Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This archive includes comments made from 6 May to 20 December 2008.

New Page

Hi, I have been working on a new page for a while. Unfortunately, other things came up and it was never finished. You can see it at spinkava/GGWO. The new page is significantly more detailed and cites more sources. Please merge the contents of the other page into this one.Spinkava (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged the two pages. I kept the cult allegations, as that is a significant part of the GGWO. However, I felt that it should not be the primary discussion in the article.Spinkava (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Rating

I rated the article start class becuase it gives a brief and basic review of the organization, but lacks important details such as how the churches are related to each other and making it clearer why the article is notable. I rated it low in importance because knowledge of the subject is not necessary to understanding christianity.Ltwin (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup / Wikify

Greetings, I am about to perform several BOLD edits, pursuant to WP:BRD. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some issues I see:

1. Can somebody please provide information as to the notability of this organization? All of the references are to internal, self published resources. Please provide some third-party affirmation of this organization's notability.
2. The history timeline is very fragmented with incomlpete thoughts. I placed some inline comments in the article (viewable only while editing) which should help point out some of the missing information.
3. This article looks like a mash-up of a pro-GGWO and a anti-GGWO article... which does not constitute a "balanced" approach.  :)
4. Please clarify on the "affiliation" of the schools/seminaries -- how are the "affiliated"? It appears to be a WP:PEA to make it sound larger and more notable then it really is.
5. The article begins with a standard "promotional" sounding paragraph, and then from there it takes a swift downturn into what appears to be a very questionable and cult-ish sounding organization, the bias changes from -- "we're doing something great, God's work" to a very unorganized, leadership troubled -- stay the heck away, type of organization. Again, I emphasis, that is how it "sounds" and "reads"...

Tiggerjay (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. This page is the result of a somewhat anti-GGWO editor and myself. This is why I asked for help from a third-party. To respond to your concerns:

1. I added more sources, including the New York Times & the actual court transcript.
2. I tried to fixed the history timeline.
3. I am not sure I might describe the affiliation. Affiliated churches simply agree to adhere to the same beliefs as the Baltimore church. There is no formal government.

Spinkava (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable references: I included some notable references and can provide a huge amount of them in regards to its notability. However I do not feel its fair to bury the article in a heavy manner in the negative as it becomes overwhelming with just a few. Their are so many sources for the legal, media, and similar it could take pages to read and report.

The history timeline' has been vandalized to the point of no return. Often when an editor does not like the content but cannot explain the change like the multiple moves of the orfanization they simply delete the thought. For instance the predeccor organization the Bible Speaks lost in Lenox so it moved to Baltimore. This information is deleted in multiple versions of the article.

mash up?

I certainly agree on your point here. Ideally the page would be not so much balanced as much but a information on its notability and information regarding it such as time line and beliefs. While I am sure many would take issue with that neutral does not constitute balanced always. In this case we are talking about a very controversial organization with signifgant media and legal history.

Not cohesive article. The article again has been vandalized and to some degree by both extreme sides of the argument. Ideally the major and notable aspects along with the history and refrences and current information would be idea for an article.

Tryster (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why about the conflict?

Hi! This page is getting much better, especially by the neutral, objective viewpoint. But most of the page is about the former problems. I don't think this is appropriate! There are much more great things to say about GGWO. Please consider Proverbs 17:9b "... but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends."

For example, more could be said about the current leadership, practice and more about the doctrine. The page is only about past things. Take a look at what is there now today! Bende76 (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an enclopia article and while information about the current organization may be appropiate it is its history that gives merit to its article on wikipedia.Tryster (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was trying to do in previous edits. Every church has some bad history. However, bad history should not be the focus of the article. Everyone knows that the Roman Catholic church has some bad history. However, if you look at their article, it mentions some of the bad situations, but it does not focus on those situations.

GGWO is also notable for it's worldwide missionary work, which was mentioned in several sources. These sources include a book written by Operation Mobilisation & a newspaper in Azerbaijan. Spinkava (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Unfortunately, the Worldwide Church of God article is also tagged with several problems. I have contacted someone from the Christianity Wikiproject to help us sort through this matter. Let us wait for what he/she has to say. Spinkava (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Spinakava I am suggesting that we come to a consensuses and that we have a well referenced article including both accurate history with references that can be verified and even if so desire and others desire a limited amount of original research thats scope is not overwhelming like that of say the ELCA or similar denomination.

When I placed the article back online I as hoping that adherents to GGWO would welcome a balanced article with good research information on the current church such as its mission efforts.

Now it appears especially with some of the remarks and used expressions even on this page that they prefer to try and focus on a church that does not exist. GGWO is not the article I read from your own page.

It is not a mainstream Christian Ministry nor does even the current leadership want to be portrayed that way.

My hope that the eventual article does justice to why GGWO is notable and also asserts its history and current status to do less than that creates a lie or worse self promotion or gossip in the other extreme.

71.65.13.229 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I be glad to trade suggestions and even different sections. But I do not want to hide signifigant history about the organization such as its moves, and growth, and how controversy played a part in them.

While the Worldwide Church of God article has issues it has to do with its lack of references, tone and similar problems. I cannot speak to some of the original research you

My suggestion is that this page be handed in a similar manner as the page for the Worldwide Church of God. While I strongly disagree with the idea that this article should be as balanced in the positive as the WWCG, I believe it would be fair to use the method as a template so long as the article here does not change known history or promotes significantly one point of view over the other with unsubstantiated facts or references.

For instance GGWO was not founded some 40 years ago. It is a successor organization of an earlier ministry. I am sure that there is a positive side and negative side to the ministry. Many Christian Denominations have articles here and I believe that most are genuine in terms of reported numbers. Based upon my research the numbers used by GGWO are near known numbers as others have suggested as such they should carry the same weight as say the ELCA number references.

I think the article should have refrences and historical data to demonstrate its notability like that of the WWCG and mention of those who have taken a part in its history in a similar manner as well.

I hope that is fair to those who have edited this article or have an interest in it.

Tryster (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal Case

The legal case is a significant part of GGWO's history. However, it is not the most important part and should not be included in the introduction. Furthermore, please use proper grammar.Spinkava (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Legal Case is the notable history of the organization: Without it the organization is like other similar groups who have NO articles on wikipedia.

