Talk:Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore). 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/20150329183714/http://calvarypandan.sg/our-history/our-history-2 to http://www.calvarypandan.sg/our-history/our-history-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore). 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/20150509180226/http://www.gracebpc.org.sg/weekly/2009/Jan%202009/1101/gwc.htm to http://www.gracebpc.org.sg/weekly/2009/Jan%202009/1101/gwc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509180226/http://www.gracebpc.org.sg/weekly/2009/Jan%202009/1101/gwc.htm to http://www.gracebpc.org.sg/weekly/2009/Jan%202009/1101/gwc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509180226/http://www.gracebpc.org.sg/weekly/2009/Jan%202009/1101/gwc.htm to http://www.gracebpc.org.sg/weekly/2009/Jan%202009/1101/gwc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio?

Earwig's pulls up this and this. I'm having trouble telling because neither of those will load in Duplication Detector properly and the article is just too damn long.

Frankly, it needs to be trimmed anyway, possibly blown up, paved over, and rebuilt. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

On section "Doctrine, Distinctives and Differences"

@Watchman1234: On the new section you have added in, I had reverted as I think it has too much details, and doesn't integrate well with the existing content. The work looks like from someone who is involved in one of the BP churches. Does the average reader need to know the intricacies of the split? The article already has stated, in gist, that there was a split due to differences, and I thought that's sufficient. (See: Wikipedia:Too much detail) A look at the Bible Presbyterian Church doesn't include similar level of details about the splits there. Also given that you had edited substantially in the now removed edits, I am not sure how much of these are lifted or synthesised from sources, or are material reintroduced from the revdel versions. Can the amount of details be toned down, summarised further? – robertsky (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply: I have reduced the details on the previous write-up on Doctrinal Statement and Premillennialism. I have heeded Dianna's advice on rephrasing, minimizing the actual words in sources and using quotation marks where used in the submissions yesterday and today. No problem with removing the submission yesterday even though I don't think any copyright was violated. I'll reduce the size of future submissions for checking by you and others.Watchman1234 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC).

content dispute

@Watchman1234:@219.74.19.150: I see there is an ongoing edit war on content. Please note WP:NPOV and lets discuss the changes and agree on the content to be presented. If there is a need, seek WP:3O on content. Note that a balanced and well sourced article is to the benefit of the organisation, pushing a certain point of view only hurts and discredit the organisation.--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor:@219.74.19.150:@Drmies: 219.74.19.150 was reverted twice on 30 April 2021 by Justanothersgwikieditor who in turn was reverted by Drmies on the same day with Drmies then proceeding to make further edits by removing a part of Doctrinal Statement (-362 bits) and a part of Premillennialism (-6,031 bits) contributed by watchman1234 (i.e., me).

With due respect, I don’t think Drmies has studied Bible-Presbyterian Churches (Singapore) sufficiently or carefully as his/her edits ignored that the contributions of 219.74.19.150 are original research. No sources were cited by 219.74.19.150 with new information added by him/her; or a narrative was changed by him/her with no supporting source (or one/both of the previous narrative and the source supporting it were removed) and/or the revised narrative is not supported by the existing source (that is re-used); or the sources cited (merely urls of organisations’ websites) are misleading as they do not support the added or the new narrative. In Drmies’ reversing of Justanothersgwikieditor and in Drmies’ subsequent edits, the contributions of 219.74.19.150 were all left intact despite the edits breaching Wikipedia policies.

It is hard to understand why Drmies would accept the edits of 219.74.19,150 fully when he/she has refused to accept what is crystal clear in that it was David Wong, the General Secretary of BPCIS, who reported or announced the admission of Mount Horeb BPC as the eighth BPCIS member; 219.74.19.150 changed David Wong to Bob Phee, then non-existent “Synod of BPCIS” and finally (and currently) “presbytery of BPCIS” – which Drmies seems to accept – when there is no presbytery within BPCIS as those who formed or joined the BPCIS intend it (BPCIS) to serve as the new BP Presbytery. I gave my reasons in “Summary of Edits” when I disagreed with 219.74.19.150 but he/she persisted with refusing to accept what is indisputable in the supporting source in https://www.zionbishan.org.sg/2020/08/staying-true-to-our-mission/ that it is David Wong who reported (or announced) the eighth BPCIS member – a relatively insignificant factual event. I cannot see the relevance of including Malaysian BP churches’ names (i.e. Rawang and Kelapa Sawit) – insisted on by 219.74.19.150 – in Bible-Presbyterian Churches (Singapore) and Drmies seems to agree with him/her but Justanothersgwikieditor, in my view, rightly disagrees even though Justanothersgwikieditor seems to have a lower ranking than Drmies as a Wiki editor.

Drmies removed the part on the fifteen BP churches registered on 17 November 1986 by indicating that the removed part is irrelevant. However, this part is put in to show that the individual BP churches only registered in 1986 despite the churches being in existence for many years prior to 1986 – after the founding of the first BP church in 1955. The significance of this part can also be seen if the section “Separation not in BPC’s Original Constitution” is not deleted by Drmies.

Drmies also removed a big chunk of Premillennialism citing this to be excessive and not neutrally sourced. But this section has only six short paragraphs, and only the first paragraph was retained by Drmies. The second paragraph (117 words) points out that the premillennial position of the BPC is the dispensational premillennial or pro-Israel premillennial position which is different from the historic premillennial position; the paragraph can be reduced to 66 words, if necessary, by removing the second and last sentence. The third paragraph (195 words) explains in brief the three views – Premillennialism, Postmillennialism and Amillennialism. The fourth paragraph (140 words) explains the importance of Premillennialism in relation to the study of prophecy. The fifth paragraph (46 words) states that BPCIS regards Premillennialism as non-essential to Bible-Presbyterianism and its churches will only teach this doctrine but allows their ministers and members to embrace Amillennialism or Postmilliennialism. The sixth paragraph (110 words) clarifies that the BPC does not separate from other Christians or churches just because they hold to a different millennial view, e.g., Peter Masters. (Donald Trump is much longer than Barack Obama and George W. Bush despite Trump serving only one term compared to his predecessors who served two terms as President.)

Since both sides share the same Premillennialism view, with the difference being only in one side considering the doctrine as essential and the other considering it as non-essential to Bible-Presbyterianism, it should not matter where the sources supporting the narratives come from or that the sources come from only one side. Joshua Yong’s article in The Burning Bush https://www.febc.edu.sg/v15/assets/pdfs/bbush/The%20Burning%20Bush%20Vol%2026%20No%201.pdf cites the sources of the other side (BPCIS) on matters he commented on in their book Heritage & Legacy of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore (Heritage & Legacy), which is not available on the internet for viewing (unlike the Tow brothers’ books). Other than Heritage & Legacy, the ministers in BPCIS are not prolific writers with books that can be used as sources to support their views; they also do not have a theological journal for a trans-denominational college https://bgst.edu.sg/vision started by SH Quek and David Wong in 1989: https://bgst.edu.sg/history.

