could've easily discovered by viewing history. Would've been productive to correct it yourself as I have. This is one example of an edit that was too reductive. I haven't reviewed his other edits in depth but seeing this error, upon second consideration, his edits may not be up to standard after all and should have been more careful if not, reverted. Austin613 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- "That's something that you could've easily discovered by viewing history."
- It's not a normal process on Wikipedia that one would look at an article's history to see if a citation was removed. The content of that section is indeed better now; it's probably unnecessarily detailed but better than it was before. I suggest if you have any frustrations around the reductive edits you're referencing, you take them up with User:Wdonghan directly. I don't disagree it's better now with your restoration than before; a bit too in the weeds in my personal opinion but tone at least is decent and arguments cited appropriately. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would refer to the recent edits mostly by Wdonghan. I see you recently added a citation needed for Antioch Waco's encouraging Grace Alliance as a substitute for Mental Health professionals. Upon review, it seems the needed citation was deleted by Wdonghan. That's something that you could've easily discovered by viewing history. Would've been productive to correct it yourself as I have. This is one example of an edit that was too reductive. I haven't reviewed his other edits in depth but seeing this error, upon second consideration, his edits may not be up to standard after all and should have been more careful if not, reverted. Austin613 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not really sure thereductive edits you're referring to (again, I have not been making many substantial changes to the article other than the two referenced here on the talk page), but you can open a discussion about them in a new section; I don't believe the edits you're referring to are from me and if they are please open a thread about them with specifics to discuss. COI and overly detailed tag per this discussion is definitely still relevant and will stay in place until the article is cleaned up. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like we don't have consensus, although "Unethical and deceptive church planting" definitely could benefit from some expansive elaboration after the reductive edits. I thought the prior content was very self-evident to the subheading, I wouldn't say I'm confused about why their lack of transparency, secretive international missions, breaking laws in other countries are to be described as unethical/deceptive. Frankly, many articles have been whittled down recently, perhaps a bit too much. Austin613 (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not having enough good sources, using biased language, and being overly detailed are all separate topics. Additional quality sources are always appreciated. I have not removed any section for having biased language; only the section that was not relevant for placement on the article referenced elsewhere on this talk page. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's contrary to complain about an article being overly detailed yet after it gets edited, complain it's not detailed enough. When you make overly reductive edits, obviously the article will become weaker and suffer. If articles need further elaboration, many should be restrengthened with carefully worded expansive additions. I don't quite see the issues you speak of with the sourced facts. Sourced information should not be removed from the article even if you think it is biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage. Austin613 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- The tone is hardly neutral. COI tag is still appropriate. Section headings like "Unethical and deceptive church planting" without further elaboration on why they are unethical (and not even super clear why they are deceptive) are again not things that belong in an encyclopedia without further sourced facts. It's not to say that these bad things can't be true but if they will be on wikipedia they must have appropriate tone and cited data. Those are opinionated statements. This is one small example of which there are plenty of others still in the article. The article can be highly critical while still maintaining a neutral tone and some effort at balance. Right now it's mostly a laundry list of complaints loaded with biases language. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think the article is in a good in enough place now to remove the tags so I've done so, though further work would be great. Gargarlinks (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Antioch International Movement of Churches. 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/20110823225448/http://www.antiochcc.net/our_history.php to http://antiochcc.net/our_history.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319221832/http://hirr.hartsem.edu/cgi-bin/mega/db.pl?db=default&ui to http://hirr.hartsem.edu/cgi-bin/mega/db.pl?db=default&ui
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402133705/http://worldmandate.com:80/about.html to http://worldmandate.com/about.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.wacotrib.com/news/114467679.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801194911/http://www.antiochchurchplanting.com/?page_id=26 to http://www.antiochchurchplanting.com/?page_id=26
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819014904/http://joelcomiskeygroup.com/articles/worldwide/NorthAmerica.htm to http://www.joelcomiskeygroup.com/articles/worldwide/NorthAmerica.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807165925/http://www.antiochcc.net:80/missions.php to http://www.antiochcc.net/missions.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811023411/http://www.antiochcc.net:80/missions_ministry.php?id=5 to http://antiochcc.net/missions_ministry.php?id=5
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.wacotrib.com/wacotoday/Waco-missionaries-restoring-life-in-Uganda-one-brick-at-a-time.html - Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Protestant/2002/02/Where-It-All-Began-For-Heather-Mercer-And-Dayna-Curry.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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 17:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Dubious claims
This article uses several personal blogs as 'sources' that Wikipedia would classify as dubious. See Wikipedia's terms on disputed statements more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificKnight001 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Ninjabear7's Biased Editing
NinjaBear7's recent additions to the wikipedia page have indicated a strong bias in favor of the Antioch International Movement of Churches, along with removing cited information and putting the church's own mission statement on a Wikipedia page. I believe it would be best if NinjaBear7 was prevented from editing the page. Wdonghan (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Point of View Issues
Clearly user PacificKnight001, the biased creator of this page, is a pr marketing fluff employee of Antioch church and has no conception of the meaning of journalistic integrity nor of what bias and neutrality means.[1] PacificKnight001 takes sides against reported controversies and allegations, censors and smoothing over them from a pro-Antioch pov rather than merely report them as they are sourced to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
This page is being edited by someone who seems to be a former member of the church and does not have a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificKnight001 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I am going to edit out some of the non-neutral point of view language, especially recent edit by the un-named 207.225.234.150. jimdmurphy (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
References
From what I see, you both appear to have a conflict of interest. In any case, Jengaboot, the sources you cited are suboptimal. —PaleoNeonate – 02:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)