Just because something is negative does not mean its not the most significant thing about a person, organization or even time period. To somehow suggest that an organization known for its media history should not have its history in the courts and media mentioned in the intro is almost strange to comprehend. I went and read the Church of Scientology article,Cult Awareness Network article, and Worldwide Church of God article. All mention in the intro the more controversial; matters. It can be said that Worldwide Church of God article is balanced to some degree but having said that, we cannot state that GGWO has had a transformation from a controversial group to a non controversial group like the Worldwide Church of God. There have been media articles written just recently, as recently as two weeks ago in a newspaper about the organization.

Tryster (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is by far the most important piece concerning greater Grace. GGWO is not notable for its historical standing of Christianity but rather its media and legal coverage. GGWO does not belong on Wikipedia in and of its Christian History. The legal and media coverage does indeed belong in the intro if it is to be included in wikipedia for that is what is notable about GGWO .Please do not vandalize this work any longer.

I added 20 some references only to have you remove them. Please note I cannot compete with a vandal.

If you want this article to remain here than be so kind as to be neutral and not pro the church. I am not neither for it or against it. But its notability is its history in legal and media circle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict

Instead of having to hunt for new comments. Let's use this page to discuss exactly what we have a disagreement with. Please include new comments in the bottom.

1. Whether or not to include the controversies in the introduction. - We both agree to include the controversies. However, I do not think they should be the focus of the article.
2. Whether the missionary work of GGWO is notable. - There are several outside sources that discuss GGWO's missionary work, a couple of which I included in the article.

Simply put, this argument concerns the focus of this article: the missionary work or the controversies. Spinkava (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also want to note that I do agree with the assessment that this article is of low importance to Christianity. Many other churches have made more of an impact. However, I still think the work that GGWO has done is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Spinkava (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed Points:

1. I hate to say this but the court transcipts available online are not the same as those available in legal catalogs and sources. Also TBS admitted to this concern. Both are verifiable along with the media articles.
2. Maybe so if it was just 60 minutes, but 20 some articles, millions of dollars, admission by its leaders both past and present, major splits, judge decisions, federal law enforcement investigations, admissions by former members including its highest ranking leaders, unprecendent coverage by bloggers (75,000 post on factnet, more than any other organization has been blogged about period including the Roman Catholic church, sure sounds like a much larger scale bit of notability than say a religious periodical. In regards to press coverage. We are talking notability here. While I am sure it seems unfair, but popular discussion, and notable are similar and while GGWO's investment in missions may be notable to Christians it is not exactly the reason non Christians would know of it or be interested in it.
3. You are stating a number that I was able to find on GGWO's official site and used in my original edit of the page. I have no trouble using the reference. However there is no way to independently verify it. We can verify in multiple places that dollar amount the bankruptcy court placed against The Bible Speaks, this is a verifiable fact. I will concede they may be telling the truth and accept as such. But to dismiss court decisions as pure speculation or worse unworthy of both refrence and notability seems illogical at best. It is not rather which came first here the chicken or the egg, it seems you are suggesting that a local butcher is somehow more important in an article about chickens than say the egg. I can live with the mention of the butcher in the article but please don't downplay why this organization is known and should be known. Tryster (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk about a conflict of interest? O think it would be a good idea if a person who is not directly related to this organization was to write a new page article for this organization.

The new article should reflect why this organization merits entry including the controversies that include the large civil actions, the media articles and similar.

GGWO's notarity is not as a result of its Evangelical tradition but its media, legal, and cult history.

Neutrality

For the record, I am not directly related to this Church anymore. This article has consistently been tagged for non-neutrality because it only talks about the legal battles and the cult accusations. There is much more that GGWO has done that is noteworthy. Spinkava (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note Spinkava use of the expression "anymore". However the edits that were done included removal of references that used common expression such as headquarters back to weasel words such as "Homebase" and discussions to "raps" terms that the discussed ministry uses as its on terminology.

Tryster (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was simply trying to revert the article back to the version that was assessed and peer reviewed by Tiggerjay. If these were the only edits, I would not have minded. I concede that "headquarters" & "discussions" are better terms. Spinkava (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction:

Greater Grace World Outreach is an affiliation of evangelical churches and associated ministries that emphasize Grace, the Finished Work, and Missions. Greater Grace was founded by Carl H. Stevens . The headquarters of Greater Grace is currently located in Baltimore, Maryland and led by Thomas Schaller.

The beliefs of Greater Grace are outlined in its doctrinal statement and detailed in booklets written by Carl H. Stevens, and other leaders of the church. Worship is non-liturgical but generally includes prayer, singing, offerings, and sermons. Songs are usually contemporary, but services may also include classical hymns. Evangelism and discussions that follow the services known as "raps", informal bible study, are also considered important acts of worship.

Greater Grace World Outreach under Stevens had a notable, and often controversial role in legal actions to a religious organization and as result law enforcement and media coverage.

Greater Grace is comprised of almost 500 churches from around the world, led by a pastor ordained by GGWO. Most of these churches are located in New England, Europe and Africa. Some of the larger churches are located in Maryland, Hungary, Azerbaijan[2], & Ghana. Most of the pastors are educated at Maryland Bible College & Seminary in Baltimore. However, there are many other affiliated Bible Colleges around the world. The ministries of Greater Grace also include Grace Hour, Greater Grace Christian Academy, Christian Sports Clubs & Verticalink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this section is for the most part accurate and I will help provide other sources for the section. However CHS wasn't the creator of Telephone Time and it should be stated somehow that he was the eventual host, after the original leader vs being the developer. This is important in my eyes because this broadcast is as a result one of the oldest running types of radio shows in the USA.

Tryster (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Origins:

In the early 1960s, Carl H. Stevens, a bakery truck driver, was praying at Wortheley Pond, near Peru, Maine, and developed a vision that would lead to a worldwide christian ministry. Stevens was later ordained by a council of independent ministers at the Montsweag Baptist Church on March 7, 1963.[3] Stevens' ministry first operated from Woolwich-Wiscasset Baptist Church, where Stevens established the Northeast School of the Bible in 1972. In 1976, the school grew beyond its capacity, and so Carl Stevens moved to Lenox, Massachusetts. In Lenox, he established The Bible Speaks and Stevens School of the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Predecessor Ministry: The Bible Speaks Lenox, Massachusetts

In 1976, the Bible Speaks purchased a college-preparatory school for boys in Lenox, Massachusetts, where they established "Stevens School of the Bible" and a Christian day school. At this time, several affiliate churches were established throughout New England. Eventually, they also began an international ministry, first in El Salvador and then in Europe and Africa.[citation needed] (I can find a few sources for this.)