As Drmies is aware, Randykitty left in The Burning Bush for more than four years the criticism of Tan Eng Boo published in the weekly of his church (Grace BPC) – a primary source document – which was cited as evidence of The Burning Bush publishing on few other topics outside verbal plenary preservation (VPP) and combating personally people who espouse other views. This has now been removed as Randykitty has apparently realised that he had acted inconsistently after seemingly coming out in support of Drmies that primary source documents cannot be used. Although I submit that I’m far less experienced and knowledgeable than Drmies as a Wikipedia editor, I believe that not all encyclopaedias work the same way in that they use only primary source documents – the view seemingly of DRmies. The Britannica article here https://www.britannica.com/topic/encyclopaedia/Encyclopaedias-in-general supports my view. Besides indicating that many scholars and scientists have contributed to encyclopaedias with their views, which would be primary sources, the article goes on to say that “[p]eople look to encyclopaedias to give them an adequate introduction to a topic that interests them” and “[m]any expect an encyclopaedia to omit nothing and to include consideration of all controversial aspects of a subject”. I believe it would be regressive if Wikipedia does not adopt this policy.

Primary sources should not be avoided completely, as they are the most reliable in terms of accuracy of what was actually said or written by the persons involved; however, as some utterances may be biased (as in Tan Eng Boo’s comments about The Burning Bush since Tan Eng Boo is non- or anti-VPP), they should be countered or moderated with information from other primary and/or secondary sources showing the biases. (Randykitty, another experienced and well-versed Wiki editor like Drmies, was not agreeable to this when the issue was discussed more than 4 years ago; however, he has on 30 April 2021 finally removed the edit sourced from Tan Eng Boo but has also put up immediately a proposal to consider, for a second time, deleting The Burning Bush in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy after failing to achieve consensus for deletion in 2015.)

If primary sources are to be avoided completely, a useful article such as Anglican Diocese of Singapore would have to be deleted as the information on the article comes entirely from primary sources in the Anglican Diocese of Singapore and its main church, the St. Andrew’s Cathedral. Many other useful articles on Wikipedia with reliable information solely or mainly from primary sources would need to be deleted too if the rule requiring only information from independent secondary sources – which, even if available, are sometimes inaccurate or unreliable – is rigidly enforced without exercising judicious judgment.

I note that 219.74.19.150 has also waded into Bethany Independent-Presbyterian Church with adding on 28 April 2021, after “Bethany IPC grew out of a Sunday School outreach to the Seletar Hills estate”, the words “by Bible Presbyterian Church of Singapore” without citing any source. The Bethany IPC article has been tagged since September/October 2010, incidentally by Justanothersgwikieditor and another, with relying largely or entirely on a single source or relying too much on references to primary sources. Looking at BPC documents, 219.74.19.150 should know that the Synod or the Presbytery in 1973 when Bethany was founded was not named “Bible Presbyterian Church of Singapore”, and the Sunday School in Seletar Hills was not set up by the BP Presbytery or Synod but by Zion BPC. One needs to be careful in editing – whether reading from primary or secondary document sources – to ensure accuracy in one’s edits. Watchman1234 (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Watchman1234, this talk page post is almost as long as the article, which was already too long, and I am not going to dwell much on individual edits here. I will, however, point out some fundamental misunderstandings. First of all, that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources is a given.

Primary material needs to be handled only in certain circumstances, and it should certainly not be used to lay out a majority of any article.

Second, the assumptions of what I am aware of or seem to accept, they are just assumptions and they are irrelevant, and border on a lack of good faith. I am not crediting the IP editor with anything but a better understanding of WP:PRIMARY; besides that, they are disruptive and uncommunicative. But any experienced Wikipedia editor should see that this revert does indeed remove unacceptable content: "Daniel Chua has also ignored that...", for instance, in an otherwise unverified paragraph, is pure original research. Only a secondary source can established that someone ignored something, and that secondary source needs not only be cited, but also acknowledged in the text, so it's not in Wikipedia's voice.

Third, that primary sources "are the most reliable in terms of accuracy of what was actually said or written by the persons involved", that is simply not true, except for in an irrelevant philosophical and unencyclopedic way, since the primary source may accurately describe what the primary source said, but that doesn't make it either true or relevant.

Finally, I'm criticized for this edit--but again, the OR, the argumentative nature, is plain to see, as is the fact that these sources are not neutral. Timothy Tow, clearly not an independent source, verifies (not says) that "The postmillenniaI view...that Christ will come after the millennium when the world through human endeavours has attained its utopia is wrong as it denies the doctrine of sin and believes (mistakenly)..."? No, that cannot be, not in terms of sourcing, and not in terms of writing. He may have that view, but it needs to be properly ascribed, by a secondary source. Same with a claim like this, "The doctrine of premillennialism is key to understanding prophecies". Oh. Says who--well, someone writing in a journal that reflects the viewpoint and doctrine of that church. No, these lengthy criticism are simply not valid, and if this article weren't just edited by people who are incommunicado or partisan, it wouldn't look the way it does. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And who wrote, in this article, in Wikipedia's voice, with a reference to nothing but Paul, "Machen is of course in step with the Apostle Paul who was careful about building upon another man’s foundation"?? Drmies (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I like to point out that Drmies' reversion of my reversion is correct. What was added in your (Watchman1234) edit was mostly primary source based statements which are generally not accepted. Due to the high number of edits seemingly like removal of source content, I acted on reverting it due to the lack of edit summaries after a quick glance. Drmies' subsequent edits are correct. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Watchman1234: While considering the replies from Drmies and Justanothersgwikieditor above, from your edits it seems that you are pretty much involved with at least one of the BPCs, or one or many of the people involved. I am not going to slap a WP:COI warning over this considering that you are in good faith trying to improve article as a subject matter expert. For this, do kindly read on WP:EXPERT on the general opinions/advices on how an expert editor editor should conduct oneself on Wikipedia. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for your message. My last talk page post (1,403 words) is not really "almost" as long as the article (6,185 words) but no problem with accepting the post as long.

I believe Wikipedia has no firm rules, and policies and guidelines are not carved in stone but may change over time and exceptions are sometimes made for improving Wikipedia. While you wrote previously, “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and ALL of its content must … be based on secondary sources” and “if there are no independent secondary sources on this or that topic, you simply cannot write the text.” However, as I see exceptions in many articles, including the two examples cited in Anglican Diocese of Singapore and Bethany Independent-Presbyterian Church and Randykitty allowing a statement based on a primary source to remain in The Burning Bush for more than 4 years, I thought it would be fine as the issue is reliability and if the views of both opposing parties on a controversial subject are presented based on WP:5P2, this pillar also allows for explanation of major points of view, a well-recognized point of view in some instances and where there are multiple points of view, the presentation of each point accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". I endeavor to be objective. However, if there are areas where I may appear to have been partisan due to taking a position that a point is well-recognised, or presenting one view not as much as a second view because the first view does not have that many articles/sources (e.g., those in BPCIS or the evangelical faction do not write as much as the Tow brothers), I would gladly welcome edits from others (WP:5P3), including from 219.74.19.150.

Unfortunately, the edits of 219.74.19.150 often had no sources; or if an existing source supporting a narrative was retained, it did not support the revised narrative; or if sources were furnished, they were done to mislead by just furnishing the urls of organisations which, when accessed, have no information supporting the narratives in the edits. As 219.74.19.150 does not have that many edits (perhaps 5 or 6), the edits can be easily located and not be left to stand unedited as he/she would think that he/she was right since you had reversed Justanothersgwikieditor. Just a suggestion for your consideration.

As for your remarking "Daniel Chua has also ignored that..." stands unverified, you may want to note that clicking on the LBPC’s lawsuit you can see in the article that FEBC registered with “a new constitution (with VPP stated as a doctrine)” but this did not affect FEBC as the court ruled that the doctrine is not a deviation from the principles contained in the WCF (see “Leadership of Fundamentalist Faction”). If the words “Daniel Chua has also ignored that” are objectionable, then they can be removed so that the statement reads “Singapore’s highest court [has] unanimously upheld …”

On your view disputing primary sources "are the most reliable in terms of accuracy of what was actually said or written by the persons involved", what I put forth was that what a person had said or written is the most accurate. This means that if the words are allowed to be reproduced as quotes (Wikipedia does not permit this as it requires editors to rephrase), they would be the most accurate. An independent secondary source reporting on what was said or written by another person can make mistakes. I can cite a real example here: https://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20081217-108546.html. Among the factual errors that reporter Arul made are: (i) “In January 2004, the True Life church registered the college as a charity organisation …” and (ii) “They [FEBC directors] also claim that the college … is among the trustees of the site.” It should have been possible to get the facts (from documents of the parties filed with the courts and relevant governmental organisations), but Arul failed for whatever reason. It is of course possible for owners of facts to give the wrong information, but it is less likely compared to a third person who looks to the owners to supply the information; if a third party has been given incorrect information, it is unlikely that he can correct it if the owner is the sole source. If the words involved are views/opinions, then they may be biased, as already pointed out, and the way to mitigate is to present views and opinions on the same matter of different persons.

On your objection to using as source Timothy Tow’s book on Premillennialism, this source is still the best if it is to show what Tow teaches. There is no issue between the two sides on Dispensational Premillennialism since BPCIS churches will only teach this. Your objection, however, may still be overcome with citing also the relevant pages in Heritage & Legacy, if a suitable secondary source cannot be found. The one here http://walterckaiserjr.com/Israel%20and%20pre-millennialism.html is too long to read compared to Tow’s book; additionally, there may also be some Kaiser points not agreeable to Tow (I don't really know) so the safer option is to cite Tow’s book with Khoo as source.

You have removed five paragraphs from Premillennialism citing its length to be excessive. But as people look to encyclopedias to give them adequate information, then at least some (if not all) of the five deleted paragraphs, amended if necessary, can be restored. There is no point looking for alternative sources if you are set that it is not possible to go beyond one paragraph – which does not seem to apply to the sections of many other Wiki articles that I have seen. Is there a definitive policy or guidance here on length?

Finally, if it is objectionable to state the obvious that Machen is in step with Paul, then this can be reduced to: “The Apostle Paul was careful about building upon another man’s foundation (Romans 15:20).” This way, the Bible (a secondary source) speaks for itself and the readers can draw their own inferences.Watchman1234 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Watchman1234, it is pretty clear, or it should be, that the Bible is not a secondary source on anything (if only because it isn't peer-reviewed in the sense in which we use it). Citing the Bible to strengthen someone's doctrinal correctness is the kind of thing that one does in mission work and sermons, not on Wikipedia. Robertsky, thank you for your comment re:COI, and I'll add, Watchman1234, that "COI" doesn't mean you get paid for, or are employed by, some organization. And I find it odd that (below) you said that you are no "subject matter expert", when earlier you suggested that I have no business editing this article: "With due respect, I don’t think Drmies has studied Bible-Presbyterian Churches (Singapore) sufficiently or carefully".

Finally, length--use common sense, and let "length" (or depth of coverage) be decided by the available secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for your message. I put forth the Bible as a secondary source as it was not written by any ministers in the two factions and hence the Bible’s independence cannot be questioned. The Bible has been “peer-reviewed” – for reliability – over the centuries including in its canonisation into 66 books. As the Bible is accepted as authoritative by both sides and many Christians, Romans 15:20 was cited as the type of conduct (rather than a doctrine) approved by Machen of a political club and a church. Anyway, if you decide that the Bible is not a secondary source on anything, I’ll accept this and not use Bible verses in the future.

I’m aware that COI is not limited to being paid or employed by someone. When the issue of COI was brought up, someone (StAnselm, if I remember correctly) even said that a believer of God should not be disqualified from writing an article on God as it may be difficult for an atheist to write objectively on this topic. Both Bpc.sg, whose name seems to present an apparent COI, and I were cleared to continue as editors of articles related to the Bpc. I’m no subject matter expert as I’m not a church historian, neither a theologian. I’m just a layman who has not studied any course at the Far Eastern Bible College even though its courses in the evening (pre-Covid) and online now were/are open to members of the public.

I don’t think I suggested that you have no business editing Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) as I also gave the reason (in the words underlined that you may have inadvertently overlooked): "With due respect, I don’t think Drmies has studied Bible-Presbyterian Churches (Singapore) sufficiently or carefully as [Drimes’] edits ignored that the contributions of 219.74.19.150 are original research. I again suggested in my last post that you look at the contributions of 219.74.19.150 to correct them so as not to give the misimpression that he/she was right with u reversing an experienced editor in Justanothersgwikieditor. In my view, 219.74.19.150 is new (with no understanding of Wiki policies); I gave my reasons for editing his/her contributions in the “Summary of Edits” each time but to no avail. My apologies if I did give you the impression of suggesting that you had no business to edit Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore). There was never such an intention as I was aware of WP:5P3 and also your status as a Wiki editor with special rights – perhaps with a rank higher than Justanothersgwikieditor (in terms of having more rights).

Thanks for advising on the length and depth of coverage.Watchman1234 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Thanks for your message. I have no COI as I’m not promoting any interests or acting as the agents for anyone. The COI issue was discussed previously with regard to VPP. I’m no subject matter expert as I rely entirely on information available on the internet or from books that I can get hold of – as you can see from all my contributions.Watchman1234 (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Watchman1234, unfortunately like Drmies, I am not convinced that you are not COI or SME. Either way, I have taken it that you are aware of the basic tenants of Wikipedia. One of which is that the usage of primary sources is discouraged, and I would go as far as saying especially if they are pushing opinions. Considering that this article is about the various churches, the churches' publications (affiliated or otherwise): i.e. periodicals, magazine, or even journals can be classified as such. Books published by the churches' leaders, or others who are involved may also be primary source. I suggest that if you want the text about ones' opinions to be kept, find relevant secondary sources. For facts from primary sources (again, not opinions in primary sources), court documents, government documents, etc are usually used judiciously and (also in my opinion) easily accessible by other editors for verification. If you can find such sources to correct the errors in secondary sources, sure, go ahead and replace with the correct fact and make sure to add the relevant citation. In my opinion, your writing seems to be a literature review on primary sources rather than for an encyclopaedia, which probably may be considered for an entry into a relevant research journal, but not here. From the way I see this, text starting from the Division section should be looked at, summarised, and remove opinions from primary sources. I just do not have the capacity to do in depth review of this article to perform the above.

You cited the likes of Anglican Diocese of Singapore, but looking at that page, the primary source citations are for basic facts like when was it founded, split, funded by who, etc. nothing on the opinions or reasons that drove the split, or funding, which is unlike much of the text that have been removed here. I got to say that for ADS, being a long-established organisation, most, if not all, of the basic facts backed with primary sources may be backed by secondary sources if they are looked into closely. But that's for another time. – robertsky (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Thanks for your message. I touched on COI and SME in my post above to Drmies.

As mentioned previously to Drmies, secondary sources are hard or impossible to come by as there are very few church historians and theologians/ministers from outside the BPC who will wade into BPC issues. Even if they do, they will rely on BPC primary sources like Professor Roland Chia, a Methodist, who did so when he published in 2011 “What led to formation of Bible-Presbyterian Church?” – reference 7 in Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore). Although this article can no longer be found at http://www.methodist.org.sg/old_site/index.php/home/public-square/1196-what-led-to-formation-of-bible-presbyterian-church, the link being dead, I’ve managed to find it posted as “Schism led to formation of Bible-Presbyterian Church” (this is probably the line printed below “What led to formation of Bible-Presbyterian Church?”, if my memory is correct and both are the same article) at https://febcbpc.blogspot.com/2017/01/schism-led-to-formation-of-bible.html, a blogspot mischievously and misleadingly named “Far Eastern Bible College” since the blog has many articles deprecating the FEBC (you can click on some of the articles on the right of the web page to assess their quality). Roland Chia’s excellent article is a rare exception on the site for whatever reason it was put up by the blog owner.