In Lenox, Carl Stevens developed ministries including Telephone Time, Bus Ministry & La Gracia. Telephone Time was one of the first Christian radio talk shows, which is now called the Grace Hour. In 2006, this program won an Angel award for Excellence in Media. [4] The Bus Ministry would bring children from the surrounding neighborhoods to church on Sundays. In the early 80s, the Bible Speaks purchased a Norwegian ferry boat that they renovated into an international missions boat called La Gracia.

Dovydenas Controversy (I believe this should be a sub heading)

In 1986, the Bible Speaks was in the center of a major legal/religious controversy, that would be investigated by anti-cult organizations, investigations by multiple media groups,including several articles by the Boston Globe, Berkshire Eagle, New York Times, 60 Minutes, and many other media groups. (I will cite the sources and articles in references, there is an abundance of them.)It is alleged that the Ministry convinced heiress Elizabeth Dovydenas ([Dayton Hudson])retail chains) to provide a donation of more than $6,000,000. The Church was then sued for undue influence and ordered to repay most of the money.However, the church had claimed it had already spent the money and so it filed for bankruptcy.Eventually as a result in 1987, Carl Stevens and the majority of the leadership and many of the adherents of the Bible Speaks moved to Baltimore, MD, and established Greater Grace World Outreach and Maryland Bible College and Seminary.

Tryster (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost Cause:

Based upon the quick move of the edits I have done I will leave the rest to edit. I believe it is not sensible to have a ongoing debate that has lasted for such a long time and then even admins remove work that is barely even done.

I feel like even well written even balanced and neutral work will be so manipulated as to leave the article useless. While I am being extreme in comparison it is like we are talking about a negative subject and cannot be honest and forth coming using history. Like we are talking about Hitler and cannot bring up concentration camps, their death and leaders without them being edited out. Again I am not suggesting that GGWO is evil or even a bad organization in whole. But I spent hundreds of hours writing, pulling references and even being considerate of the adherents of this faith. I cannot sit back and watch my work become pushed away into an achieve.

If the editors of this page want to be honest and write a good article than it will be obvious. I believe it is fair to say that editors using words directly out of the mouths of leaders show where their motives lie.That is to promote an organization in the positive, white wash the history, and delete even the most important points regarding this organization.

Have fun, I cannot waste my time and watch my work destroyed out of some falsehood. I should not have even re-started this page. Maybe Tom Cruise would be a good editor for the Scientology page if this is the manner in which we are going to move with this article.

Peer review

Clearly, more citations would be useful, possibly including a few from newspapers and the like. I question the abbreviated name "Greater Grace" as is used in the article, maybe GGWO would be better? Heading title "Former Ministry The Bible Speaks Lenox, Massachusetts" could be easily altered. Maybe "Predecessors" or something equivalent would work better. Subheading "Baltimore, Maryland" could also be changed. "However" starts two sentences out of three, could be altered. I'm assuming "2004-2005 Controversy" is supposed to be a heading, and maybe "Sandy Cove, ..." as well? "See also" line should be removed and names and information integrated into the text. "Beliefs and Practices" and subsequent headings could/should maybe be reformatted as well. More links could be added as relevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)

I like all of your suggestions. For the record there are a lot of organizations with the name Greater Grace, including a large church near Detroit Michigan of nearly 6000 members.

Good Luck I don't think anybody is going to take your good suggestions and do them. I can't waste my time with people who want to fight to the point of bloody noses. I looked at the undo history yesterday and became obvious to me that those involved had one goal. To protect and promote the organization. The work I did was lost over and over again.

I had a huge set of references listed of media articles, including dates, organization, and title only to have them deleted away.

Why bother if the work is going to be destroyed?

Tryster (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tryster, please don't take offense, I placed a comment on your talk page regarding the removal. Before we can begin working through the particular edits, the editors as a whole really need to come to a consensus on the objectives and goals of the article - we've already seen what happens when the editors are left to work on the article, that is why it was protected in the first place. To attempt to re-create the article here completely undermines the purpose of the protection in the first place. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The "hard work" you placed into it was not deleted, simply moved to the archive, see above. All the information is fully intact both there and in this page's history. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

Firstly, is it possible to extend the protection another week? I have finals for the next week and a half. Then I will be graduating from the University of Maryland the weekend before the 25th. I would like a week to pull up sources, particularly on GGWO's international mission work.

I am simply curious. Is 71.65.13.229 the IP address for Tryster? You both have the same style of comments. If not, I would strongly advise 71.65.13.229 to sign up for a username. When you editted the page last week, I thought you were a common vandal, and not one of the previous editors of the page. I continued to revert the the work of Tryster in order to bring attention to this page and bring in outside help as we strongly disagree on the focus of the article.

Tryster, this page is not your property; it is supposed to be the collaboration of many editors. You have done alot of hard work gathering sources. However, you have been consistently tagged for a biased point of view. I concede that I too may be too biased to write this page myself and so I am very glad that outside editors have stepped in to write this. From now on, let us leave it to the admins to decide the focus of the article.

In no way do I want to hide the controversies of GGWO. The controversies should definitely be included, even mentioned in the intro. However, I do insist that all controversies are properly documented. Particularly, I would like references to actual legal documents. News sources are often skewed towards what will sell the most papers or recieve the best ratings. Furthermore, I apologize for any GGWO jargon that I may have used; I will appreciate any edits to fix this.

Concerning the beliefs of GGWO, I think we should stick with documents that GGWO has published, rather than what was said in sermons. Preachers often use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. They therefore get in trouble for it as people no longer appreciate such devices. Therefore, such messages should be used in the controversy section and not the beliefs section.

http://www.carlstevens.org is the most comprehensive third-party source on GGWO. Unfortunately, the site is anonymous and so has questionable reliability. However, I do have to say that the original documents that I have seen match what is on that site.

To address a factual point raised by Tryster. A congregational polity practices local-church autonomy, which is what GGWO formally believes. I have requested a copy of their doctrine of affiliation to bring light on this.