One can see Roland Chia relying on materials from BPC publications on those parts which relate to the Singapore BPC, including using the exact words (quotes) in certain articles and confirming the BPC’s position on ‘ecclesiastical separation’ with quoting Article 6 of True Life BPC’s constitution that adopts the same Article 6 as BP churches registered with the ROS in 1986 on what, Roland says, are the concrete terms of ecclesiastical separation: “We are opposed to all efforts to obscure or wipe out the clear line of separation between these absolutes: truth and error, light and darkness … We refer to such efforts by New Evangelicals, Charismatic Christians, promoters of ecumenical cooperative evangelism and of the social gospel, and all churches and other movements and organisations that are aligned with or sympathetic to the Ecumenical Movement.” Roland Chia confirms what has been written thus far in Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) on the posture and practice of the BPC (on premillennialism, biblical separation from ecumenism, new evangelicalism and charismatism (tongues-speaking)).

I suggest that Wikipedia should make an exception to the policy of relying mainly on secondary sources for articles on controversial issues in situations where these sources are not available since third party articles (even if written) rely on information in primary sources – like the one written by Roland Chia. My contributions in Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore), including those parts taken out by Dries, can easily be checked and moderated by another Wiki editor by buying a copy of Heritage & Legacy of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore as I’ve indicated the pages referred to in Heritage & Legacy in my write-up in every section and sub-section. According to https://www.bpcis.org.sg/resources, the book can be purchased at SGD25.00 (probably not including overseas postage). Evidence obtained directly from the testimony of a witness or from his written statement is likely to be more accurate than evidence from a third person reporting on what a witness had said or rewriting the witness’s written statement without the witness’s verification. Whatever is written in Heritage & Legacy by the editors or said by them in the round-table discussion printed in the book must have been checked and rechecked before the book was published. As such, what is published in the book is the most reliable in terms of accuracy although the editors’ views in the book may not be “the truth” because there are competing views or opinions on certain issues. The views of the Tow brothers, Jeffrey Khoo and others in the fundamentalist camp can be presented as counter or alternative as they can be easily accessed: the cited sources for their views in Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) are freely available on the internet. (There is only a need to buy Heritage & Legacy (see above) as the ministers in BPCIS do not or rarely write books on doctrinal issues: it is sufficient to look at Heritage & Legacy for their views.)

I cited Anglican Diocese of Singapore and Bethany Independent-Presbyterian Church as Drmies had said “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and ALL of its content must … be based on secondary sources” and “if there are no independent secondary sources on this or that topic, you simply cannot write the text”. However, he has clarified in a subsequent post on the handling of primary material in certain circumstances without using such material to lay out a majority of any article. Even though the articles on these two organisations still use only primary sources, I’m not advocating for their removal. I agree with you that ADS is a long-established organisation and it is possible that the basic facts, currently backed with primary sources, may be augmented later with secondary sources. Hopefully, the same applies for BIPC although it is more than 12 years since the article was started – this shows that secondary sources are sometimes hard to come by. Apologies for any inconveniences caused.Watchman1234 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

content dispute round 2

@2406:3003:2073:478E:ECCE:86B:B328:373C:, @Watchman1234:

@watchman, please note that since the IP editor is jumping IP each time he edits, he might not get the ping. Do try to be more concise in what you write especially in talkpage, remember we are supposed to have a dialogue, not having a preaching session or monologue. Note that I am not an admin and there is absolutely nothing I can do except advise you on possible courses of action. You can request for WP:RPP if you think the IP editor is vandalising the page. Note that your edits will be scrutinised as well since this is not exactly outright cases of vandalism and more of a content dispute.

@IP editor, please write an edit summary after your edits, writing in general what you have done in the edit, a concise summary will do.

@both, please discuss and come to an agreement on the content here instead of edit warring on the page itself. Please note various policies such as WP:3RR, WP:RS etc. If a third opinion is needed after discussion on content failed, do seek WP:3O for assistance. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)

@Watchman1234: Hello, I do get your pings but I do not understand wholly what is the dispute. Could you please elaborate more on the problem on this talk page? Thank you! SunDawn (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@2406:3003:2073:478E:658A:A5DF:7FF2:1DBD: Please discuss the content changes here. Thanks.

I reported the matter to RPP. Admin Scottywong has very kindly blocked the IP over 3RR. See Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2073:478E:0:0:0:0/64. Seloloving (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@SunDawn:@Justanothersgwikieditor:

@SunDawn and @Justanothersgwikieditor. Thanks for your responses. I note that IP2406:3003:2073:478E:ECCE:86B:B328:373C has now been blocked following the report to RPP -- many thanks for this. And, thanks to @Drill It, the IP editor's last edits on 28 and 29 June have been reverted.

The main issue with the IP editor is in inserting "Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore" as

• (i) this introduces a third broad grouping when the BP Synod's dissolution in 1988 was due to disagreement between two groups: the fundamentalist faction and the evangelical/new evangelical faction;
• (ii) all the churches in 1988 (numbering 16) after the dissolution of the BP Synod operate independently (this fact is stated in the article in the statement, "While individual BP churches operate separately and independently post BP Synod dissolution,[11] they fall essentially or broadly into two factions or groups";
• (iii) the new third group formed by the IP editor has no common denominator (neo-fundamentalist?) other than "independent" (which is insufficient) to describe the group;
• (iv) the article does not say that churches after the Synod dissolution come under the control of the leaders for the two factions (fundamentalist and evangelical) until BPCIS was formed and eight churches joined BPCIS;
• (v) the new grouping does not have a majority of the 16 churches (from 1988) -- if this is what IP editor intends to convey -- with only four churches named and one (Evangel BPC) not in existence in 1988, the addition of "and others" at the end to make the new group having a majority of the 16 churches continuing from 1988 with no substantiating evidence or sources is misleading;
• (vi) Evangel BPC and Faith BPC are Chinese BP churches with little information about their stand on issues (the webpages given are not supportive or sufficiently supportive)-- also the focus of the article is on the English-speaking BPCs, as is clear in: "Despite KC Quek’s seniority, his switch to pastor the Mandarin/Teochew-speaking Faith BPC meant that the main leaders of the evangelical/new evangelical faction were (and are) SH Quek and David Wong.[47]"

For whatever reason, probably to show that he/she was editing or disagreeing with the contents, the IP editor usually made another 2-3 reverts which can be seen to be whimsical or indiscriminate, e.g., removing the verse reference (25) for Romans 11 in Romans 11:25 (this has been reverted) and removing the space between "after" and "this period" in "afterthis period" (this edit or reversal by IP editor on 26 June at 1548 hrs has yet to be reverted as I omitted doing so on that day but will fix this in my next edit)

As IP editor has been blocked, I'm not pinging him/her here. Feel free to do so but I doubt he/she would want to discuss as no attempt had been made to do so for all past edits; even a simple explanation in Summary was never made. There was/is really no basis for IP editor to discuss when edits were/are based on whims and fancies. Watchman1234 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC).