I found several sources and posted them on the article. I will continue to find more sources in the next few weeks. I certainly believe in the WP:BRD mindset. Hopefully, we can come to a consensus in the next few weeks. Spinkava (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In reaction:

Note the use of these styles and information. I included a mainstream denomination which used both a info box and section about social matters.

On Congregationalist and congregational polity: Congregational church

Cult Awareness Network The former group taken over by Scientology and headed by George Robertson. Note the historical and legal references. Many of these references share a bond with GGWO history.

Rick Ross consultant Has a lot of resources including media and legal information regarding GGWO. He was a hired consultant by the FBI. He has interviewed George Robertson.

Worldwide Church of Godnote the mentions of former indivduals, its history both good and bad, and similar flow of information.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America note the sections.

Unitarian Universalist Association and United Church of Christ both are congregational in polity and related history. I can't imagine making the argument that GGWO shares the same polity as the UCC and UUA?!

I am not opposed to constructive views on this article however, I cannot understand how somebody who knows the jargon can argue they are not related to something. I went to a store today and while there found multiple copies of "The Good News Magazine" long associated with the Worldwide Church of God, now associated with one of its offshoots. I am sure to many people who don't have an understanding of their organization or even a hint of their background would know much about their beliefs but when I go to the article on wikipedia at least it is honest in regards of its history both in terms of the negative and positives. I can say the same about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America article.

In regards to sources. They bylaws of GGWO were available online. The church polity is not congregational in fact you will note that the Pastor is called "Chief Elder" and the references to how the church ended up selecting its Pastor shows the confusion of the role of the congregation. Local congregations are often controlled completely by their Senior Pastor and it has been this way for much of the history of TBS/GGWO. That is not congregational. Its is almost the direct opposite of congregational. Mike Marr help write the new bylaws of the church and CHS insisted that the church have a polity in which he controlled it, that there was no membership so nobody could lay claim to having a vested vote etc.

I have no issue with the use of carlstevens.org for most sources, and I have no issue of the use of much of the material for the original research from the GGWO website as long as its balanced against known history.

Note affiliation and polity practices are not the same matter. A church can have autonomous relationship with a denomination but practice a Episcopal Polity locally. The relationship of affiliation is not a written code in GGWO. There is no such document. I have spoken directly to Scott Robinson, Mike Marr, David Duff, Daniel Lewis, and Carl Stevens about this over the years especially when this matter was a hot controversy. CHS did not want anything to be used against him on paper.

Beliefs of GGWO: You will not find a written statement for instance on homosexuality from GGWO. You will never hear, nor in the thousands of sermons recorded of CHS will hear anything positive said about any homosexual. There is nothing wrong in my view of them having their beliefs. However we can not discount obvious views just because there is no official statement.

I want to be very clear about this. It would be very easy to make multiple articles about the controversies surrounding GGWO. The controversy of 2003 to 2005 in and of itself is worthy of being an article on wikipedia. The same is true with the Lenox situation, from the investigation of the church with the findings of the ATF and FBI field reports of weapons and like. But at some point this becomes heavy handed.

Again I thought for the sake of the positive points about this organization including the missionaries this article could be balanced and fair to some degree. In all honestly I do believe that the essential reason GGWO is known is for the controversies. There is a church in my area that sends as many missionaries, has as large of a congregation, has many strong views on doctrine as GGWO, holds fundamental views, views similar to those spoken of by GGWO etc. But I can't see how they would bring anything to an article on wikipedia.

But GGWO has some points that have not even brought up wikipedia. For instance GGWO was one of the first major published Christian websites, Its radio show may have been the first streaming web site on the internet period! The church in Europe attracted several important political people in much the same way as Hubert Armstrong attracted people to WWCG. That includes a former President of Hungary.

Congregations in various places have been involved in controversies of their own such as the findings of the French Government. The host of the Grace Hour is or was a Chaplain for the New York knicks who just so happens to be the son of a whistleblower himself of the Love Canal.

I do not lay claim to either ownership of this article or the truth. However the practice of destroying somebodies work and then intentionally suggesting you are not connected when even your terminology is obvious. I was connected to the WWCG for years and I could not begin to imagine being able to read an article where a person uses one of the catch word and states."I am no longer DIRECTLY connected to the group." If the shoe fits wear it and be honest. I hold both a negative view and positive view of GGWO. I am impressed as a religious writer and somebody who understands history that GGWO has done certain things. But that does not undo its negative side.

I disagree with you view on the press. The legal documents have such an incredible negative view of TBS. CHS, and GGWO it makes much of the articles about GGWO look so bad. The Judge in one of the cases refers multiple times to how bad the abuse of Stevens was. The former leader of the Stevens School of the bible testified in a way that made TBS look horrific.

The transcript concerning the connection of George Robertsons involvement with Scientology and its DEATH of an individual is well incredible compared to say use of words as "alleged" or rumors etc. I think I could live with the allegations vs knowledge that the Vice President of my Seminary may have been involved with people who possibly murdered somebody over their faith.

If I was to make a "fair"argument about GGWO it would be that its history is bizarre and hard to accept as being "Christian"at all. However even I believe that these things must be seen in a proper context. Where CHS was from, how he was ordained (yes he was ordained by his own church but his license to preach came from a known diploma mill listed on wikipedia).

The legal references for GGWO and TBS are so deep its hard to imagine anybody who wants some positive of the ministry to be put in this article against the backdrop of the judgments.

You can research all day and you will not find a mainstream view on GGWO that is positive. Even when the last Billy Graham crusade took place the organization wanted to distance itself from GGWO.

There are lots of good people and good missionaries from GGWO. Some positive information should be taken into consideration of their contributions including those who served in places like south America, former Soviet states, Viet Nam, and China even. But your spin and the spin I see is from a Christian perspective not in tune with either mainstream Christianity or secular views. When one does not know that their own use of words is skewed and not common they are to close. I should not be the main author on the WWCG I could contribute but I am willing to bet if I wrote the whole thing it would sound like I had just left the camp.

Imagined if I referred to WWCG as a vision of Armstrong in the article about the WWCG organization? It would be improper use of words, and very much of promotion of Armstrongism. The group went through multiple names and identities before it became the WWCG. How about saying that Charlotte was the "homebase"of PTL, or that the Camp Meeting is ___ for a Pentecostal group, or that the truth of the Holy Ghost can be understood as result of the Apostolic church as a result of the teachings of some Bishop in the African American Apostolic movement. As somebody who writes for people who don't use such terms and frankly knows that its worse than bad spelling and grammar. At least when its misspelled you can guess.