@SunDawn:@Justanothersgwikieditor:@Drill it:

Yes,you are right that IP is jumping IP each time he/she edits. I now note that the last two edits were from 2406:3003:2073:478e:658a:a5df:7ff2:1dbd and 2406:3003:2073:478e:cccb:5c3e:133d:f93 and they were reverted by @Drill it. The IP that is banned is 2406:3003:2073:478e:ecce:86b:b328:373c. The objective of their edits is clearly to disrupt. Watchman1234 (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC).

@Watchman1234: The IP editor is probably using a mobile device or connecting via mobile broadband so hence each IP address is random but generally limited to a few ranges, in this case, 2406:3003:2073:478e. Whether is it disruptive or not, I am not exactly going to look at it. Everyone has a point of view and like to push their POV. Maybe SunDawn can shed some light on this. Also I took the liberty to bullet your 6 points as it is easier to read than a wall of text. As said, this is largely a content dispute. I just read the section added by the IP editors and like to ask some questions based on your above points.

(i) If those 4 churches are independent of the 2 the main divisions, but are still Bible Presbyterian churches with different doctrines, there is nothing wrong to have a section to describe them. Afterall this is an article about Bible-Presbyterian churches in Singapore.

(ii) If they are independent, they are not under either division. The line they fall essentially or broadly into two factions or groups is unsourced and it does allow leeway that there might be a third faction/group (which could be independent as well). While there is a later source about This latter group of churches is denounced by the former to be "neo-evangelical" or "liberal", and are often called "the new B-Ps" because of a different interpretation on the doctrine of "Biblical Separation". , it will be good if you can say which page of the pdf indicates this so we can assess does this source applies to the previous statement also.

(iii) If they are not of either division and do not subscribe to any 3rd or 4th division, I think it is fine to call them independent.

(iv) This is a repetition of point (i) to (iii)

(v) Yes, 4 churches are definitively not a majority and can be copyedited to saying they are a minority or simply said 4 churches are independent.

(vi) Wikipedia does not differentiate are they English or Mandarin speaking churches but insists on the article being written in English. Based on your reasoning, articles on non English speaking countries need to be removed off from Wikipedia. If their stand cannot be confirmed, we can either omit where they stand since it is unsourced or have a section/sentence to indicate these churches' stand are unclear whether they support either division or are independent.

I like to say all this is quite heavy for me, and I am looking at this at a copyedit point of view and your objections to the section seems not well-founded. While the IP editor are not exactly all correct, he is not exactly wrong based on your 6 points above.

@Justanothersgwikieditor: I think the crux of the problem is that the IP editor agreed that "Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore" belongs to the Bible-Presbyterian churches denomination, while Watchman1234 didn't think so. One of the problems here is that it seems that Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) itself is a separate denomination, different from Presbyterian denomination at large. Thus it is possible for a Presbyterian church to have Presbyterian beliefs and doctrines, but do not belong to "Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore". On the other hand, I agreed with Justanothersgwikieditor assessment that a third group may also emerge from the division, along with two major factions that are mentioned. And with point vi mentioned with Justanothersgwikieditor, this article is not favoring English speaking churches. SunDawn (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor:@SunDawn: On @Sundawn’s point, I’m also viewing the churches in IP editor’s new group “Independent Bible-Presbyterian Churches” as Bible-Presbyterian churches, and not Presbyterian churches.

(i) When the BP Synod dissolved in 1988, it was due to differences between two groups: the two Tow brothers and SH Quek/David Wong. The dissolution resulted in all churches going their own ways without being tied down by a BP Synod. All B-P churches became and remain independent – whether they are fundamentalist or evangelical. However, for the sake of studying the churches (simplification is usually made in studies), they can be broadly seen as belonging to one of two groups distinguished mainly by whether these churches practise Biblical separation. VPP was not an issue until 2002/3.

(ii) The version of Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) at 14:59hrs on 11 July 2014 (last edited by Calvingabor) is:

The Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore was founded in 1950 by the Rev Dr Timothy Tow. It is essentially divided into two factions. One group of churches subscribes to the fundamentalist stance of the founders; the other considers itself to be evangelical. This latter group of churches is denounced by the former to be "neo-evangelical" or "liberal", and are often called "the new B-Ps" because of a different interpretation on the doctrine of "Biblical Separation".

(iii) There is consensus (since 2014) on the above -- as the version today is virtually the same after so many editors have edited. It is clear that the BP Synod dissolved because of differences between two groups – and not among three groups; the two groups would essentially remain after the dissolution although things may change. Read Timothy Tow’s book The Singapore B-P Church Story (see p. 217 on the Zion-Carmel faction) and Bible-Presbyterianism: History and Theology (where David Wong and SH Quek are named as causing the split on p. 21 and “those under Timothy Tow and Dr S H Tow” are mentioned on p.49).

(iv) The IP editor is attempting to bring in a third group without a common characteristic other than describing churches therein as “independent” but this does not differentiate them from the fundamentalist group and the evangelical groups as churches within these two groups are also independent as they are not under the control of persons generally recognised as leaders of these two groups -- if this is the IP editor's reservation, this has been allayed by the article making no mention of the leaders controlling the two groups; it is fine to have a third group if there is a distinguishing characteristic that can be named for the article to be developed on this third characteristic.

(v) Initially, the IP editor (using a different IP number that we can be quite sure now is the same person) called his new group “Independent Evangelical Bible-Presbyterian churches not under the leadership of SH Quek” but changed as they could not be so regarded since they practise Biblical separation. When the evangelical label was dropped, the IP editor decided to call his group “Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches” -- taking inspiration probably from Bethany Bible-Presbyterian Church, a daughter church of Zion BPC, which left the Bible-Presbyterian denomination by changing its name to Bethany Independent Presbyterian Church.

(vi) Out of the 4 BP churches named as included in “Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches”, Life BPC was pastored by Timothy Tow until 2003 and Calvary BPC was headed by SH Tow until Nov 2005. They would be in the fundamentalist group from 1988-2003/5 and these churches may still today regard themselves as fundamentalist despite being non-VPP – there is nothing on their websites to say they are not fundamental or fundamentalist.

(vii) As Evangel BPC and Faith BPC are Chinese churches, there is not much information to assess their status; if there is, IP editor has not furnished the information other than the web page. Faith BPC was pastored by KC Quek, SH Quek’s father, until his demise. Despite Faith BPC’s statement of faith template being that of a typical BP church flashing out the 12 chief tenets of faith/beliefs, it is unclear (absent further information) whether the church is fundamentalist or evangelical after KC Quek switched over to SH Quek’s (evangelical) side. When the status is unclear, is it better to remain silent? IP editor is assuming Faith BPC to be fundamental or fundamentalist.

(viii) BPCIS churches such as Shalom BPC, Zion Bishan BPC and until, recently, Zion Serangoon BPC have the typical 12 tenets of faith/beliefs of a typical BPC church but they are no longer fundamentalist now.

(ix) Evangel BPC does not have the typical BP church's statement of faith template but states that it is separated from ecumenism and charismatism on its website. However, as the church did not exist in 1988, it could not really “continue to exist with its existing name and autonomy” after the BP Synod dissolution in 1988.

(x) While the article does not exclude Chinese BP churches, it is for simplicity and a lack of information that the Chinese BP churches should not be classified as fundamentalist or evangelical, both of which are independent, or “independent” (new group of the IP editor); this is similar to treating many of the remaining 35 non-BPICS BP churches. Should not this be the approach rather than let the IP editor do his classification based on his judgment (original research?) or his whims and fancies without adequate supporting primary and/or secondary sources? (I remember SunDawn questioning the IP editor whether he has sources substantiating his claim that the evangelical/new evangelical group consists of only 8 churches led mainly by SH Quek and David Wong.)