I think anybody who reads the decisions of the court, reads the articles, reads GGWO responses and even talks to both members and former members would agree, one can't argue this is just some evangelical church doing good works in the world. Its a controversial church that is still controversial. its history is important. The Pastor was interesting, and the controversies are merit for its placement here.

Enough said.

Tryster (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my relationship with the church: I used to regularly attend services four years ago. Now I only visit sporadically to catch up with some friends. This is primarily because I started attending the University of Maryland and could not commute. However, I also started developing doubts concerning the Evangelical movement because any church that had slightly different beliefs or methods was labelled "doctrinally off" or "cultish". One could say this is my agenda concerning articles like GGWO. I want people to take a second look before label any church a cult.

The people that you cite as sources are interesting as none of them are in the current leadership of GGWO. After Thomas Schaller took over, he wrote a detailed doctrine of affiliation. Therefore, the polity is much clearer than before. The term "free-will affiliation" is taken directly from this document.

Another reason that I would like you to use written documents rather than sermons for beliefs is because many of the nuances are changing. For example, Carl Stevens came out very harshly against homosexuality. However, Thomas Schaller is not nearly as harsh, but still believes that it is a sin.

I wanted to include some of the positives you mentioned above. However, I could not find any third-party sources on it and so I did not include it.

To cite the slogan of the University of Maryland: I'd rather be studying. Spinkava (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeable then?

Can we move forward here on the work, and lay the bickering aside for now?

If we can then why not set out to write an agreeable article that is a good article?

I can help support even the positives in references. Things like the organization uses an affiliation method for membership of congregations and has a polity that is mixed can be stated for clarity.

In regards to polity. The church even by its own admission is not congregational. It does have a affiliation type association with other congregations compared to say a "denomination". Things like this can stated and be clear with references.

In regards to the indivduals I have spoken to. I have spoken to many of the leaders even recently both current and former. Although I don't think I should be discussing private conversations, especially this close in time frame to when I had them. I think that history and even public record should be used. Again good, verifiable references for the most part.

I don't see why we cannot collectively write a comprehensive article with good sources and good information, then protect the article for the sake of protecting the work.

In regards to things said in sermons. I did not try to suggest that Thomas hates Homosexuals. But he does not have a major difference of opinion than say a fundamentalist Christian. I would believe that a church who says they are fundamentalist and evangelical would actually confess that. IMHO that would be expected in Christianity. This is religious organization not a school, they have a right to hold a view even I don't agree on. The same could be said for most Southern Baptist Churches.

Can we move to writing this and closing this chapter, and also somewhat protecting this article after it has been written so that it does not get destroyed by either extreme?

Tryster (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Notability

Consensus was the organization was notable, the discussion was archived here Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach/Notability

Talk Page Cleanup

I just achieved, refactored and otherwise cleaned up this talk page, in hopes to bring about a positive change and consensus. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!! 71.65.13.229 (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

First, the following thoughts belong to the following editors which have been involved in creating, editing, and otherwise working in a WP:BRD frameset:

• Spinkava (talk)
• Ltwin (talk)
• Tryster (talk)
• Bende76 (talk)
• 71.65.13.229 (talk)
• Tiggerjay (talk)

A refactored, consolidated list of "talk" points from the Archive are as follows:

1. Should the objective of the article be to present a "balance" (pro/con) approach, or rather facts written from a WP:NPOV, regardless of how unbalanced it may end up?
2. Is the legal case a significant part of GGWO history?
3. Should the legal case be presented in the introduction?
4. Is the missionary work (we should specify domestic or international) notable, significant and documented?

In any event, information should be cited with verifiable and reliable source. Considering the current situation, I would recommend that all editors involved, hold back the temptation to delete, remove or revert content - but rather simply add reliable, non-original research. From there, some other unbiased editors can step in and weed through the mess. Right now, there is way to much bias involved on the part of most editors listed above.

How to proceed: By faith, my hope is that everybody would like to create a good article. Part of that will be working through this process in an appropriate and organized manner. I suggest that each interested editor create a "sub section" to this, using three equal signs === Your name ===. And place your input on the three points above, then at the end please feel free to write a brief comment. Don't respond to other editors, just to the Consensus points addressed above. No, I'm not the WikiGod, but an edit which has helped similar disputes come together. :) Also, a final reminder to put NEW information at the BOTTOM, and always sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiggerjay

This is an example, as I don't have much input on this:

1. I am for a WP:NPOV and let's see where the article lands, and then format the article in an appropriate way based on the facts;
2. This, I believe will be determined primarily on the verifiable, reliable sources provided.
3. The legal case should be in the introduction only if it ends up constituting the bulk of the rest of the article, based on reliable sources.
4. I have no idea on this...

Thank you all for allowing me to suggest this process and I hope for it's success. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bende76

1. I don't see it yet.
2. Well, it would be great to hear what the GGWO would say about the legal case and not only see what the media said about it. Of course it was a turning point in the life of this ministry. It caused a moving, but also enhanced missionary work.
3. No. There is a christian ministry, that has led 10.000s to Christ worldwide, preaches the Gospel, makes disciples for Christ, worships God. Why should be a legal case the primary focus when we characterize such an organisation?
4. On the GGWO website there is a mission page. GGWO is one of the most effective missionary church, as about every 10th person is a missionary. Here has been 100s of churches planted worldwide. Missions is one of the most important part of GGWO (of course: GG World Outreach). Major churches in Africa too.

Tryster

First thanks for your hard work!