(xi) I don’t think it’s a different POV. Evidence of the disruptive behaviour (some under different IPs) can be seen in edits such as reverting, e.g., (i) an edit to give a needed space between two words, (ii) a verse reference added (due to inadvertent omission previously), (iii) the correct name of an article (amended for a wrong name from “copy and paste” operation); (iv) the correct name of a source (amended to add part of its name omitted previously); and (v) insisting that it is Bob Phee or a non-existent BP Synod, and not David Wong (the BPCIS moderator) who announced the admission of the 8th BPCIS member – based on straight information in the source. Such edits (to make the factually right into factually wrong) cannot be regarded as POV, as facts are facts.

(xii) It would be good if reverting can be made by more Wikieditors like what Drill_it has done to stop or discourage indiscriminate or perverse editing. Watchman1234 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Watchman1234:

• (i)-(iii) Yes, the break is well documented and retold by various groups and we do accept it.
• (iv)-(v) Independent is a characteristic as it defines them as not belonging to the main groups. A characteristic defines the church (Example, Division A, Division B or not Division A/B) so if there is no historical records of *which church belongs to which division. They belong to a category called Unknown affiliation.
• (vi) As per my above statement, if a church has a historical record like being the known group of churches belonging to a Division, they will be known as under that division until a further reference indicate they have changed division, formed a new division or being independent.
• (vii) As per (vi), we should treat the churches in question based on historical records for last known affiliation.
• (viii) If we have the sources for these churches for not being fundamentalist anymore, we should note this down in the article. So are they now belonging to the other division or independent? If the new affiliation is unknown, we will just mark them as having unknown affiliation.
• (ix) Since Evangel BPC is a new church after the split and it is unknown which division it belongs to, it should have the same treatment as being marked as having unknown affiliation.
• (x) Same treatment as per (ix)
• (xi) I believe it is a different pov otherwise I will not mark it as content dispute. I have a different pov on defining the independent churches and which now I am leaning towards categorising them as unknown affiliation since there is not much evidences or references to indicate they are independent or where do they lean. Again, being independent or unknown affiliation is a defining characteristic of a group of churches.

To summarise, proposed changes by me

• To have a section to list the churches in which division they are

1. Churches with historical affiliation to be placed in divisions as per previously noted (include sources).
2. Churches with no historical affiliation and with unknown affiliation to be placed as unknown affiliation.

@SunDawn: I agree with you but I felt Watchman1234 is strongly suggesting that all BPC churches must fall into either division. Per my replies above, there is space to list these churches of unknown affiliation to either division to a group by themselves (aka just by noting these BPC churches' affiliation are unclear) while churches which has a historical record of in which division deems to be in that division unless otherwise noted.

In a denomination viewpoint, since it is possible for a Presbyterian church to have Presbyterian beliefs and doctrines, but do not belong to "Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore", maybe a page move from Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) to Bible Presbyterian Church (Singapore) will be better to encompass the 2 main divisions in Singapore and possible other divisions (if there is)? This will be in line with Bible Presbyterian Church in the United States. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

@Justanothersgwikieditor:@SunDawn:

(a) I believe what I said was that for the purpose of study, some simplification is needed rather than all BP churches can or must fall into either “fundamentalist” or “evangelical”.

(b) I’m not opposed to a third group but “Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches” suggested by the IP editor (we can assume that 2406:3003:2073:478e, 219.74.19.150 and 128.106.188.57 are the same person for “IP editor”) is not a suitable grouping without a distinguishing characteristic since all BP churches are independent and can also fall into “Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches”.

(c) If the IP editor has reservation with the current two groups or he is concerned that his current four named churches falling within his proposed new group are under the control of leaders generally recognised for the two existing groups if his group is not introduced, the article is clear that this is not so – whether his churches are fundamentalist or evangelical. The IP editor’s concern, if genuine, is therefore allayed.

(d) The introduction of a new group muddies the water as all churches will then fall within this new group and destroys the objective of two distinct groups whose differences caused the dissolution of the BP Synod.

(e) If you follow the edits of the IP editor, you will note that he himself is not sure about the number of churches which should fall within his “Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches” group.

(f) After insertions (unedited and underlined below) at 01:18, 01:23 and 02:05 on 25 March 2021, this is how the part (with your request for citation at the end made at 02:14 on the same day) looks:

"While individual BP churches operate separately and independently post BP Synod dissolution, they are essentially divided into two factions or groups, however most of the BP Churches (22 churches) do not belong to this two group and these BP churches operate separately and independently. One group (13 churches) subscribes to the fundamentalist stance of the founders while the other (8 churches) considers itself to be evangelical.[11][citation needed]"

(g) As the IP editor did not provide any sources to support the numbers cited, I deleted all his edits above (i.e., underlined words) after 22 days at 16:49 on 16 April 2021. The IP editor then made the following edit (underlined and not edited) at 01:16 on 19 April 2021:

"While individual BP churches operate separately and independently post BP Synod dissolution, they are essentially divided into two factions or groups. One group subscribes to the fundamentalist stance of the founders while the other considers itself to be evangelical. However, most of the BP churches remain independently and do not belong to this two group, such as Calvary BP Church, Sharon BP Church, Life BP Church, Eden BP Church, Evangel BP Church, Faith BP Church, Reformed BP Church, Maranatha BP Church, Macedonia BP Church and others."

(h) As you are aware, ignoring “and others” put at the end by IP editor to (misleadingly) bolster his claim of a majority of the churches (whether it is out of the current total of 43 churches or the 16 churches at the Synod dissolution in 1988), the IP editor has now reduced the number of churches in his group to 4, which may need to be reduced further if there is no common distinguishing characteristic by which he can call his group and/or has sources to support his claim.

On: “In a denomination viewpoint, since it is possible for a Presbyterian church to have Presbyterian beliefs and doctrines, but do not belong to "Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches in Singapore", maybe a page move from Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) to Bible Presbyterian Church (Singapore) will be better to encompass the 2 main divisions in Singapore and possible other divisions (if there is)? This will be in line with Bible Presbyterian Church in the United States.”

(1) If a Presbyterian church has Presbyterian beliefs and doctrines, it should NOT be included in Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) or Bible Presbyterian Church (Singapore), whichever is on Wikipedia. Such a Presbyterian church should go into the current Presbyterian Church in Singapore.

(2) I cannot see how it may be better to move page from Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) to Bible Presbyterian Church (Singapore) since (i) the Bible-Presbyterian Church of Singapore (BPCOS) has dissolved and the current Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore (BPCIS) represents only a small number of BP churches compared to the BPCOS representing all the then existing BP churches.

(3) BP churches which do not want to follow BP beliefs and doctrines should change their names, just like Bethany Independent-Presbyterian Church which now has a separate page – for which much work is required to develop the page, despite it being created more than 12 years ago in January 2009. The current Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore), as is, covers the historical development of the BPCOS, BPCIS and the main B-P churches (where relevant) – thanks to the prodigious writings of the BPC founding fathers.

(4) A lot of work will need to be done to develop a separate “Independent Bible Presbyterian Churches”, whether it is in Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) or Bible Presbyterian Church (Singapore). I doubt IP Editor will be able do this unless both of you are prepared to accept his account – much of which is likely to be unsubstantiated (as can be seen in him progressively whittling down the churches in his group from 22 (i.e. 43-13-8=22 to ‘strategically’ give a majority of just 1 for his group compared to 21 for the other two groups combined) to just 4 when challenged to cite sources – see (f)-(h) above. He has not been able to do so as information on the Chinese BP and the smaller English BP churches, based on my own searches, is not readily available.