1. GGWO should article like any other article should not be viewed simply as a promotion of a particular group. While I would love to promote something I don't believe that is noteworthy because it is such.
2. GGWO's undeniable claim to fame is the controversies it has been involved in. I do not know of any other notable reason for a listing on wikipedia. And as such I think it should be mentioned in the introduction.
3. In regards to different parts of the article including the intro and box there are so many self promoting statements and statements that are just flat out mistakes. For instance in the info box it lists its polity as congregational. I have a copy of the cooperate bylaws and it is far from a congregational church in polity.
4. I am listing below in another section how the organization is notable in terms of its legal, media and like coverage.
5. I am really concerned that even those who want it to be balanced are willing to sacrifice both style, normal respect for resources and like. I tend to use actual dates, the sources and the mentions as is typical done for writing. While I respect that we are talking about a church, ministry and quasi denomnation and as such there is some lead way on how this can be done and the sources. To suggest that the church is more notable because of mission work, or that is more notable for something else against the backdrop of so many significant articles, legal sources, media articles, transcipts from eye witnesses, etc is worrisome

71.65.13.229 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

I am trying to write this as balanced and neutral as possible in consideration of the criticism without the catch, weasel words etc. Please note I reduced the tone of the about the controversies and in the sections that follow I would use references for each.

Spinkava

Tiggerjay, you are right. We have all gotten too emotionally involved in this. To answer the questions:

1. I would like WP:NPOV based on reliable sources. However, I do believe that media sources should be limited as they were skewed towards the anti-GGWO crowd. The pro-GGWO crowd was too afraid that the media would take their words out of context and so did not offer any interviews. With this caveat, I believe that WP:NPOV will lead to a balanced article.
2. The legal case is a significant & notable part of GGWO's history.
3. The legal case should be part of the introduction, but not the focus of the introduction.
4. Concerning ministry, GGWO is notable for Telephone Time, Grace Hour, La Gracia & missions to Hungary & Azerbaijan. All of this is documented in third party sources.

Significant ministries include Maryland Bible College & Seminary (MBC&S) & Greater Grace Christian Academy (GGCA), which I believe are notable enough for their own pages.

Other ministries include Stevens School of the Bible, Noah's Ark Bible Club, Chritian Athletics Program & Verticalink, International. There are few third party sources regarding this. You may choose whether to mention this or not.

Can you please extend the block another week. I would like to gather more sources but I am in the middle of finals & next week is my graduation. Spinkava (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bickering

The bickering has been moved to the archive. :) If you keep up this kind of rhetoric when the block is lifted, you will both likely find yourselves blocked due to WP:3R. Forget about the details for a moment, and let's try to get to an overall common ground. Spinkava, please answer the above questions. And then, moving forward, we can look into the article, but there is no need for a debate, let the sourced information stand for itself, there is no need to interpret, or perform any other form of original research.

When the block is lifted I suggest you simply add information and let other, unbiased editors go through your reliable sources and meld the article together -- your focus should be adding as much unbiased, cited content as possible - and forget about the other person. If you feel they are off base, then simply add more sourced content to reinforce your belief. Again, the content will stand for itself without your need to interpret. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the extension of the block, I have no control over this as I am not an admin, however I can request this of an admin for everyone. During this extended block, everyone, please gather your information with proper sources, and then when the page is unblocked, please ADD only, (no removal, copyedits or rewrites)... then after both of you have had a chance to contribute, then myself and another editor will go through and make the cleanup needed, well have another editor or two review it -- and then we'll make sure that everyone is rather satisfied with the way it turns out.Tiggerjay (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tryster

1. I agree for the most part but we don't need another three weeks from when this started to edit this.
2. I think articles on many of these people, places and controversies is merited. However I think that the articles and these other matters should be mentioned in some manner and that it should be honestly balanced with the resources not original research.
3. I believe it is important that once this article is written and there is some consensus that it is protected so neither extreme side will vandelize it.

Peace

Tryster (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs to be protected. However, according to the protection policy, I think that best we can hope for is semi-protection. Spinkava (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Tryster (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There will be no rationale for any sort of page protection until after vandalism has occurred - protection is for ongoing action, not to be preemptive. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiggerjay this article has been deleted, vandalized, and so debated to suggest that it will not happen is like saying the sun will not come up. If we don't think that is the case lets simply remove the block now. Why is it blocked if we think that it will not happen? Let editors start cleaning it up now. When the date of the current block was pushed back I felt like the Pro GGWO folks get their way without any consideration of those who want a balanced and to a larger degree neutral point of view. 71.65.13.229 (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tryster, the problem with your approach is that you are starting with the viewpoint that there is a war at hand --- which causes you to react more agreesively then you normally would, causing the situation to escellate -- please review WP:AGF. Go ahead, stop reading and pop on over to the link first. For you to think that the block being push back was a "win" by any ideological position would be a gross mis-understanding, and simply illustrates how too passionate and biased you are. All the more reason to keep the block in place until the parties cool down. To protect this article going forward would be fundamentally against the nature and purpose of wikipedia. Most of the articles I am interested with are vandalised several times each week - my own userpage it being hit about twice a day now -- however since it is simply a few here and there, there is no justification for protection. If you cannot believe in the good faith edits of other editors, then you may need to take a WP:wikibreak - don't worry, the article will be here for you to edit at any time in the future. Tiggerjay (talk)

new stubs

I am creating new stubs for some of these places, controversies and indivduals who are notable.

I created one for Carl H. Stevens Jr. I am building a redir for his name as simply Carl Stevens, I will create one for a few others today.

Tryster (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Added stub for Maryland Bible College & Seminary

Tryster (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Dovydenas vs. The Bible Speaks was created. The redirs will be hard to formulate. I am trying to get together the references with the proper case number. There are so many its hard to find the first case number.

Tryster (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Homework

Editors, here is a bit of homework for you now that the article is blocked for an additional week - please take a moment -- okay, several moments -- to understand WP:MOS... Adding insult to injury is the general inability to edit in accordance to the Manual of Style. :)

Thanks, Tiggerjay (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This Article Is A Mess

What has happened to this article. It's worse then the last time I saw it! Everything seems to be all jumbled up, and you cannot tell where one section ends and the other one begins in some parts of the article.Ltwin (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it is quite a disaster, however it is currently protected from editing, and hopefully with a "quiet" talk page for a while, the two editors have calmed down a bit so when the protection comes off next week, progress will be made. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't more strongly dissagree. This article has been so subjected to attack I can hardly see the reason one should subscribe to it being not attacked between the two different extreme sides. Because of edit wars I have removed myself from any major edits of this article even when the protection comes off. The other major editor has insisted on using sectarian sources that I can only see as been a bias that is extreme.

Early on when I worked on this article I sought consensus and what I have found is the desire for encouragement of an edit war. I am not sure the merit of this page if it is so biased, and so loaded with extreme views in any given direction. If I was to enter into simply editing the page when it comes off protection it would amount to an edit war. I believe that the better outcome would be to let an editor who has no bias to edit the article. There has already been talk beyond here of the desire to mass edit when the page is unprotected. Again that seems a bit pathetic to enter into. I simply will do edits where I know I can do so with verifiable ref. Like this edit that names this organization "congregational" when the organization, its foes, its bylaws, its public statements, its current leaders, its former leaders, its current governance all say its is far from it. That would be like 20 refrences to change one word in one block on wikipedia. That is madness. Tryster (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

links in ref section

{{editprotected}} Could an admin please change the links in the refs section to either a cite web template or at least named links and not plain URL's?--Rockfang (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the current format is working, but simply not formatted well; along with the high probability that when the protection is lifted there will be substantial changes, I would recommend that it simply is left alone for the moment. But then again, I'm not an admin and defer to their wisdom, this is only my 2 cents. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point Tiggerjay, but Wikipedia formatting should generally be followed wherever possible. Plus it gives the reader a chance to identify with the source they might be verifying. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit.--Rockfang (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Here is a source I would like to contribute: http://www.bosnewslife.com/cis/turkmenistan/3595-turkmenistan-security-forces-raid-bible-class

There is a pdf file from Chritianity Today that I would like to upload. How do I do this? Spinkava (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more: http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=281 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=244 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=911 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=135 (More can be found at http://www.forum18.org) Spinkava (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Spinkava, I'm not sure that they would pass WP:RS. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just now recieved news that the founder, Carl Stevens, has past away. Hopefully, more sources will get released soon. How is it coming with re-writing this article?68.55.179.241 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I added e a Recent death tag to the Carl H. Stevens Jr. article.Tryster (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source to verify this news? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see a notice on the GGWO home page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you google Carl Stevens, there are now several obituaries describing Carl Stevens' life.Spinkava (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

GGWO Polity

The leadership of GGWO finally gave me a copy of the affiliation policy. "Mixed polity" turns out to be the best way to describe it.Spinkava (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of detail

In the article's history Baltimore, Maryland section second paragraph this statement reads, "Still, many of the elders and senior pastors were dissatisfied with the choice, citing Schaller's views on the role of the senior pastor." However, there is no explanation of what Schaller's views are and/or how they are controversial. Also, more needs to be written about the circumstances for the dissafiliation and subsequent founding of the association by former GGWO pastors.Ltwin (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to find several known sources for this piece. --Tryster (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

multiple requests for citations are already in the list of references. I merely added them again for those requested citations. --Tryster (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

attacks vs editing

I am trying to remain impartial here, but the current efforts to not report history that is documented within the references on this article as being not present is disturning. The article quotes the sources for multiple publications, government, courts, former members, and similiar concerning it being a cult. GGWO notararity is not because of its "Christian" work. It is known because of its lardmark case where they lost multi million properties, was bankrupt, was reported in over 15 newspaper articles, and has lost major civil actions against it. To say that information and the information about those critics doesn't belong in this article is absurd.

I think it is fair for those who are pro GGWO to report information that is not really notable but important concerning the group. But to wipe out documented, mass media, Federal count, and civil court findings, and huge amount of critics is strange to me.

The critics sections should be full of a lot more information and it should be documented well. But the section as it has been changed made the group sound like a marginally ok group in some kind of defense. Some 8 million in loss civil actions over the course of 20 years, more newspaper atciles, 60 minute episodes, and some 80,000 internet postings are not a little bit of criticism. It is a lot.

The article should not escape the truth of what the group is. It is fine if the group defends itself, but to rewrite history constantly is nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.104.49 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, the the organization is notable because of all that you have said, but that does not mean that an article cannot give all the information about the organization to the reader. The article makes it clear that there are people who believe this to be a cult. If you fill that the introduction or the "Critics" section does not do that then you are in your rights to improve the article (the important word being to improve it); however, you slapping on the following paragraph with no sources and no citations that point us to your sources does not improve this article but instead only makes it worse. I am sure you are aware of the controversial history of this article, and because I know you are aware of it, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you would make such edits with no sources at all and delete information that had a source? Why in the edit summary or on the talk page did you not give a reason for these changes which have no source? Yet you can, instead of assuming good faith, say that other editors are attacking this organization while you place broad statements and allegations of cultic behavior with no source at all and then you remove a paragraph (with a source) and label it as an attack. Someone is confused here. Just in case you do not know what paragraphs I am referring to (the one in the introduction I will be removing until it is made neutral and is backed up by a source with citations and the one you removed I will be adding back, and fixing the things you added that do not adhere to good style on Wikipedia, until someone can give me a good reason for its removal in the first place) I will post them below for other's convenience. Though, for the record I am not an administrator and I do not own this article; however, I will do all in my power to help insure that this article does not fall into the controversy it did a few months back (if anyone who is new to this article and wants to understand what I am talking about look in the archives. Its very enlightening.), and if you insist on trying to edit this article solo then I have no way to stop you. However, I have no problems seeking assistance. Below are two of the latest problem areas that have come up in the last day or two.

This is the paragraph that was just added to the introductory section:

"Former members, journalists, courts, and authorities in multiple locals have described Greater Grace World Outreach as a cult. Critics claim that the organization has a history of harassing its critics and abusing the trust of its members. The organization is listed as a cult or "cult like" with multiple anti cult groups. Greater Grace World Outreach, along with Scientology organizations and individuals was involved with the take over of the Anti-Cult organization Cult Awareness Network which is now a cult apologist organization with GGWO's former College Vice President as it leader."

This is the paragraph that was sourced but taken out with no reason given except for "undo attack":

"In 2003, Carl Stevens became too ill to continue his leadership of GGWO. In 2005, the elders elected Roger Stenger to become the new chief elder of the church. However, a large portion of the congregation expressed dissatisfaction with the choice and Roger Stenger resigned. In his place the elders elected Thomas Schaller as senior pastor, after a congregatonal vote[9]. Still, many of the elders and senior pastors were dissatisfied with the choice, citing Schaller's views on the role of the senior pastor."

Please respond. I want to know your reasoning behind all this. You know who I am. Ltwin (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The edits are a result of edits that amount to attacks on the articles mentions and correct statments concerning it being a cult as being supported by references already in the article. The Baltimore Sun article, the Boston Globe reference that is made in light with the reference of the judges comments concerning Carl Stevens, the comments concerning Stevens by a huge portion of former followers, staff members, and other groups, the fbi as well as court transcripts concerning the death of an individual that George Robertson did a disposition on, multiple articles, articles of incorperation by the new CAN whereas George Robertson comments on in several places.