(5) Finally, I suggest that you ignore IP Editor and go along with the general consensus of the many editors since July 2014 on the two broad divisions in the Singapore BP churches. You need to assess if IP Editor’s edits are a genuine pov to improve the article or an attempt to disrupt it by looking also at the whole pattern of his behaviour, including his switching IPs. Watchman1234 (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Watchman1234, the conversation goes round back to

i) Are you willing to accept that there maybe more than 2 divisions? For the BP churches which does not have a clear indication (those who had a change of pastors etc, and especially newer BP churches which does not has a historical record which division they subscribe to) to be listed in a separate group. They are in a group called (NOT the other 2 divisions aka unknown).

ii) I am proposing a section to indicate which church is in which division (or not both) to better indicate factually. In the event any church member insists they are are in the wrong group here, we can ask them to get their pastor to issue a statement and use it as source and move accordingly.

iii) In fact I am not following the IP editor's edits, this is currently a strawman. To put any church into any category, a source will be needed. Church of unknown affiliation will be in the unknown category.

On moving the page, have you read Bible Presbyterian Church? This page is specifically talking about the BPC in United States as a denomination and documented the various splits. It is about a denomination, it is not about BPCOS only, not about BPCIS only, it is a general topic about the BPC denomination in Singapore which will includes BPCOS as a historical phase, current BPCIS, the current split into 2 divisions, and all BP churches in Singapore (regardless of their divisions and affiliation or not). BPCOS and BPCIS can stand alone as their own article based on splitting the content in this article.

Also, being stagnant since 2014 does not mean consensus now. With challenges now against consensus (see WP:CCC), we need to discuss (which we are doing now) and come to a new consensus. I am thinking you are now displaying WP:OWN behaviour and your changes can be considered disruptive also. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor:

(1) I thought (b) in my last response makes clear that I’m not opposed to more than 2 divisions. If you must have two divisions, there is nothing I can do even though I think it is not appropriate to have a new division with no distinguishing characteristic.

(2) Yes, I have gone through Wiki’s Bible Presbyterian Church, including many times in the past. The page does not seem up-to-date and it also does not seem to work the way you have envisaged for your proposed Bible-Presbyterian Church (Singapore).

(3) When splits occurred in the U.S, the churches left in blocks. In the first break, the Bible-Presbyterian Church Columbus Synod became the Evangelical Presbyterian Church which then merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod to become the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (“RPCES”) and RPCES eventually became Presbyterian Church in America. All these breakaway groups have different Wiki pages.

(4) In the second break, one group left to become the American Presbyterian Church which also has a Wiki page.

(5) In the third split, the South Atlantic Presbytery broke away from the Bible Presbyterian Synod and took on the name of Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church.

(6) The Bible Presbyterian Church today per Bible Presbyterian Church General Synod website has 27 churches located in 4 presbyteries named Eastern, Florida, Great Lakes and Great Western. These 27 churches have different denominational names: Bible Presbyterian, Presbyterian, Reformed and Reformed Presbyterian. The Wiki page on Bible Presbyterian Church currently reports 33 congregations but it does not have the names of the 4 Presbyteries, neither the names of the 27 churches with their different denominational names in the four presbyteries.

(7) The Wiki page also says that on March 28, 2008, the South Atlantic Presbytery voted to disassociate from the Bible Presbyterian Synod and took the name Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church. There is no Wiki page for this presbytery or the South Atlantic Presbytery. (The Faith Presbytery, assuming it survives within the Bible Presbyterian Church, is not among the 4 presbyteries named on the bpc.org website. If it is the other way round, neither is the South Atlantic Presbytery.)

(8) Bible Presbyterian Church seems neglected and its information is not up-to-date.

(9) The situation in Singapore is just one distinct church body (the BP Synod) with 16 individual churches coming under it so that after the Synod's dissolution in Oct 1988, all the 16 churches broke free. While separate and operating independently thereafter, those churches which seem to follow the founding pastor in his beliefs and practices are termed fundamentalist while those which seem to follow SH Quek and David Wong in their beliefs and practices are called new BP or evangelical/new evangelical.

(10) Those in the evangelical faction do not practise ecclesiastical separation but still claim they practise it (albeit only 1st degree by breaking separation into different degrees), promote the use of modern English versions of the Bible over the KJV, no longer subscribe exclusively to the premillennial return of Christ (although they say they will teach only premillennialism), introduce into their church worship services contemporary Christian music (although they claim they exercise great care here), practise also cremation (although they claim to encourage or stipulate only burial), subscribe to “ecstatic utterances” as valid tongues but say their churches do not practise or encourage tongue-speaking or charismatism, say the Bible is inerrant and infallible but express doubts over certain Bible passages or accounts.

(11) There are now 43 BP churches. SH Quek and David Wong inaugurated the BPCIS in October 2011 with 4 BP churches after a consultation was held in June 2010 with pastors and elders from 15 BP churches. BPCIS was legally registered with the ROS in December 2018. Today, the BPCIS has eight BP churches as its members out of a total of 43 BP churches.

(12) As there are more churches outside BPCIS, my view is that the current name Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) is apt and should not be changed to Bible-Presbyterian Church (Singapore) since BPCIS is unlike BPCOS which, before its dissolution, controlled all the then existing 16 BP churches. Despite the dissolution of the BPCOS, the BP denomination continues with many churches retaining their BP names.

(13) The only church which has left the BP denomination by changing its BP denominational name to Independent-Presbyterian is Bethany BPC, a daughter church of Zion BPC, which became Bethany IPC in 1992 and this is mentioned in Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore). The Wiki page created for Bethany IPC is woefully far from developed after more than 12 years; it has been tagged or templated since 2010, incidentally by you, as relying too much on references to primary sources or largely or entirely on a single source.

(14) The BP churches were described in 2014 as falling essentially into two groups, despite VPP surfacing as an issue in 2002-3 to divide the churches and the Court of Appeal ruling in 2011 that VPP is not inconsistent with the WCF and it is not inconsistent for a Christian who believes fully in the principles contained within the WCF (and the VPI doctrine) to also subscribe to the VPP doctrine. The view reached in 2014 of essentially two divisions in the BP churches took into account VPP. No major issue has since surfaced.

(15) The consensus in the view of two essential groups in the BP churches has held (among Wiki editors) until IP editor appeared with his edits in April 2021. If you don’t think about the IP editor’s edits anymore, then it would seem incongruent if you should think that the situation since 2014 has changed. The IP editor’s edits with his assertion that there are 22 churches in his independent group, 13 in the fundamentalist group and 8 in the evangelical group has not been supported by sources – which you rightly asked him to provide but he has failed to do so. (I waited for 22 days before deleting his edits even though I knew at the outset he would not be able to do so.)

(16) Even for the whittled down list of 4 independent churches, the claim that some churches take to certain beliefs or practices is dubious. Groupings should not be named without any meaningful basis and then fit in the churches. (The churches in the BPC in the U.S. are not grouped according to their “denominations” but according to the four presbyteries named by the BPC, presumably according to geographical location.)

(17) Would it be original research to approach pastors of BP churches in Singapore to ask or confirm the groups their churches fall into? Would you be the Wiki editor to do this? Can you rely on the responses of liberal or new evangelical pastors who are not likely to be honest with their responses? See the rebuke on some church leaders for being deceptive. Just like pastors who are new evangelical will not admit they are so, it is unlikely that pastors regarded as neo-fundamentalist would admit they are so.