The existing references ALREADY found in this article should be more than adequate to see that statements are true that are in the intro.

The critics edit is a result of earlier edits were information about the 2004 schism were removed. Again the multiple articles already cited were plenty. They already exist in the article. Each sentence is the article does not need a footnote especially when the footnotes already exist for the Sun Articles and similar.

You removed the edits concerning why their was a schism. The press, the church, the former leadership that was very present during Carl Stevens end did not try to suggest that it was merely CHS being sick that resulted in his removal. That is at best well stated omissions as if fact. The official documents of the church are not credible in the case when discussing a person who publically (again cited in the article) was busy often abusing his office as a Pastor of a church, and the leader of an NPO.

I will gladly rewrite the whole intro to reflect why GGWO is notable including its involvement in CAN, Its abuses that are similar to Scientology, the critics to include the references to sources that are credible, and support issues like that CHS was removed because he could no longer be cognitive as a result of abusing pain medication and other related issues. I will glady back up the issues that the court had, the resolvement of a public payoff of $500,000 that was admitted by Mike Marr to the press, and reported by an accountant within the internal setting of the church structure, and even public letters from its former leadership admitting the abuses of the church.

Be respectful once I do so, and do not simply undo the edits out of spite. I will back up the intro, and other sections with existing footnotes and with the legal documents and reports by the press and the courts to that effect, as well as letters from the former leadership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.104.49 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok 69.14.104.49|69.14.104.49 or Tryster or whoever you are, we need to get one thing straight before we move forward. Now read this very carefully. No one is undoing your edits "out of spite." The only thing that anyone is trying to do is make an article worthy enough for anyone to read. Now you still need to read this carefully. You need to take a look at WP:assume good faith and then you need to go back and look at how your own actions may be perceived by other people before you make any accusation against other editors. Thank you. Ltwin (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"The existing references ALREADY found in this article should be more than adequate to see that statements are true that are in the intro."

That maybe so, but for a statement as controversial and libelous as that it needs a citation after the actual statement so people can know that it is a verifiable statement. Wikipedia needs verifiability not truth. You don't have to go out and find brand new sources. You can use the ones that are already in the article; however, the reader needs to know the exact source(s) this statement came from. The drug thing goes like this: Carl H. Stevens is a person and as such anything that can potentially tarnish his image must be sourced and the statement also needs a citation so people can find the exact source the article is receiving this information from. Do you understand? Ltwin (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets get this straight, when I use the word truth I am stating it as verifiable truth not just some article of some unknown newspaper int the middle of nowhere, Federal courts are involved in these judgements, first hand accounts by former leaders, and by newspapers that spent months, some who have this for years. In terms of CHS misuse of drugs, it has not only been documented it has not been denied by the current ministry as of late, and certainly anybody with a brain can read the existing articles that you seem to have no trouble using.

The references to CAN are not only documented but California courts and other jurisdictions have them as matter of record, something that Scientology, George Robertson brag about publically. The horse's moth and the State government of California is not verifiable?

The press stories that date back 20 years, the 60 minute stories, the findings of court are not unverifiable sources. The findings of a Federal judge are a matter of verifiable, and for that matter easy at hand information.

The letters of CHS own family are not only verifiable, the are available for anybody to read.

If you are trying to go to an all out edit war you are doing good job. I have refrained from doing the same. Please be considerate of others, history, and reliable sources. To argue that sources you use are not verifiable seems bizarre. The Sun Article and carlstevens.org website are sites you apparently used, the same with GGWO's website. If you don't like them, don't use them.

If a federal court and California Government is not good enough in terms of corporations and their legal history what is?

And stop with idol threat thing. Your not in church or on the street. Try to conduct yourself a little more professionally than statements like :You know who I am" What should IO get scared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat. I was referring to your habit of not using your user name and just some ip address that gives the impression that there are two different people I'm talking to. What's the "church or on the street" thing about. LOL. If you got that impression I apologize, but like I said above it was just an attempt at humor. Because whether you realize this or not, some people take you signing under 2 different identities as a way to skew consensus your way. Anyway, there was no threat. I just mean that if this gets out of hand we may need to find mediation. That is all. Once again, I am not saying that your sources are not verifiable I am saying that you should use inline citations like any other editor would use in a controversial article. By the way, don't take things too seriously and assume good faith. Ltwin (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

be objective

If you want me to take you on good faith, then do the same.

If you want people to accept your edits as being good faith edits, do the same for others.

I apologize for any of the times I did not sign anything but I mistakenly thought I had autosig on.

Please do not undo my edits simply because you do not agree with others ideas. Hence many organizations do not accept that GGWO is a Christian church. Most cults claim to be a Christian group but their identity is within the "cult" character of the leader. In this case the former CHS.

I think most who know people except Jim Jones ministry did not have "Christ" as its center, but rather Jim Jones. We don't need to assume the same about GGWO, it is well documented by the courts including his abuses with money with the cases in the 80's.

Please respect my edits. I will provide verifiable footnotes for each becaus of your desire to undo them.

Tryster (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

GGWO is a Christian organization

GGWO is a "christian organization." It may be a cult, it may lie, and it may cheat; however, it is christian. It espouses Christian beliefs. Its leaders and members claim its Christian. It my not be Christ-like but it is firmly in the Christian religion. To say anything else would be to distort the truth. Whether it is cult, on the other hand is a matter of opinion and interpretation that the reader has to decide for itself. Just because it is a cult does not negate the fact that it is a Christian cult. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is considered by many to be a cult; however, for purposes of Wikipedia it is categorized as a church. Ltwin (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do assume good faith with your edits. Thats why I have not removed a lot of them. Many I have just corrected to maintain at least some quality. I am not trying to start an edit war. I'm just trying to keep this article neutral. Help me do it. Ltwin (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feeback. I will try to reformat these edits with references. I will also try to clean up how they are written.

IN terms of GGWO being a Christian organization, I have no trouble with how it is stated now. "Christian Organization" Is fine. I think the critics portions needs more detailed and easy to read information.

Thanks for your input. 69.14.104.49 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2