(18) Under the circumstances, I think we should just leave the situation “as is” and update as and when new churches join BPCIS, which is a formal grouping and there is certainty when churches joined BPCIS. Although only eight churches have joined BPCIS more than 11 years after the consultation in June 2010, I don’t expect this to stop at eight since BPCIS seems to be very flexible and accommodating and 15 churches were in fact present in 2010 for the consultation and BPCIS still invites non-BPCIS churches to attend its gatherings and meetings as observers.Watchman1234 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Watchman1234,Independent is a defining characteristic. Also, my latest proposal is just listing the churches per their divisions and those unknown division in another separate group per Wikipedia verifiability. If they declare themselves to be independent, (an example might be Bethany Independent-Presbyterian Church Singapore) and still describes themselves as a BP church, we put them into this category.

I believe you do not understand the distinction I am trying to make, Bible Presbyterian Church (Singapore) is describing the denomination and not specifically about BPCOS, in between history, split, BPCIS, etc. It is the whole of them. An analogy will be the article Singapore, which describes the sultanate, the colony days, Malay Federation merger, independence etc. It is not specifically about one topic like the Colony of Singapore etc,

So Bible Presbyterian Church (Singapore) will be about BPCOS, the split to standalone from the Malaysian churches, the Synod in Singapore, the split between the 2 divisions, the formation of BPCIS and then the present. If the BPCIS portion is sufficient to be standalone, it can be split out and stands on its own article with a link from Bible Presbyterian Church (Singapore) which is what you described from Bible Presbyterian Church.

Specifically about point 17, it will not be original research to approach pastors and ask them which division they subscribe to. It will be original research if we assume without any sources. Hence I said categorised with sources. Unknown affiliation (without historical record) will be categorised into unknown.

Why are you assigning me to ask them? Apparently you are owning this article and it is really up to anybody who desire to go ask them. We had Singaporean wiki editors asking political parties to release their official portraits into Wikipedia and it is really up to individuals or groups to do what they want.

We can only take what they choose to publish and take their words for it. It will be WP:PRIMARYSOURCE but will be organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. Wikipedia is neutral and do not allege what they said is the truth or not. State the basic facts (as said by the church) and reports whether other reliable sources considered it as truth or not.

For point 18, I can leave out the listing of the churches into various categories but I may do some basic copyedit. I have yet to look at the whole BPCIS section but if it is suitable to be a standalone article, I will do so. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Justanothersgwikieditor

(i) I need to disagree with you that “Independent” is a defining or distinguishing characteristic for BP churches when all BP churches were/are independent after the Synod dissolution in 1988: see p. 220 of The Singapore B-P Church Story and also https://www.bpcis.org.sg/about#s1. Those churches which have joined the BPCIS (inaugurated in 2011 and registered in 2018) have, presumably, given up some of their independence although BPCIS seems to be very flexible to still allow a lot of freedom to their member churches to do what they want. All eight BPCIS churches have been named, so all other BP churches which are non-BPCIS are completely independent.

(ii) Bethany IPC has chosen to be not identified with the BP denomination by dropping the BP name and replacing it with IP. If Bethany had wanted to remain BP, she would have chosen to rename herself “Bethany Independent Bible-Presbyterian Church” – if “independent” can be a defining or distinguishing characteristic – and not “Bethany Independent-Presbyterian Church”. Notwithstanding, it seems that you have taken a different view that Bethany has chosen to remain BP when Timothy Tow, the founding pastor of the Singapore BPC, on p. 220 of The Singapore B-P Church Story said that Bethany (although the church’s name was not disclosed) is bold enough to state herself as “Independent” after repudiating B-Pism. Her mother church, Zion BPC, is clearly not bold enough to do likewise. No one can stop you from sticking to your view on Bethany IPC even though it does not reflect reality.

(iii) My understanding about WP:OR is: “The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed (underlining added)… If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.” Again, I don’t want to dispute with an experienced editor like you if it is your view, notwithstanding the above, that approaching BP pastors to get their statements (not published on their churches’ websites) is not OR.

(iv) You are apparently alleging that I own the article Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) when it is not so. If you should care to check my edits, you’ll see that I accepted inputs from others and even improved on them. As you are already aware, I have not changed the view of the original contributor since 2014 that there are essentially two broad divisions in the BPC. I have accepted that there were Malaysian churches in the past although I did not think it appropriate to name the Malaysian churches (Rawang and Kelapa Sawit were the two Malaysian churches named by the IP editor when there were eight in 1985, all not named, according to KC Quek in the 1985 Souvenir Programme of the BPCOS). The underlined words in “It existed from 1955 to 1988, following the history of the country, as the Bible-Presbyterian Church of Malaya,[3] then the Bible-Presbyterian Church of Singapore and Malaysia, and finally the Bible Presbyterian Church of Singapore ("BPCOS") (with the then eight Malaysian BP churches in 1985 to register themselves in Malaysia thereafter)[4] before the BPCOS dissolved in 1988” came from me to accommodate the mention of Malaysian BP churches and I also provided the sources which the IP editor did not provide to support the statement.

(v) The title of the article Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) did not come from me. The article was created in 2014 by Calvingabor as “Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore” and then renamed by StAnselm as “Bible-Presbyterian Church (Singapore)” on 3 September 2015 at 00:06 and finally by him as Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) on the same day at 09:12. I think StAnselm was, and still is, right in finally renaming it as Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore). It seems that you are thinking that Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) came from me and I’m resisting your proposed change because I view the article as owned by me.

(vi) If you intend to rename the article to "Bible-Presbyterian Church (Singapore)" – the name that StAnselm had himself put forth for nine hours before finally changing it at 09:12 on 3 September 2015 to the current name (presumably after careful thought) – there is no point spending any more time to argue against your proposal since it appears that your mind is already made up. In any event, after renaming (if you should proceed), the article will still be “about BPCOS, the split to standalone from the Malaysian churches, the Synod in Singapore, the split between the 2 divisions, the formation of BPCIS and then the present”.

(vii) I think the issue has become personal with you asking me, “Why are you assigning me to ask them [the pastors]?” I had simply asked, “Would you be the Wiki editor to do this?” As you are aware, I have no right or power to assign you any task since I had even pleaded with you and SunDawn for help to intervene on IP editor’s edits (see (viii) below).

(viii) You indicated that you were seeking a discussion. As I have already given you my views on the matter including the situation in Singapore (where, unlike the U.S., you are not likely to get honest answers from pastors on certain issues), I don’t think we should spend any more time on the discussion as you seem to only want views which agree with yours. I also never intended to create a strawman to knock you down, but to show that the IP editor was not advocating a genuine pov not only by his edits but also by his conduct. Thanks to you, the matter now looks to be finally settled with the IP editor banned for three months. (IP editor has not reverted “Drill it” for more than 6 days.)

(ix) There is an old Carl Sandburg quote: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” Although there is no pounding of the table and yelling, it does seem that Wikieditors (with rights and privileges) will push their way through regardless. As you are aware, a Wikieditor refused to remove a questionable text based on a primary or non-secondary source after engaging in exchanges with me. He only removed the text and the source after more than four years when it appeared or was clear from the comments of another Wikieditor (presumably with higher rights and privileges) on another matter that he (the first Wikieditor) was wrong in what he did more than 4 years ago. It is unlikely that that experienced Wikieditor did not then know the Wiki rule or policy that the text and the source should have been removed. I can only hope that my experience with you will be different. Watchman1234 (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC).