Talk:Calvary Chapel Association/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Modified Episcopal polity?

I'm having some trouble accepting this, as it seems so contradictory to things Smith has said on the record. For instance, "Though Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa had (and still has) an independent board of elders, Smith's book Calvary Chapel Distinctives teaches that senior pastors should be answerable to God, not to a denominational hierarchy or board of elders."(source here). Also, I've never heard of a senior Calvary pastor answering to any sort of "district manager" as far as episcopal authority goes. From this it sounds more like modified presbyterian, with some congregationalist influence. The links to the two citations are broken, but if anyone could post the original text to which they referred that would be immensely helpful. PenitentWhaler (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably closer to the truth. Smith was a Presbyterian pastor at one time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Commenting to you "district manager" question, it is true that there is a regional head/senior pastor appointed to oversee the other churches in his area. For instance, Robert Furrow (senior Pastor of CC Tucson) is the regional head of the other CC pastors in/around Tucson, AZ (to include Scott Richards at Calvary Christian Fellowship, Sam Rhodes at CC Vail, Craig Roters at CC Oro Valley, etc) and thus they need to go to Robert for approval of major church decisions (such as if they want to move locations). Ckruschke (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

There is no local membership accountability in Calvary Chapels. For a group to have congregational identity it must have voting members. The lack of membership removes Calvary Chapels from any biblical spectrum of church governance. Even episcopal governance first requires church membership through a local parish, recognized by the larger communion for the episcopacy. Calvary Chapels have been more reflective of a monarchy under Chuck Smith trending to an oligarchy under the most influential affiliated personalities.Opukahaia808 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to reference that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you reference nearly seven years of first-hand ministry experience inside the Calvary Chapel system in contrast to 23 years of first-hand congregational, presbyterial, or espiscopal experience?Opukahaia808 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but I suspect something could be referenced as a comparison. I'm not saying that a change isn't in order, but that it should be referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The cited quotes from Calvary Chapel Distinctives (despite the mention of the biblical Greek word episkopos) do not justify mention of episcopal polity, which has a clear meaning in a number of Christian denominations and which is not at all what CC practices. CC's governance is neither episcopal nor presbyterian, because authority is de-centralized on a movement-wide scale, nor is it congregationalist as there are no congregational votes. I think best to use CC's own description of "Moses model" while describing what it is. Incidentally, the "regional head" mentioned by Ckruschke above is interesting, but I'd like to see it documented before discussing whether it might be described as anything like "episcopal". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't have anything in writing about the "regional head" - my guess is that it's not in writing, but that's just my opinion. I just mentioned it in the discussion above since I have first-hand knowledge that this is the way that pastoral/church decisions are overseen from discussions with several CC pastors. Ckruschke (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Smith's position on 9/11

I want to open up discussion on whether to remove the subsection relating to comments indirectly attributed to Church Smith with respect the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Admittedly, Chuck Smith is the founder of the first Calvary Church, but this entry does not seem relevant to an encyclopedia article on the Calvary Church movement generally. He's not speaking for the church's position as a whole, particularly in view of the fact that Calvary Church's themselves are not governed by a central authority and are loosely and informally affiliated. Thoughts and comments? --Esquire880 (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes hard to separate the man from the church. Although I definitely agree that the churches are independently ran, they obviously take their lead from Chuck - at the very least spiritually. As far as the text specifically, I don't see anything in the article that says that Chuck attributed 9/11 to anything or even mentioned 9/11. Seemed to me that there used to be another reference, but I could be wrong. Therefore in my mind, the reference doesn't support the text and should be either reworded or deleted. Secondly, it seems like specific things that Chuck says or does would better be found on Chuck's own Wiki page - unless he is specifically speaking to the Calvary's. Ckruschke (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks Ckruschke. At a more general level, I'm concerned with having a section titled, without qualification, "Criticisms" which to me functions like a general invitation to air any grievance an editor has with the topic subject so long as he or she can find an RS that supports it. As you know from editing the page, even controversial pastor Rob Bell does not have a "Criticism" or "Controversies" section, but rather includes viewpoints opposing his theology, where appropriate, in other sections. What I want to propose is to fold the criticism related to pastoral accountability into an existing section where it would be relevant, and then delete the "Criticisms" section, assuming consensus on the "authoritarian practices" and "Smith's position on 9/11" is or remains to not retain them. What do others think? --Esquire880 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made this change. I intended to paste the criticism of the "Moses model" into the section on Organization but found that all of the sourced content of it was already there and would have been duplicative. If you think I missed something please feel free to add it. I am not really concerned that this criticism, if you call it, that has WP:DUE or WP:NPOV problems. --Esquire880 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Esquire880, if you were being Bold, we are now at the revert step of WP:BRD. You should at least read some of the several years of history in the talk page archives debating these exact same points before you remove properly sourced and long–standing content without consensus. It appears there has been a previous RfC on this issue and I would expect you would need another RfC to change the previous consensus, not just a discussion with one other editor. Yes Ckruschke, there was an additional ref, you removed it with this edit on July 5. I re-factored the text somewhat to better fit the LA Times articles. Mojoworker (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the link Mojo - not sure why I cut it...

Esquire880 - One reason that you need to keep in mind that's been discussed on this page is being careful referring anything to Rob Bell's page. There is a very strong faction on that page keeping ANYTHING critical from seeing the light of day on that page - a group of us worked for over a month just to get an honest review of his recent book on the page devoid of the usual "Rob Bell is great" fluff - therefore comparing it to what we are trying to do on the Calvary page (i.e. ensuring a NPOV) is 180 degrees different.Ckruschke (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Okay, I submitted an RFC (see below) --Esquire880 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My own editprotected request

I can do this edit because I'm an admin, but it's fully protected, so I shouldn't and won't. Please change the following text:

view of all men as "sinners" but holds that

to

view of all men as "sinners"; it holds that

The present form makes it sound as if Calvary's position disagrees with both Calvinism and Arminianism, which both teach "that through Jesus Christ salvation becomes possible". Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

N Not yet done; potentially controversial edits require consensus before the edit request is made.  Sandstein  06:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Cult Status

Surprised to see my revision to this subsection under Criticisms (again) undone by Walter Gorlitz. The content is not consistent with Wikipedia standards. Walter, please elaborate on why you believe it should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esquire880 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be as their place on this page is 100% consistent with Wiki... Although these criticisms are seen as obscure and obsurd by those of us who attend CC's, they are real views held by a certain section of the population and as such they should find a place on this page. Citicisms/Cultish tendencies and the validity of those accusations have been discussed numerous times on this talk page and thus one can easily look through the history, so I'm not sure its necessary to rehash old news. Ckruschke (talk) 18:2--63.67.248.50 (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)7, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agree with Ckruschke. I don't attend a CC, but I am quite familiar with them and they are certainly not cult-like. However, when material is referenced, it is a wikipedia policy to retain it unless it's libellous or slanderous. Neither is the case since the quotes actually indicate that at worst, they're occasionally authoritarian and not cult-like. Again, Wikipedia isn't about the truth but about referenced and reliable sources. If you look back through the discussions here and in the archives, you can see who added those and that I usually defend CC against unwarranted attacks, but this, unfortunately, has some legs. The criticisms are of a minority of pastors (two I believe) and not of the collection of churches as a whole. If you wanted to clarify that, with your own sources, it would add balance to the section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Gorlitz: As you said "it is a wikipedia policy to retain it unless it's libellous[sic] or slanderous." I would humbly submit that this portion of entry meets your own standard for removal. See, e.g., http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7DMUS_en&q=libelous&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=NokTTu3PJunhiAKihfTkDQ&ved=0CCgQkQ4&biw=1235&bih=557 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esquire880 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's not libellous (Correct spelling in "international" English [1]). Read the section and you'll see. Stop removing it until a decision has been made. And, do sign your comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact I'll go so far as to ask what exactly do you see as wrong with the content?

The heading now reads Authoritarian practices

Cult deprogrammer Rick Ross was quoted in the Sonoma County Independent in 1998 as saying of Calvary Chapel, "I wouldn't go so far as to call them a full-on cult. But I will say that Calvary Chapel is an extremely authoritarian group where lots of control is exercised over the members."

In the same article, Calvary Chapel Pastor Don McClure resists "the assertion that past members have claimed emotional wounding" and states instead, "Calvary Chapels are among the least judgmental, most easygoing churches I've ever seen... I guess if someone's calling us a cult, then they don't understand what we're really all about."

So what is libellous, slanderous, or even inaccurate in that? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Walter. Though of course I can't speculate on your own qualifications for judging libel my own background as lawyer has included training on identifying this "tort" as it's called in the U.S. As you say, this is apparently an attack on just two CC pastors rather than the church movement on the whole suggesting an inference of inaccuracy when applied to the entire movement, thus making if not libel from a legal POV, then certainly slanderous. Anyway, appreciate your expalanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esquire880 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. So are you saying that you still see slander and libel or are you saying the wording is adequate now? Perhaps, you could improve the section rather than remove it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the content should be removed. Yes, general wiki policy is to retain content that is sourced, but the sources must also meet wiki guidelines. The source in question is a quote by Rick Ross sourced from his own website, and is itself an apparent copy of a source that cannot be substantiated. Additionally, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim in question is unduly weighted in the article by even being present there without more evidence, properly sourced. I vote that it be removed. 24.8.168.247 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Which claim exactly? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, which claim, the one made that states they're not a cult but they are authoritarian or the one that says if anyone thinks CC is a cult "then they don't understand what we're really all about."? Feel free to respond. Two references. Neither call it a cult. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rick Ross quote of himself hosted on his website from an op-ed article in a paper (possibly newspaper, possibly something else?) that doesn't seem to exist anymore and cannot be verified by direct weblink as far as I've been able to find. 24.8.168.247 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote is from an article. It is referenced in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. That is the reference that I am referrring to as poor and not meeting wiki standards. 24.8.168.247 (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In your effort to be concise you have lost coherence. I don't understand why a reprint of an article doesn't meet WP:V standards. Feel free to bring it up at the discussion board there or WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"In your effort to be concise you have lost coherence." That appears to be a personal attack and I'm not sure what I did to deserve it, if anything. Can we have a candid debate about the topic without that sort of behavior? 24.8.168.247 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was not making it a personal attack simply stating that I have no earthly idea what your problem with the inclusion of the source is and I think of you elucidated your thoughts I might have a better chance at it.

The article seems to be fine but if you think it should be excluded, there are forums for those purposes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing that would help the discussion is if you would register (or are you really Esquire880 but didn't log into your account? You seem to be continuing the same discussion that he started). However, none of Walter's comments should be construed as even close to attacks. He has been very patiently trying to tell you that the article is perfectly fine per Wiki rules and its presence is justified on the page also per Wiki rules. If you feel that the article does not pass muster, please take it up on the discussion board suggested. Again, if you want to participate in a discussion on that board, it would be helpful to register (or log into your account). Bottomline is we are trying to help you understand why the information is on the page - not trying to keep you from participating in the upkeep of this page. Yours -Ckruschke (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Actually this IP is from Thornton, Colorado. I'm assuming that this edit] is also from Esquire880 which would place the editor in San Jose, California. However, I'm not certain that this was Esquire880. In either case, it would be best if the source were taken to the WP:RS rather than argue about it here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added it since it seems as though no one else is willing to, and we can't really determine whether the source is reliable or not. Please direct discussion to as to whether the reference is reliable to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Self-published reprint of an article. I can't speak to any other legal issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter, this is Esquire880, as you can tell from the IP locations, I am not one person pretending to be two (I'm even signing my own entries :) ; I intended to defer to your greater experience on ths issue, but I do want to weigh in once more since the topic seems to still be current. Basically, I still think it's not appropriate for Wikipedia; it's a highly charged statement without much factual basis other than an "authority" on cults expressed it; and it seems disingeuous to say, well, he didn't say they were a "full-on cult." Strictly speaking, that's true -- but the obvious inference from the statement is Calvary must in ways resemble or act as a cult for him to make that statement. If I said for example, I wouldn't call Person X a "full-on murderer" the inference drawn from the qualifier "full-on" compels an interpretation that Person X must be similarly heinous to a real murderer. ----Esquire880 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm definitely not Esquire880. And I won't be using a pseudonym/account (long story.) And you'll probably find my IP changes confusing. I believe my thoughts on the matter were lucid; I'm still not sure where the confusion of my position might be but I'm sorry if anyone was confused. Per Walter's suggestion, I willingly opened a case on the VS noticeboard (prior to Walter's case) and am awaiting some clarification, but you'll see it referenced from Walter's case. Ck: I understand why the information is on the page as I've been watching it for many years now and was present at the content's inception and hurricane-force (is that a horrible pun, Walter?) efforts by another editor to keep it in the article. Ultimately I don't think I ever agreed with its inclusion (Wikipedia is not simply a collection of facts for fact's sake) but I have to be careful of my bias. However, it appears that others have raised the question yet again. So here we go...

So I agree with Esquire's metaphor for the situation. Yesterday I had a similar thought (perhaps Divine confirmation) that someone saying 'I wouldn't call them a cult, but...' is a bit like saying 'I'm not saying he beats his wife, but....' It's a weasely way of making a claim without having to worry about legal ramifications (Cf. [FUD].) (I had a law professor that once cautioned, 'anytime you hear someone say "I'm not saying XYZ, but", well, they really are saying "XYZ"'.)

Additionally, Walter's contention that "when material is referenced, it is a wikipedia policy to retain it unless it's libellous or slanderous" is, in my wiki experience, simply inaccurate. The reference has to be of sufficient quality, cannot be original research, must not give undue weight to a fringe/minority position, etc. And we can be thankful for that, otherwise this article (and many others) would be smeared with all sorts of blog-hosted rubbish. 24.129.80.163 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I never accused you two of being the same person. You'll have to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Self-published reprint of an article. No one is going to change their mind here. Make your cases there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I went ahead and tentatively removed the section in question. We have on the noticeboard what I take to be a neutral editor's opinion on the dispute in favor of removal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question_about_a_possibly_self-referenced_source) Hope you agree --Esquire880 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw it and reverted it as it's a general rule and may not apply. People will weigh-in on this specific issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following why it should continue to be included. The neutral arbiter also suggested that "if your description of the newspaper is at all accurate, then the general rule certainly appears to be applicable." From WP:DUE (referenced by the arbiter): "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Per your own words, "I am quite familiar with [CC] and they are certainly not cult-like." What is your rationale for inclusion? 24.129.80.52 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's referenced. One person's opinion in general is no grounds to remove it. When someone actually reviews the specific page and offers an opinion it will be better grounds. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not so surprised that new people have been programmed to believe Calvary Chapel is not a cult. There are obviously "sufficient references" available to realize that Calvary Chapel is believed to be a cult by many people in the world -- of course, exclusive of those who have a cup of Kool Aide in their left hand . This Wiki article should reflect what is written, and what is written includes many references to the Cult following found among Calvary Chapel, of which many people have provided many references that are now contained in the archives. Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's not a cult. The best you could do is a person with a vested as your only source that it's cult. You don't have references, you have one reference that indicates that it's not a cult but authoritarian. So if anyone is brainwashed (or just plain angry) it's you. You may now re-cloak. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the book, "What color is your Kool Aide?" Oh, wait, that is "Parachute" isn't it? Walter, we've gone through this many times. Google Calvary Chapel Cult or Calvary Chapel New Religious Movement and tell the rest of the world that they are all wrong. "re-cloaking" in progress... Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes we have. You have one source. If you had more you would offer them. I explained how your Google search is rubbish. The strange thing is you know it but you refuse to admit it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvary is not a cult - period. No one who doesn't have some kind of anti-Calvary axe to grind can make that statement. I think it's somewhat ironic that people who attend Calvary are supposedly the ones who have been robbed of independent thought, but apparently one book and a Google search of other nameless anti-Christian drones has robbed some people of theirs... Ckruschke (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Appreciate your neutrality, Walter. I went ahead and removed it (forgot to sign-in, hence the IP address rather than signature), on the grounds that that the reference does not link to the Sonoma county newspaper but rather to the source's own website. --Esquire880 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you will be reverting my change, Walter and want to request that you hold off for a bit, as I've submitted to this to the mediation cabal for their opinion: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-07-18/Calvary Chapel --Esquire880 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm walking down the middle of the road on this one. I understand why you want it removed, but it's referenced. The discussion on the RS noticeboard ended without any input from anyone here and without any reason to question why a source that is republished by someone is not reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion on the RS noticeboard had my input. And they also agreed that my viewpoint was probably valid. Are we reading the same thing? 24.129.80.52 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that. I'm not calling you a liar, but this is the brief discussion and I don't see you chime in. What are you referencing? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am referencing the discussion to which they referred you in your brief discussion. I opened a case before you did. here is a link. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Walter. Wish you would have waited for an opinion from the media cabal before undoing my edits, but anyway, I think the unreliable reference is definitely an issue (i.e. no way to confirm that this is what was published since the source of the quote is also the source of the reference; read: weak)but my own objection goes more towards it being contrary to one of the five pillars of Wikipedia: "We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner." Certainly, I anticipate, you would agree that this subsection does not comply.

Additionally, concerning the RS whiteboard, if memory serves, a neutral editor advised against your position on the issue --Esquire880 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would wait for the the opinion before changing consensus. And the RS discussion was that it was not a problem. Check it our yourself and stop acting on your own opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things on this. The first is, that the request was made here. The second is that generally, when you request intervention on an issue, you don't actually change the issue to suit your needs before someone can act on the request. If this had gone to WP:ANI, their first action would have been to lock the page down in the pre-edit state and then start talking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC) ‎

The RS discussion did _not_ state that 'it was not a problem' but that the item probably failed WP::Due. To requote: "Tiny minority views, such as information that can only be found in someone's blog or a minor source, are not usually important enough to mention in a Wikipedia article" and "if your description of the newspaper is at all accurate, then the general rule certainly appears to be applicable."

Additionally, I noticed that an edit revision by you stated 'There are no issues of merit that have been raised.' Are you suggesting that my objections thus far have no merit? The RS discussion would suggest otherwise. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No edit on the issue at hand should be made until there is a definite opinion gained from the RS discussion and then concensus about the proposed edit (as necessary) ON THIS TALK PAGE. I think the discussion among all of you has confirmed that there is no concensus on whether there has even been an an opinion. As such, there should be NO edits on the subject matter at hand until the issue is resolved as it is not policy to delete the section you don't like only to have someone else add it back in if you are ultimately proven wrong. Esquire880 and User:24.129.80.52, please follow basic Wiki policy and we can avoid this continuing revert war. Ckruschke (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Whoa Nelly. First: a definite opinion WAS given on the RS discussion. Please see the archive here. Second, that discussion was opened at the request of Walter, who I hoped would abide by the decision as it was his request. If you are going to quote policy on deletions, please include a link to wiki policy. To date, Esquire has been bold about deleting information that lacks quality in his opinion and that is okay! Last, please do not lump me in with Esquire regarding reverts. I have not been engaged in the edit war but have instead attempted to lay out my rationale for believing the information is not wiki worthy while also following others' requests for engaging third opinions. So far I have only seen yourself, Walter, and Esq engaging in any revert war. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which discussion anon is making reference to, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Self-published reprint of an article this is the one I posted. No one responded from this group. As for merit, I'm not saying anything about any editor, but about the merit of including or excluding the object. Your arguments have no merit as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

I see the confusion. I am referring to the RS request made before yours. here. As for the arguments of my merits not meeting wikipedia standards, the section in question falls under WP:UNDUE. To quote:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Your Mediation page statement that CC adherents "cannot offer any references to support their claim that the church is not authoritarian nor a cult" is illogical. To add material to wikipedia saying that CC is a cult or even authoritarian requires references by 'prominent adherents' or from 'commonly accepted reference texts', not references stating the contrary. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Ckruschke for reiterating that no change should be made until WP:CONSENSUS has changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This counter essay may be on point Wikipedia:DRNC. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ckruschke, please understand that no consensus was reached that I'm aware of about the original inclusion of the contested material. Wikipedia policy points to not including this subsection until consensus is reached. Thanks!-- --Esquire880 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for what? Pointing out that you didn't bless the original insertion that was put in months/years ago? Come on...

The thing that I think is REALLY ironic is that it appears that we all - well all of us except Slice - agree that Calvary is not a cult. However, to assume that Calvary is loved by all and that no one is critical of the church is having your head in the sand. This critical opinion - however wrongheaded - should legitimately be reflected on this page. I just went through this on Rob Bell's page, although in that case much of the criticism comes from the Christian community (and with good reason). In that discussion, I was on the other side trying to add critical content and being fought by several "Bell Lovers" who didn't feel that it was appropriate to have ANY critical issues on the page. However, many of us editors were able to work through the issue, come to a consensus, propose an agreeable insertion, and put it in. This is what I would like to see in this case. If Esquire/Anon/etc don't like the section, redo it and post it here for all to review so that we can come to concensus on what EVERYONE would like to see - it just can't be a unilateral wholesale deletion. I really don't think I'm asking for alot here... Ckruschke (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

What you don't understand is what WP:CONSENSUS is.

I am prepared to take your repeated removal of reference material to WP:ANI if it does not cease immediately. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter, it's not really in keeping with Wikipedia policy to use intimidation to force your version of the page. I think that anyone with or without a COI would agree that the entry you are insisting on is not in keeping with the pillar "We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner." This is not a major POV, and its not presented in a balanced or impartial manner. This is pretty straightforward. --Esquire880 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You've entirely missed the point. You continue to want your version of the article without coming to consensus on its contents. You are also removing a criticism of your church because you don't like it, despite it having a reference. We still have no opinion on whether that reference is valid or reliable. This was not an issue for twelve months and discussion, edits, and compromise have brought the article to its current state. That is what consensus is. You cannot undo that simply because you don't like it and requesting page protection is a valid response to your irrational actions. For the record, I did not request page protection, but I welcome its arrival. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ckruschke's point that we cannot exclude criticism of CC and have no problems with a re-write. I attempted to ameliorate some of the sting by changing the heading. Removal for purposes of censorship is not acceptable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. You apparently see my edits an "censorship," where I see it as striving for an article that documents and explains the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner. Neither of us are, in fact, the "owner" of the page and that's why I want to urge you not to attempt to use intimdation against someone who, like you, is trying to make this the best article it can be. --Esquire880 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your acts are censorship. The statements bring balance to the article. I'm not claiming ownership and I never assumed you were either. There is no intimidation at all. Your acts are the problem, not the statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite tired of WP:COI

I'm not going to play this game anon. You and Esquire880 are obviously in WP:COI. Sliceofmiami has an axe to grind and is probably in COI as well. Step back. Wait for a decision as only opinions have been offered to date and none toward the specific source because, quite frankly, no one cares. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No games here. I think I've been candid about my involvement, though it is buried in the archives at this point. Esq was also candid though he/she deleted it for reasons only he/she can explain.

I care, and will continue to do so. I hope you do, too. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning COI, I believe the following from WP: COI applies "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." Thanks! --Esquire880 (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Wiki quote that was posted by Esquire880. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Progress of mediation efforts

This comment is promising. Let's see if others step in to comment, but it seems that the section will be completely removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that is quite an unexpected turn of events. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Walter, please make the edit yourself. I wouldn't want you to accuse me of censorship again. --Esquire880 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The passage at issue keeps appearing and disappearing although the only editor is "B" and "B" has not noted that he or she changed the section. Any idea what's going on? --Esquire880 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't be making any edits until the case is closed, and there have been cases open since February. I don't see the article changing, but I do see that you got your censorship in just before it was locked down. Any other questions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, Walter, my edits are no more censorship than yours are. Resorting to throwing around words like "censorship" is no credit to you. But I do have one question -- when I see the page without logging in, it has "your" version. When I log in, it has "my" version. Any idea why? --Esquire880 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For the last time Esquire, your edits are censorship as defined by consensus on Wikipedia: The removal of referenced facts because they don't agree with your opinion. The reason it's "your" version is because you censored the page and then it was locked-down. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of undue weight content is not censorship but is actually wiki policy. Additionally, it is not a referenced fact but instead a referenced opinion. I suspect it is being seen as censorship by you because you simply don't agree with its removal.

Esq - my guess is that you are seeing strange results due to some sort of caching mechanism. It could be your browser cache, server cache at Wikipedia, or some content caching any where in between those two points. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's not undue weight, particularly when references are available. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The article was locked-down in a state that has not achieved consensus. The current state is one that has obvious WP:COI ramifications: the editors removing the material are members of the collection of churches and they believe, but have not proven, that the material is both libellous and not a WP:RS. It should be restored until a decision on this matter can be achieved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to the archive of the David Templeton Losing My Religion article from the April 2-8, 1998 edition of the Sonoma County Independent from the website of the publisher Metro Publishing Inc: [2]. So, admin, when you restore the material that Walter is requesting immediately preceding this comment, please change citations 52 and 53 to this ref: <ref name=LosingMyReligion>{{cite news|last=Templeton|first=David|title=Losing My Religion|url=http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/04.02.98/calvary-9813.html|accessdate=24 July 2011|newspaper=Sonoma County Independent|date=April 2-8, 1998}}</ref> Thanks.Mojoworker (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with previous editor's edit request. The former state of the article also has obvious WP:COI and WP:UNDUE ramifications, and has been given a negative opinion on both WP:RS and also on the existing mediation page (note both opinions rendered by neutral third parties). Additionally, regardless of any affiliation we may have as dissenters of the content addition, it is not up to us to prove that the material is libelous. My understanding of wiki policy is that it is the up to the individual that includes content (or those who wish to retain it) to do so with solid references, otherwise that content can be removed at any time. Also, that wiki is not a collection of all minority viewpoints but that for viewpoints shared by a significant minority, "it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Due to the inflammatory and potentially defamatory nature of the content, I would request that it be kept removed until the mediation process is resolved. The parties involved have engaged in that process. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The only obvious conflict of interest is when church members comment on negative material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter, 24.129 has already sufficiently addressed the COI issue; I would appreciate hearing your response, if any, to his substantive objections on the subsection at issue. Ckruschke's speculation (below) that Calvary leadership might not regard the content as defamatory still does not bring it up to Wikipedia standards as noted by 24.129 (above) --Esquire880 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you think the issue has been adequately addressed, but everyone else who looks at this seed the two of you in a conflict of interest. Thanks for playing. Your opinion, while welcome, is not correct. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Who's playing? You've gone ad hominem I assume out of inexperience with Wikipedia standards on civility or from the weakness of your position. 24.129's arguments are unanswered, yet you've decided that my opinion is not correct? Well, kudos for boldness. --Esquire880 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Walter. I doubt ANYONE within Calvary leadership would view these two articles as either inflammatory or defamatory - or even give them more than a passing glance - as I bet many pastors have read things that are much, much worse (or had it told to them to their faces). Unforetunately for churches nowadays, opinions like the two cited are all too commonplace and are simply just part of "doing business" when you want to preach the word of God. Ckruschke (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Concerning the COI issue that Walter has raised on various occasions, I refer him to WP:COI, particularly the section stating: "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." ----Esquire880 (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did assume good behaviour until the behaviour that both of you exhibited. Other editors, admins even, have commented that you're in a COI in on this. No ad hominem attacks: by their fruit shall they be known, and you have not shown good fruit in your behaviour, particularly in repeatedly removing the material that offends you while it is under discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Aren't we all brothers here? The world must look on at this and think 'wow, those Christians sure can illustrate the peace, joy, and love of Christ, can't they?'

That being said, Walter you have in fact engaged in ad hominem attacks against several editors here. "Thanks for playing." "Censorship." "Misguided comments." "I wish you would pay attention." "You may now re-cloak." (translation: 'go away.') It comes across as very condescending. Additionally, for someone who demands absolute precision from his fellow editors, you have a marked predilection for imprecision when it suits your needs. To wit: "admins...have commented that you're in a COI in on this." Can you provide a diff? "[E]veryone else who looks at this seed [sic] the two of you in a conflict of interest." Can you really speak for everyone who reads this page? "The behavior that both of you exhibited". What have I done, other than add logical arguments to the talk page discussion? "Attenders...who don't see any problems with the churches or the way they are run". That's not something I have ever claimed (I have in fact claimed exactly the opposite); can you really speak for me in that regard?

And Esquire880, you have also ratcheted up the rhetoric and egged Walter on. And your Edit Warring on the content is also not in keeping with Wiki policy. The ends do not justify the means.

Both of you need to knock it off and I need to do my part. We all need to focus on the content rather than the personalities. I would appreciate good faith replies to my concerns on the content and quality of the reference rather than brandishing COI as a weapon (either for or against.) Or perhaps we all get off the talk page and take it to mediation. Pretty ironic given 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.

Regardless of any opinion on COI (side note: while I may be a church attendee, I have no financial interest at stake here), the fact that an editor may have a interest in the article does not preclude them from making intelligent comments on content inclusion or exclusion. You cannot simply sweep our arguments and opinions under the rug with one wave of the COI wand.

Let's get to work. Together. In unity. 24.129.80.52 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack is when I use your personality to assault you, not by dismissing your approach. In other words, if I said "just because you live in ____ you're ignorant" that would be a type of ad hominem attack. If I were to suggest something about you personally: ad hominem. So suggest that you're in COI, that's not ad hominem. As for trying guilt me, you two should repent now for the fighting. You have not made an effort to edit in good faith and you constantly remove material based on erroneous and ignorant opposition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 24.129 and logged on with a view towards forging some cooperative spirit but, Walter, you just don't quit! My resolve is weaker than your power to bait me, I guess. Now you're calling my position "ignorant" -- though the neutral mediator decided in favor of my position. But as 24.129 points out, this does not matter as much as the fact that I did "egg" you on, and though this fourm probably isn't the place for it, I do repent and ask for forgiveness. --Esquire880 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope I didn't come off as suggesting that your arguments are not valid because you're in a COI. What I meant to imply was that your arguments should not be taken into account because you're in a COI as it could be interpreted by others as posing self-interest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Given. I too must admit that I'm not always at my "Sunday best" when responding and should apologize as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

An editprotected request was made up above, but as far as I can see, no specific edit is being requested. If you don't have a specific edit in mind, please don't repost it; if you do, please type that specific edit immediately below the template, so that it won't easily be missed again. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

Concerning the subsection with heading "Smith's Position on 9/11" editor is requesting comments concerning whether this subsection should be deleted or retained. Smith is the founder of the topic, but is not the official spokesmen for the church which is loosely organized among independent churches.

--Esquire880 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of comment, I have greatly condensed the section at issue here, as well as another discussed above. I cannot agree that Smith is unimportant to one's view of CC in general. However, I don't think the editorializing from the LATimes is really needed. I hope people will find this an acceptable compromise. If not, then of course we can continue discussing.

This edit also gives more prominence in the "Criticisms" section to the pastoral accountability issue, which is actually a more widespread criticism. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks, BlueMoonlet. --Esquire880 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Redundant sub-sections?

The two Eschatology sub-sections are redundant. They both say the same thing—that the generation of 1948 is the last generation. Ltwin (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Then fix it.  :) --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

With all the crap going on with this article, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole :) Ltwin (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Episcopal polity

There has been a conversation going on in the edit summaries over whether "formal hierarchy" should be mentioned specifically as a difference between CC's governance and episcopal polity. Here are some of the more relevant edit summaries:

• Opukahaia808: Redundant
• 71.199.242.40: I disagree; sentence serves to underscore how it is different
• Opukahaia808: Restored to non-redundance.
• BlueMoonlet: This is not redundant. It articulates an important distinction that is nowhere else mentioned.
• Opukahaia808: Clarified dissimilarity of difference from episcopal polity to encompass more than just hierarchy
• BlueMoonlet: There is a consensus that it is important to mention heirarchy. No other dissimilar aspect of episcopal polity has been identified.
• Opukahaia808: Calvary Chapel does have a form of hierarchy with Smith at the top, regional leaders (who are pastors) at his placing and removal, and local pastors at the placing or removal of the regionals.

If indeed CC has a formal system of hierarchy that is publicly in place, including the equivalent of bishops who have charge of the pastors in a region, archbishops in charge of a handful of bishops, and Smith as some kind of "pope", then not only would I agree to removing mention of hierarchy as a difference but I would think that CC's governance is basically the same as episcopal polity. However, while there may be some semblance of such structure informally, I have never seen a reliable source describing it. This is why I added the word "formal". If the authority structure is not publicly written down, then it is not a formal hierarchy. And if you don't have a formal hierarchy, then you don't have episcopal polity.

Unless Opukahaia808 can produce a reliable source describing the supposed CC hierarchy, then I think "formal hierarchy" needs to be specifically mentioned as an important distinction from episcopal polity. In fact, to the contrary, the current ref #4 describes each church as "fiercely independent" and CC as "a very loose affiliation". I don't believe it's true that Smith can place or remove any pastor, all he can do is remove a church's right to call themselves a CC affiliate. As an example, see the Twin Falls fiasco.

Opukahaia808 has also hinted that s/he finds other dissimilarities between CC's governance and episcopal polity. If so, please enumerate what those might be. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with BM. I've never seen a RS that lays out guidelines for 'bishops', 'archibishops', 'popes', etc. in the movement, only that it is a loose affiliation of like-minded churches. I have heard that there is regional church oversight for the process of helping a church become a Calvary Chapel but I am not aware of documentation that explains the process and certainly have not read anything about regional control over existing 'underling' churches (though I do note that current reference 41 mentions accountability between regional lead pastors and their regional churches. There seems to be no formal definition of what that accountability entails.) 71.199.242.40 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Historically, the old testament's order of priesthood is based upon Mosaic law. The early church's new covenant continuation of governance has been understood as the continuation of the priesthood now under the headship of the enthroned Christ. The primary difference in polity between CC and EP is the absence of church discipline as a result of the absence of membership. Other differences include the absence of synod, presbyterium, and other concepts and organizations commonly understood as episcopal.Opukahaia808 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be original research. Granted I am no expert in church government policies, but one item in that sentence also seems to contradict an earlier position by you. Example: "The primary difference in polity between CC and EP is the absence of church discipline as a result of the absence of membership" and "Calvary Chapel does have a form of hierarchy with Smith at the top, regional leaders (who are pastors) at his placing and removal, and local pastors at the placing or removal of the regionals." It seems like on one hand you are claiming that they have no discipline capability and on the other hand, they do. Can you elaborate? 71.199.242.40 (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's original research. If so, I should publish a work. The first two sentences in my prior "Talk" post are commonly understood by major Christian camps. The next sentence is a glaring obvious difference in practice. CC's absence of church membership on the local level eliminates the possibility of church discipline. Like previously stated, the only form of order bearing resemblence to membership is in their affiliate program where prospective pastors are screened. As someone else has contributed, disaffiliation is exercised as a form of discipline on that level. The act of placing and removing pastors on the regional and local levels resembles EP.Opukahaia808 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. I agree that the first two sentences are understood by major Christian camps and that includes CC (the three forms are expressly documented in Distinctives.) It's the third sentence that seems like OR, especially given the apparent contradiction in statements I have quoted from you. It may help if you could explain what you mean by 'church membership' - is this referring to the fact that CC attendees are not encouraged to become part of a formal membership as I have seen at other churches (e.g. UMC), or are you referring to the fact that CC churches are only loosely bound to a larger organization and do not receive formal benefits from or pay tribute (a poor choice of words, I know, but cannot fashion something better at this hour) back to the parent organization (also e.g. UMC)? 71.199.242.40 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Opukahaia808, I agree with you that church membership is a difference between CC governance and EP, but it is also an essential aspect of congregational and presbyterian polities. CC's lack of church membership is one reason why its governance does not fit any of the three classical forms, so I don't think it should be emphasized in connection to EP.

As for your other examples of synod and presbyterium, aren't those just particular aspects of formal hierarchy, and thus covered by the language I was proposing? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of Calvary Chapel Twin Falls

I have a question about the possibly former Calvary Chapel in Twin Falls, Idaho. That church, of course, is the home of CSN International. I know the church now goes by the name of "The River Christian Fellowship," but does anyone know the status within the Calvary Chapel? The church Web site says "nondenominational" but, as the article states, the Calvary Chapel does not claim to be a denomination, and there's a Calvary Chapel logo on The River Christian Fellowship's Web site. I know several Calvary Chapels broadcast on CSN. So, what's the deal? Did they break from Calvary Chapel or are they just using a new name, but still affiliated?

Either way, I do think it's worth mentioning in the Broadcasting section, since CSN was started while the church identified as a Calvary Chapel. The question is how to word it.-J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an understandable question, certainly. Neither church is listed on the 'official' CC affiliate online directory that I can find when searching for Twin Falls, ID. The two logical conclusions seem to be that either this particular church made a conscious choice to disaffiliate or was involved in something that resulted in disaffiliation. This note at the bottom of the CSN website seems particularly telling (empasis added): "CSN International is a non-profit, Christian radio ministry and is not part of any other group, organization, or corporation, including those with similar names and/or similar goals." Only God knows the full story behind the change; I've stumbled upon and would prefer to avoid the online gossip, innuendo, and hearsay about it and I hope to not cause anyone to stumble into digging for such dirt. IMHO, the broadcasting section only lists current (and not former) broadcasting ministries. Additionally, we could probably find messages by many CC pastors on non-CC-affiliated stations (CC Ft. Lauderdale used to show the Active Word with Bob Coy on a national Christian cable channel, for instance), but those are not listed. The list risks becoming too large and a list for list's sake. 66.177.182.13 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you were to ask, there would be lots of people who know too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that given what is said on their own Web sites, it appears that the Calvary Chapel and The River Christian Fellowship/CSN have severed ties. Nothing further needs to be said about it (there are a multitude of perspectives on why two parties break up, and like you said, gossip is not for a Wikipedia article). I would not normally mention former affiliates, but because CSN is so large (365 affiliates), that is probably worth mentioning. I understand the concerns of indiscriminate lists, but we're not talking individual stations-- this is a nationwide network founded by a Calvary Chapel. I'm going to add it as a footnote below, and separate from, the list. --J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel is a cult and they weave a thread of truth to disguise themselves but clearly they do not measure up to the Biblical standard. This article needs to tell the bad, the ugly, and the evil of this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.199.80 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. It doesn't stand any reasonable standard of proof. There is no cult-like behaviour that I have seen. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Same opinion - obviously he has an axe to grind - and that's being kind. As a Christian who has personnally walked into two confirmed cults while church shopping in new towns, no Calvary Chapel that I've ever attended (six and counting) has ever had any evidence of cults. Yes, I've attended CC's that have strong, opinionated pastors who allow little public disagreement with their decisions and could appear to outsiders as leading the church "in secret", but what denomination/church type is free of that? What I mostly see is overall love, welcoming friendship, and Bible-based teaching - hard to argue with those three... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckruschke (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have attended four CCs over my life and not a single cult experience. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Walter, google "calvary chapel cult" sometime, and you'll notice that your statement does not ring true for the rest of the world. However, this is a Wiki, and is not supposed to be policed by what your experience is -- it is supposed to collect the common knowledge and published works about the topic. After your prompting and suggesting that I attend a CC last year, I spent many months at a couple Calvary Chapels. The group-think, cult mentality is prevalent in each of the CC's that I've attended. Why don't you investigate more thoroughly why people leave your church? You might be surprised at the spiritual knowledge you gain. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Googled "calvary chapel cult" About 3,610 results. So many on the first results page are not from very reliable sources like forums and blogs. None of which are WP:RS and some aren't even WP:V.

The article is also not supposed to be WP:UNDUE and take your inexplicable bias against the churches that make-up the "denomination" Why don't you investigate more thoroughly why people join the church?

I have no doubt that they have some very cult-like practices. I have no doubt that some pastors are not stable. I have no doubt that Smith guides his pastors very closely. However, none of those make it a cult.

You however seem to have an ulterior motive as you're one of a few who attack the organization.

Full disclosuer: I don't have any affiliation with the church other than enjoying the music that they produced in the 1970s and one long-time acquaintance who is now a pastor of a CC. If a CC were to open closer to where I live, I might attend, but I have only attended a few services of various CCs mostly in the Seattle area (when I'm there) and a few closer to Vancouver where I live in the past twenty-five years. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Walter, I have discussed why people join this denomination, and in fact there are publicly available case studies and publicly available journal articles describing why people join, or are "converted into," authoritarian organizations. You should check it out sometime. Most junior colleges actually provide great courses on behavioral psychology, sociology, and abnormal psychology. Oh, and on searching google for calvary chapel cult, my google provided more than 200,000 articles on the topic as of April 2nd, 2011. It is not clear why your google would provide just a portion of those listings. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Undue weights. So Walter, you made me start thinking about this more realistically. I spent a little time refining the search. Here is the outcome:

• Search google for [calvary chapel] results in almost 2 million listings. But, some of these listings are not going to be CC.
• Search google for ["calvary chapel"] (with quotes as identified) results in 1.76M listings. Again, some of these are not going to be part of Chuck Smith's franchise.
• Search google for ["calvary chapel" cult] (with quotes as identified) results in 1.68M listings. Certainly, some of these are not going to be Chuck Smith's franchise, and some are likely to say "calvary chapel is not a cult, gosh darn it!" as we have seen the arguments on this Wiki talk page itself.

So, from your perspective, this Wiki article should contain a bunch of sentences that use the word "cult". I'll be honest, until you pointed this out, I would not have taken this position. Sliceofmiami (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Googled "presbyterian cult" and produced over 1.5 MILLION results.  :-) Just FYI. Having been to CC's in various states and been heavily involved in one CC (that is no longer a CC), they are without any question NOT a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.94.174.229 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice thought, unsigned. Presbyterian by itself results in 50 million entries. So here are more stats:

• "presbyterian" = 50,000,000 entries; "Calvary Chapel" = 4,000,000 entries (rounding up)
• "presbyterian cult" without quotes = 2,000,000; "'Calvary chapel' cult" without quotes = 2,500,000
• "presbyterian cult" with quotes = 244 entries; "calvary chapel cult" with quotes = 4,000

The stats did not start because I wanted Calvary Chapel to be a cult. The stats were to identify what the rest of the world thought about Calvary Chapel, and an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the common body of knowledge about the entry. Your pointing out the percentage statistics between the two denominations seems to enhance the idea that "calvary chapel" and "cult" are statistically more likely to occur together. Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears to be relevant, I'll dig out some information from the archives. On 27 February 2010, SoM attempted to provide several "sources" to put forth claims that CC is cult-like and/or a denomination. In the course of responding to each source, I noted (emphasis added):

Regarding any thought that CC is a cult, the adherents.com page [a source put forth by SoM] had something interesting to say: "One charge which is groundless is that the Calvary Chapel is a non-Christian cult. Although it has a variety of unique beliefs and practices, nothing about the Calvary Chapel would indicate that it identifies itself as a non-Christian religious group [note they did not use denomination]. These charges appear to have been brought against the Calvary Chapel more because of its confrontational nature and controversial growth and marketing practices than because of any of its actual teachings or practices." SoM, I see that you are a freelance writer in Miami. The adherents.com article you referenced has this quote: "Those interested in Calvary Chapels should use other resources and visit the nearest Calvary Chapel location." (Their emphasis, not mine.) I second this motion. There is a fantastic pastor at the CC in Ft. Lauderdale, his name is Bob Coy. Personally, I love his teaching. Another church potentially near you is CC Kendall, led by Pedro Garcia. I've heard Pedro speak once and found it solid. Be a Berean!

Been here, done that. Next topic? 71.199.242.40 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that consensus has been reached on this topic, which does not necessarily mean that every single person agrees. Especially given the more recent conversation here. I also suggest we move on. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue, the only consensus on "Cult Status" that has been reached is among the Fanpovs of this page. I took a few months away from the page, just to make sure I wasn't getting "caught up" in the discussions. I came back, and the only thing that has changed is that a few more Fans have joined. As I looked through the history of the redacts, it looks like any attempt to present reliable sources of "Cult like behavior" have quickly been shut down by Calvary supporters. Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite true. There was a discussion by neutral parties and they came to the conclusion that you're the only one on Wikipedia who cares to call it a cult. You have only ever provided one source, yet you claim that there are more (as evidenced by your poorly crafted Google searches). You have been asked repeatedly to provide sources. You fail to do so. I suggest that you either offer sources or don't take a leave of absence, but just leave. In other words, if you can't support your position, then it's just yours and no one else's. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your attack against me is neither warranted nor accepted, Walter Görlitz. You should do your homework before you attack anyone. Read this thread, and also read the other thread where you attacked me, and you will find that your statements are incorrect. You even made a moderator find out that I wasn't the person who originally posted the information. Sliceofmiami (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not an attack, it's a statement of fact: something that you don't have. Sorry if you're feeling attacked though. Perhaps if provided some evidence that CC is a cult I'd suffer your irrational statements more easily. Until then, I'll continue reading what you say through the glasses that assume you have a vendetta to fulfill.

Second, I think you meant acceptable rather than accepted.

Third, I have read them and you still haven't produced any reliable evidence. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, please simmer down, folks. Sliceofmiami, you have a point that Walter pushed the bounds of civility by suggesting that you "just leave" (Walter, you might consider striking that). However, far more problematic is the way you have been throwing around patently-untrue accusations that everyone other than yourself is a "fan" with a "COI", not to mention your many words overall with very few constructive suggestions as to how to edit the article. Please limit your comments to new and constructive ideas. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, maybe this will help you remember yourself: "You've gone ad hominem I assume out of inexperience with Wikipedia standards on civility or from the weakness of your position."

Blue, your attack ("...everyone other than yourself...") is unwarranted and unaccepted. The NPOV & Marketing Campaign issues that have been embedded in this page for the last five years continue to exist. Verifiable sources are redacted because someone doesn't "feel" like the page warrants any negative attention. To help you with your memory and help everyone recognize that this is more than just one person against some Fans, here is a snipped quote from one of the many writers : "I am honest enough about the way people perceive Calvary (and sometimes churches as a whole) to know that there ARE CRITICISMS of the Calvary pastoral/church structure and that it is a cult. I heard this talk before the first time I stepped into a Calvary and have continued to read it from time to time since 1998. Although I "know" that this is all untrue, they compromise a legitimate point of view that society has concerning Calvary. My thought has always been that by deleting this section because I or Walter or Esquire "know" that the criticisms aren't true is an obvious example of independent research - the first thing someone would ask is "where is your proof". Therefore although untrue, I have been on the side of the camp to leave the sourced text in place. " Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You very recently said that "the only consensus on 'Cult Status' that has been reached is among the Fanpovs". But the consensus was reached among all active editors on the page except yourself. Thus I stand by what I said and do not consider it to be an attack.

As for the rest of your comments, without WP:RS of any kind they are original research and synthesis and not worth replying to. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue, you are splitting. "All active editors on the page except yourself" -- your Grandiose statement is untrue. Look through the edit history, and the list of other users who have been "shut down" by the Fanpov group who religiously protect this page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel's Claim to be a Movement

Calvary Chapel is not a movement. Movements span denominations. The "Charismatic Movement" has crossed all denominational bounds from Catholic, to Anglican, etc. Calvary Chapel's music has crossed denominational boundaries, but Calvary Chapel itself has not. Someone could say they are a Charismatic Catholic, for instance, but not a Calvary Chapel Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are also movements within denominations like a "back to the Bible" movement where some parts of a denomination wish to move the larger body towards some specific goal like bringing the denomination "back to the Bible". That does not fit the way CC wants to use the word movement.

Fellowship is a weaker word but it does imply something like shared communion. Since CCs practice open communion allowing anyone who wants to take communion to take communion this definition also fails. In a real sense, there's no such thing as Calvary Chapel as a church, per se. A local church is not affiliated with Calvary Chapel, only the pastor has that affiliation. He can call his church a Calvary Chapel since he is recognized by Chuck Smith who is the one who determines if a church is a Calvary Chapel or not. Chuck Smith has tried various means of controlling who is and who is not affiliated, in particular, their use of the CCoF as the certifying agency. The problem is largely one of legal responsibility and the resulting liability that falls to Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa (his church). Also relevant is the question of ordination. In particular, how is the local pastor ordained? Chuck Smith ordained most of the first generation of CC pastors and they have ordained others. This is largely a denominational function although the church at large often recognizes the ordination of pastors from different denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.251.204 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC) It sounds to me that they, like the Foursquare Denomination - excuse me, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, are just trying to avoid the term denomination, in the belief that denominations divide the True Church. To a degree, they're right; denominations match the Modernist ideal of categories, while a "tag cloud" is the more commonly accepted thing nowadays. Their theological and social tag clouds would be how they define which churches are Calvary Chapels, and which are not, thus making them technically nondenominational while retaining some of the attributes of a denomination. --67.0.30.93 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone except those that already drank the CCoolaid believe that Calvary Chapel is a denomination. But, this Wikipedia page is managed and hostilely protected by those that drank the Koolaid, hence why it remains a propaganda and marketing page for Smith's denomination. I noticed that people have again removed significant negative controversies related to this organization over the last few months. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok - backup just a second. Just because some of us who have different opinions than you doesn't mean that there is any Koolaid drinking going on. Also its a fallacy that all "negative" writings about CC are automatically and deemed worthy for inclusion on this page - I have read a lot of nonsense about CC a a whole being a cult, usually penned by people with axes to grind who have never set foot in a CC. Similarly, just because there are some of us who have actually attended a CC who watch this page, doesn't mean we are protecting anything. If you have something relevant to add to the page, by all means present it for comment. As far as CC being a denomination - I have no opinion either way nor do I care what other people choose to label CC's - doesn't change the church I go to or what it has to offer. Ckruschke (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

My opinion doesn't count on Wiki. Your's doesn't either. Sliceofmiami (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so would you mind striking your opinion and uncivil comment above? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like they, like most contemporary evangelicals, passive aggressively identify simply as "Christians", the implication being that they are completely pure and uncorrupted, while Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics, and Lutherans are hopelessly mired in their self-indulgent "man-made rituals and legalism". I hate to be so cynical toward them and other such "movements" and "fellowships", but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... PenitentWhaler (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've looked at the sources. They actually identify themselves as Calvary Chapels. And I wouldn't limit your opinion to modern movements. It goes back to the Plymouth Brethren who, even to this day, refuse to identify themselves as such. Their meeting places are simply Gospel Chapels or Gospel Halls. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said, PenitentWhaler. Walter, I think you missed the point. If the ducks (the followers of Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel) say they are geese, does that suddenly make the ducks geese? Or are the ducks (the followers of Chuck Smith's church) defined by what everyone in the rest of the world calls them, which is a duck? It really gets even easier to define, Calvary Chapel is actually a franchise operation. Should the page be updated to reflect what their business practice is, that is, a franchise? Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Slice, I'm afraid I also missed your point. Exactly what edit are you advocating? Or are you just kibbitzing engaging in general discussion of the article subject? It seems to me that the page's current wording, calling CC an "association" while then explaining its use of "fellowship" as opposed to "denomination", is pretty even-handed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Blue, not kibitzing at all, and there really was no need for that attack. I suspect you must be a follower of Chuck Smith's organization, no? I agreed with PenitentWhaler. This has been going on for years, you are just a newcomer. I agree with one of the posts, Calvary Chapel is most certainly a movement. Calvary Chapel self proclaims as a non denomination. Why? The fact is, the new religious movement known as Calvary Chapel (the NRM has been documented in books and in the archives, although removed from the current page) is a franchise of thousands of individual outlets, with tens of thousands of employees and volunteers, and serving hundreds of thousands of customers every week. Sounds like a denomination to most of the world. Let me put it this way, Blue, explain how CC is not a denomination. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My question remains; if you are advocating a particular edit, please say specifically what you are advocating. Otherwise you seem to be just engaging in general discussion (I'll retract the word "kibbitz", which means the same but may be seen as having a pejorative connotation). The article currently says that CC is "an association of Christian churches". Is that not correct? Do you object to that? It then goes on to say that "It presents itself as a 'fellowship of churches' in contrast to a denomination," thus acknowledging the controversy to which you refer without taking sides. Do you object to that? If so, why? I don't necessarily disagree that CC walks like a denomination and quacks like a denomination. But given that they make a big deal about not being one, I don't see the point in having WP directly contradict them, especially given that it would be hard to find a WP:RS to back it up. Again, what is the deficiency in the article as it currently stands, and what do you advocate?

As for your comments about me personally, I have already disclosed that I grew up in CC but left it behind some 15 years ago, and that I feel neither loyalty nor resentment and am now an ordained elder in a different Christian denomination. Nor am I a newcomer to this talk page (check the archives), though I have been in and out over the past several years. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Blue on the redact. My suggestion? Identify this as a franchised denomination, as opposed to a baptist denomination which is not necessarily franchised. Some of the issues with this wiki article is that the article is mostly a marketing slick sheet. For example, "We call ourselves a blah blah blah" instead of "the world recognizes blah blah blah." An Encyclopedia is supposed to be like a dictionary -- it Neither Britannica nor Encyclopedia.com have entries for the company "Calvary Chapel". You know Wiki rules a lot better than me, isn't there something about self referenced entries? More than half of the "external references" are actually Calvary Chapel. This all said, if the world recognizes this as a denomination, then why isn't it identified as a denomination in this article? I posted this before, "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination) How is Calvary Chapel not a denomination? Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is largely semantic, focusing not on the nature of CC but on the meaning of the word "denomination". Drawing from my experience (non-WP:RS alert), I don't think CC folks would agree with your definition, but would rather say that denominations have various institutional apparatus that they are proud to lack. They might also say that denominations display a certain tribalism, which again they (myopically, I would say) claim to lack. But have you even submitted reliable sources that strongly describe CC as a denomination (to say nothing of your advocacy of "franchise")? If you did, we might have something to talk about. But even then I would say that the issue is so slippery that I see no reason to go there. I repeat my question: What is wrong with the article's current language? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Blue. Denomination was not my own definition. It is a definition from the link I provided. I'm not trying to invent a new word like "movement", although I did find a book that identifies Calvary Chapel as a "new religious movement". That said, why have we allowed a brand new word to be invented for this organization? This is not how Encyclopedias and Dictionaries work, Blue. Sliceofmiami (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The article currently calls CC an "association of churches". That is hardly a new word. Please clarify your objection. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Denomination is the word that the world recognizes. What is your objection? Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Sliceofmiami. The leadership still has mental block from the 1960s and 70s when "denomination" wasn't cool in hippie circles. It's one of their quirky, sub-cultured marketing ironies. Yes, by all other accounts a rose is a rose and once any faith/religious organization provides any distinction/meaning behind their name ("nomas"- root word of denomination) they are denomination of some sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opukahaia808 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The current language is perfectly correct and enjoys broad agreement. What is your objection to it? Plenty of other loosely-bound movements (e.g., Churches of Christ, Local churches, Sovereign Grace Ministries) lack the word "denomination" in their articles. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the hippie mental block comment: Opu, can you present any RS for that statement? 71.199.242.40 (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

71.199, you are hijacking the discussion. How about keep the focus on "denomination". 71'sOpukahaia808's comment is "they are denomination of some sort". Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC) (Correction/strike Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

No, I think I'm content with exactly how I posed the question, but thanks for your advice. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue, I will expect you posted your paragraph in ignorance instead of actively presenting misinformation. Calvary Chapel is not a "loosely-bound movement". Calvary Chapel is a Franchise, with strict Franchise rules. Further, your phrasing of "perfectly correct and enjoys broad agreement?" Your information is incorrect. The broad agreement is only among the Fanpov Here is the research I performed that you should have:

• "Churches of Christ" appears to not be Trademarked by any parent organization.

• "Local Churches" appears to not be Trademarked by any parent organization

• "Sovereign Grace Ministries" appears to not be Trademarked by any parent organization. Further, notable, POV, and primarysources are issues with that page.

On the other hand,

• "Calvary Chapel" and associated organizations have 7 active Trademarks -- http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4002%3Ap8lio4.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=calvary+chapel&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Any connection between all this and the word "denomination" is pure synthesis. I don't see any point in replying more specifically. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where BM mentioned anything about Sovereign Grace trademarks but instead used them as an example of a non-denominational organization. However, a cursory google search of 'sovereign grace ministries trademarks' shows that one exists (note the circle-R in at least one of the results - that is the symbol for registered trademark.) A quick uspto search validates it. A similar uspto search for 'church of christ' finds many hits, some LDS but others CoC.

I think kibbitzing may have been the appropriate characterization after all. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Too cute, 71.199. I'll even make a friendly wager that you are a Christian, no? Blue, wrong thread. You've redacted so many different things... but... this was about your denomination redacts. That said, you incorrectly identify Calvary Chapel as a "loosely-bound movement". Calvary Chapel is a franchise. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Source (book) that identifies Calvary Chapel as a "New Religious Movement". The book is not critical of Calvary Chapel. It identifies the "movement" as a "new religious movement". The A to Z of new religious movements By George D. Chryssides. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV & Trademarks

NPOV is not resolved, BlueMoonlet. Also, why did you remove the USPTO reference without posting it to the Talk page? Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, here is what the Coca Cola page says about trademarks -- "...and is often referred to simply as Coke (a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company in the United States since March 27, 1944)". Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, starting the page with "Calvary Chapel is the trademarked name for an evangelical association of Christian churches..." (where the text in italics was added by Slice and then removed by myself) is "[n]ot appropriate. Plenty of organizations have trademarked their names, but nevertheless the name refers substantially to the organization." The Coca-Cola page proves my point quite well. It leads off with "Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink..." The trademark is mentioned in the first paragraph because it is unusually relevant, referring to a variant of the page's name, and not applicable to this case.

As for the NPOV tag, please enumerate issues that justify its retention. Otherwise it needs to come down. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, Calvary Chapel is a trademarked name. Here's the link to trademark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark). I don't even know why you would have issue with this. The Board of Directors for the corporation do not have an issue with trademarking -- otherwise they would not have made the executive decision to trademark the slogan. Can you help me understand why the TM is an issue for you? On the NPOV, you can review all of the NPOV material in the archives. There is an incredibly rich history of discussion about the NPOV in the archives. Can you assist with retrieving the information out of the multiple archives and post it to the most recent talk page? I don't know how to do this. Sliceofmiami (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The TM is not an issue at all. It's not at all remarkable that they have trademarked their name. And therefore, it is not worth mentioning on the WP page.

The NPOV tag implies that there are currently problems with the page. The mere existence of contentious discussion in the past does not demonstrate this, as many of the issues previously discussed are now resolved, including the ones discussed most recently. If you want to keep the tag (which is never a long-term solution, but simply an indicator that we have more work to do on reaching consensus), then I think the onus is on you to enumerate continuing problems with the page.

If you want to review the archived discussions in order to help you with this task, and if (as I interpret you to say) you are having trouble finding them, they are here and here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In my ignored opinion, the archives should not have happened while the NPOV remained. So TM is not an issue for you? Then, why did you go out of your way to reverse it? I posted a real life link to a real life government web site, and you reversed it. "First Baptist Church of Odessa" is not a trademarked name. "Orlando Church of God" is not a trademarked name. However, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a trademark of Intellectual Reserve, Inc." per the lds.com disclosure at http://lds.org/bfs/0a_P13_disclaimera.htm.

Again, what is your issue with revealing "Calvary Chapel" as a Trademark? LDS freely admits their TM. To disclose, your reversal of the unambiguously referenced, unequivocally documented trademark is indicative of the NPOV issue associated with this particular Wiki entry. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all kinds of organizations have trademarked their names, and practically none of them have that trademark mentioned in their WP article. The LDS article does not mention the trademark on the name, so again does not support your case. What is your argument for including mention of the trademark? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of furthering this discussion, I guess my point is who cares if CC has trademarked its name?!?! How is this relevant in any stretch of the word to CC as a whole? So CC has trademarked its name... what's Slice's point from this? That this is indicative of something sinister for CC? I must really be missing something because I don't see why anyone coming to CC's Wiki page would find this as a relevant piece of infomation. Ckruschke (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

You guys are getting all emotional about this, so round and round we go with the NPOV. "Something sinister?" Really, Ckruschke? The trademark is a documented fact, and was placed on this page as such. What is your issues with identifying the documented information? Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Slice, you have not answered my question. As I have shown, the overwhelming precedent is to consider trademarked status of a name as insufficiently important to mention in a WP article. You are the one who needs to justify its inclusion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention this. It isn't even what you would expect to find in an encyclopedia entry for a church. Sliceofmiami, can you tell us why it needs to be mentioned? Ltwin (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to not mention it. The source is reliable. Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and because insignificant factoids should not be given undue weight. If "no reason not to" is your best argument, then I think the consensus is clear and this thread should be considered closed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed title to "NPOV & Trademarks" Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is reliable, Blue. You have not identified a reason to not mention the TM. You stated "the onus" is on me? The onus should be on you, since this is a reliable source. I do not see a reason that the interaction should become a wikilawyer discussion. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the CC name is trademarked or not does not add to any knowledge of what Calvary Chapel is. This article is not a place to just add any type of information about CC to it. It needs to contain information that is informative about Calvary Chapel. How does knowing that CC is trademarked inform us about anything? People don't look up churches to learn if they have trademarked their names. Ltwin (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ltwin, I understand your objection to the information, but I'm not so sure. One thing that I questioned in the past was, "Is every Calvary Chapel really part of the same organization?" That "Calvary Chapel" is registered trademark means that all are part of the same chain -- no one else can use the name without fear of getting sued. So I'd submit that the Trademark is valuable for someone seeking out a Calvary Chapel, and is equally valuable for those who wish to avoid Calvary Chapel. To contrast, "Baptist" is not a Trademarked name. Any group can call themselves a "Baptist" group without fear of litigation. Sliceofmiami (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cult status issue after mediation

Mojoworker please respect the decision of the mediation cabal Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-07-18/Calvary Chapel or seek consensus before undoing edits. --Esquire880 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As you requested, I have added myself as a party to the mediation case and I plan to abide by whatever decision is made there. However, the decision could be some time in coming. In the meantime, I would point out that you have been the one edit warring and removing properly sourced content in order to keep "your" version. The content in question was added 2 years ago more than three years ago — and had a period of edit warring and lively discussion at that time before consensus was achieved — you are the one who needs consensus in order to remove it and explain what haas changed in the interim. It appears that at least three recent editors believe the reference to be valid and two of you do not — hardly consensus for your repeated removal. Remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth and that is policy. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the onus is on you to prove why long standing properly sourced content should be removed and until that time the content needs to stay. Mojoworker (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this question by User:Mojoworker. A couple years ago, I made some efforts to spruce up this paragraph. I did this rather than trying to remove it, partly because it would have been contentious and I had recently finished trying to moderate some unrelated contentious issues on this very page.

This is a tough one. After reading the entire Templeton article and contemplating, I do think that the current Ross quote has to go. The word "cult" is a hot-button, and given that Ross is saying that CC is not a cult, it is unnecessarily inflammatory to mention the word at all. And the "authoritarian" bit is strange, in that it is not supported at all by the rest of Ross' quote or by the Templeton article in general. We see people driven to do unhealthy things because of their acceptance of (and, I would say, taking to an extreme) a particular Christian theology and practice, but no hint of unhealthy authority directly exercised by leaders in the sense of, say, the Branch Davidians. So I can see how the CC-inclined folks might legitimately see this line, especially given with little context, as kind of a hit-and-run job. In the same quote, Ross says that CC is "typical of a lot of groups" and that they are not "nearly as extreme as others". And I take him to be comparing CC to mainstream Christian groups there (Ross is not friendly to evangelicalism in general). So, if CC is not remarkable in this sense, why do we need to single it out?

On the other hand, the Templeton article is well written, informative, and has the ring of truth. Having grown up in CC myself (in case you're interested, I feel neither loyalty nor resentment, and am now an ordained elder in a different Christian denomination), some of Templeton's stories sound familiar, while others I see as things not normative in CC but as excesses to which it might be prone. I think it might be good to find a different quote to use in citing the Templeton article, and maybe this could be the foundation of a compromise that the pro-quote people could accept. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC) (cross-posted to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-07-18/Calvary Chapel)

Thanks, I've went ahead and removed it. Mojoworker, again, I'm asking you to respect the process. I'm not sure why you are continuing to pursue this after the mediation you submitted to decided against your position. If we submitted this to arbitration would that make any difference to your anticipated compliance? --Esquire880 (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Esquire - where do you read that this issue is closed and that your POV has won? A one second look at the mediation page says the issue is still open so just because there is a single "opinion" that it isn't needed, doesn't mean that this is THE decision. The text needs to stay in place until a final decision is made - THAT's the correct process - and it would be refreshing if you would comply rather than preaching otherwise to everyone else. Ckruschke (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke, thanks for trying to explain this once again to Esquire880, I was pretty angry last night when I saw he accused me of not respecting the process. I composed a hostile reply, but thought I'd sleep on it before replying and reverting. Thank you for taking care of it. I'll try to rephrase my contemplated reply from last night to be more civil. Esquire880, as several of us have been attempting to get you to understand, I continue to pursue this because there is an ongoing mediation case in progress about whether or not the content in question should remain — in fact you were the one to open the case. Have you read and do you understand Wikipedia policies? Where do you get the idea that you can unilaterally remove it in the interim? I have noted previously the material in question has been in the article since June 2008 and is properly referenced. I am respecting the process. Based on the title of this section that you created, are you under the mistaken belief that the mediation case has been completed? Otherwise, I'm not sure what rationale you are using to continue removing the material — it appears you are removing it simply because you don't like it. What policy supports your repeated removal of the material? Mojoworker (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

People might want to re-read WP:Consensus. As there is still active disagreement among us, we clearly have not reached consensus and no one should claim that we have. On the other hand, just because one version was approved by consensus in the past does not mean that we are bound to prefer that version in the present. People might also want to remember that the current version of the page is of course The Wrong Version, but that doesn't mean it's up to you to fix it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, I'm happy you've joined the discussion and I appreciate your input from the perspective of someone who's previously been through this very issue. I think your idea to reword the passage may be a workable solution that could ultimately be acceptable to any editors that see the material as properly sourced. It seems there are other similar quotes in the Losing my Religion article, not just from Rick Ross and it appears in another quote Ross is — at least indirectly — calling it a cult:

• Laura Hoffman: "I do look back on my experience as that of being in a cult. It's left me with little tolerance for people who won't think"
• Jeff MacSwan: "I wouldn't say they're a cult, though," he cautions, "because then you'd have to say that 12-step groups are cults, or even the Marines, which all depend on hyped-up emotionality and psychological control."
• "Ross has twice been involved in transitioning clients away from Calvary chapels, each time contacted by parents who were alarmed at the intensity of the personality changes and frightening mood-swings their children experienced after joining Calvary. 'Don't get me wrong,' he adds, 'I've seen some of the worst cults ever. By comparison, I don't see Calvary Chapel as being nearly as extreme as others. But does that mean Chuck Smith is a nice man or that his churches are a good place to go? No.'"

So, it seems that some people do have the perception of cult–like behavior. Can we possibly rework the section to be something along the line of "Why some perceive it as a cult, but why it really isn't" or something similar? I know that may be difficult to find sources to support that, but may be worth a try. Also, I don't know if it adds context to Ross's "authoritarian" quote, but the Christianity Today article Day of Reckoning says "former members and some pastors say Calvary Chapel fosters an authoritarian culture, where pastors believe they are accountable only to God. It has enticed some leaders to become power hungry, avoid financial oversight, and, at times, become spiritually abusive, according to Calvary insiders." Mojoworker (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I really think that the word "cult" needs to go altogether. If your purpose in citing this article is to find a way to apply that word to CC, then I strongly disagree. With respect to the quotes you just cited, Ms. Hoffman is not someone whose opinion carries enough weight to be cited on a WP page, Mr. MacSwan is (like Mr. Ross) saying that CC is not a cult, and the second quote from Mr. Ross is at best ambiguous. I interpret him as saying that CC is not as extreme as other Christian groups he has encountered. He certainly is not clearly calling CC a cult.

As for the authoritarian issue, I think that CT is speaking mainly in terms of church polity (i.e., the governing structure of the church). CC definitely has an authoritarian polity, in that the pastor has nearly unlimited control over what happens programmatically in the church. But this is not the same as having any dangerous level of authority over the lives of individual church members, which is the mark of a sociological cult like the Branch Davidians. As CT says and as I have said, actual spiritual abuse may be an excess that occasionally occurs, but it is certainly not normative at CC. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) (cross-posted to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-07-18/Calvary Chapel)

BlueMoonlet - I like the distinction you've made above. I would definitely agree that some may argue that CC's are authoritarian for the reason you state - the Senior Pastor doesn't answer to an elder's group or other church committees when a decision is made. He may or may not seek input from the body, deacons, or elders, but he makes the ultimate decision and everyone knows that. As someone who has sat on the elder board of one CC and was close to the pastor at two others, I can state that this can be extremely frustrating for people who may want to see the church do something or go in a different direction and the Senior Pastor tells them "no". In fact, I've seen multiple families leave CC for this reason. However, I think that that statment can also be safely made about many other churches - people come and go all the time based upon disagreements or slights (real or perceived) all the time. Ckruschke (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

My purpose in those quotations is not to find a way to apply the word "cult", but rather to show that the original addition of the section by User:B and the subsequent support for its continued inclusion by User:Sliceofmiami et al. is not solely based on the one quote by Ross as some have alleged. It seems that other, perhaps more inflammatory quotes could have been included. Are any of those other quotes more acceptable than the current one? I plan to abide by the mediation decision, whatever that may be, but if the mediation effort brings about a new consensus to remove the current Ross quotation, unless it's replaced by some compromise that truly satisfies those who want to keep the existing content, what would prevent a non-participating editor from simply adding a different quote equally unpalatable to CC members? Mojoworker (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

True, the word "cult" appears several times in the article. This appears to me to be a hobby-horse of the reporter's. The quotes from both Ross and MacSwan read as if they are responding to a question from the reporter as to whether CC is a cult. But none of this means that the word "cult" is necessarily appropriate for WP.

Incidentally, would you please help me find the original diff of User:B adding this content?

In response to your final question, first, our goal should not be to find something palatable to CC members but to fairly describe the topic. Second, any future addition of text is also subject to consensus. In general, we can hopefully find consensus without having to constantly resort to mediation. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, it was originally added here. Mojoworker (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As discussion seems to have died down, I have gone ahead and implemented my suggestion. I hope people will find this an acceptable compromise. If not, then of course we can continue discussing. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I think this is a satisfactory compromise. Thanks for taking the lead on this. --Esquire880 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Ckruschke (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I would like to see Mojo's suggestion implemented. "So, it seems that some people do have the perception of cult–like behavior. Can we possibly rework the section to be something along the line of "Why some perceive it as a cult, but why it really isn't" or something similar?" Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To further support the viewpoint of including "christian based, cult-like behavior criticisms" -- Ckruschke wrote on the recent mediation page "I am honest enough about the way people perceive Calvary (and sometimes churches as a whole) to know that there ARE CRITICISMS of the Calvary pastoral/church structure and that it is a cult. I heard this talk before the first time I stepped into a Calvary and have continued to read it from time to time since 1998. Although I "know" that this is all untrue, they compromise a legitimate point of view that society has concerning Calvary. My thought has always been that by deleting this section because I or Walter or Esquire "know" that the criticisms aren't true is an obvious example of independent research..." Sliceofmiami (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of the "Calvary Chapel" Wiki entry

Of the 60 Referenced articles, most are articles from CC, CCM, Chuck Smith, and other CC affiliated Internet, book, and magazine sources. The Wiki entry appears to be a self referenced advertising article, defined on what Calvary Chapel tells everyone, instead of a third party referenced Encyclopedic entry. It appears to be largely a

. Please help to increase the purpose of the article by citing reliable third party information (that is, non CC affiliated books, magazines, and Internet sources). Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Slice, of course CC materials are not reliable sources on any question of evaluating CC. However, they are reliable sources on questions of what CC believes and practices and why, and much of the article currently focuses on such matters. The History section, on the other hand, is not predominated by CC sources, nor is the Criticisms section. If you know of critical sources that should be cited, please supply them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue, I agree. "they are reliable sources on questions of what CC believes and practices and why, and much of the article currently focuses on such matters." Hence the Fanpov. Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Those aspects are important aspects of any article on a religious organization. The article on the Catholic Church similarly has a large preponderance of Catholic sources for the sections discussing its beliefs and practices. Would you say that that article is "fanpov"?

Your comments again are lacking in specific suggestions. Unless you have specific changes to the article that you want to discuss, I think we should wrap up the conversation. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Blue. My suggestions are:

1. to identify "Calvary Chapel" as a Fanpov entry, which is supported by your comment, "they are reliable sources on questions of what CC believes and practices and why, and much of the article currently focuses on such matters";
2. to submit the Wiki entry for removal, since it really doesn't provide much in the way of referenced material other than just re-presenting Calvary Chapel directives that are already presented on the Calvary Chapel sites. Sliceofmiami (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those is a constructive suggestion. Thanks for letting us know how far you are willing to go towards being constructive. I'm ready to move on now. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The suggestions are appropriate, and not to your religious liking. Ad_hominem is not appropriate, Blue. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I was discussing your statements, not your person. By definition, not "ad hominem". You are the one routinely engaging in ad hominem attacks (e.g., calling me and others a "fanpov"). This behavior is entirely inappropriate, and you should strike your name-calling. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV history

The "Calvary Chapel" page was created December/2003. The history of problems with POV on this page dates back to 2003, and strong criticisms start in 2006. "Good article" nomination failed in 2006, because of advertising promotional material that still remains in the article today, such as "Calvary Chapel likes to think they are "striking a balance between extremes" - sounds like promo material." Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This history is interesting, and worth keeping in mind. But it does not necessarily follow that the article has NPOV problems today. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The history is current, Blue. The quoted promotional material is still there. Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue, here is why the NPOV still exists. The information is under the COI header as well. Please read that, since it actually came from yet another poster who was concerned with the article.

1. The Calvary Chapel article contains a preponderance of material from Calvary Chapel itself, linked to web-sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.

2. The preponderance of links to other web pages are to sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.

3. The preponderance of source material and links in the article are to promotional materials produced by members of Calvary Chapel.

4. The edit history of editors demonstrates a pattern of removing material that might be perceived as critical or inconsistent with a "first person" view of a member of this church movement who adheres to and defends its beliefs.

Blue, please update the article to remove these issues. Each attempt anyone makes that is not to your standards seems to be reverted. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the article on the Catholic Church also contains a preponderance of Catholic sources in the sections pertaining to the church's beliefs and practices. Do you object to this? Do you think everyone who edits the Catholic Church article is a "fanpov"? If not, explain how the cases are different. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

COI history

Conflict of interest has been an issue with "Calvary Chapel" since at least 2008. Here is be bring forward from the Archives. Per the Archive 1, the COI was not resolved. The issues are still relevant, and indicative of

.

Conflict of Interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

---

Based on feedback from an outside editor, I've tagged the article for conflict of interest. In addition to frequent reversion of well sourced material without discussion, I note the following about this article.

1. The Calvary Chapel article contains a preponderance of material from Calvary Chapel itself, linked to web-sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.

2. The preponderance of links to other web pages are to sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.

3. The preponderance of source material and links in the article are to promotional materials produced by members of Calvary Chapel.

4. The edit history of editors demonstrates a pattern of removing material that might be perceived as critical or inconsistent with a "first person" view of a member of this church movement who adheres to and defends its beliefs.

5. The tone of the article has often slipped into a "first person" tone consistent with members of this church movement or with someone sympathetic to this movement.

While all of this might provide a reasonable starting point for developing a good article about Calvary Chapel, I think it is not sustainable as a de facto edit policy enforced by editors who are members of this church or who share similar beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvanduyse (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And the article has undergone significant changes since then. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I read the talk archives, this issue has been thoroughly discussed and resolved.

Not everyone with a connection to the article subject has a COI. According to WP:COI, a COI exists when "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". The outside interest in question might be either supporting or denigrating the article subject. The only real question is whether editors can be objective. I see no problem with that on this page today. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The problems that were presented back in 2008 and before still exist. This article appears to be a Fanpov with little significant Encyclopedic value. Specifically,

1. The Calvary Chapel article contains a preponderance of material from Calvary Chapel itself, linked to web-sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.

2. The preponderance of links to other web pages are to sites owned and operated by Calvary Chapel.

3. The preponderance of source material and links in the article are to promotional materials produced by members of Calvary Chapel.

4. The edit history of editors demonstrates a pattern of removing material that might be perceived as critical or inconsistent with a "first person" view of a member of this church movement who adheres to and defends its beliefs.

Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Poll

I think useful discussion on this issue has run its course, that everyone's position is as clear as it is going to be, and that it's time for a poll. The question is whether the {{NPOV}} tag should come down. Please keep in mind that this is not a WP:VOTE, in that majority doesn't necessarily rule, but a vehicle for reaching and determining WP:Consensus. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting an "opinion poll" is indicative of NPOV, COI, and Fanpov on this page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's an attempt to have people's evaluation of our voluminous discussion stated concisely and in one place, for the benefit of future editing. Thanks to those who are engaging the poll in that spirit. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove NPOV tag

1. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Critical viewpoints are represented well enough in the History and Criticism sections, and less important in the sections describing CC's own beliefs and practices. The "cult" and "9/11" issues have been resolved through consensus. There is a strong consensus on the TM issue, with one dissenter.
2. Ltwin (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that the tag should be removed. As I look over the article, it is clear that it isn't perfect, but it is neutral. To me, it seems that multiple perspectives are shown.
3. Agreed. If anything, I think undue weight is still given to some criticisms but the article certainly works to strike a balanced presentation. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Polls are not how consensus reached

• I'll chime in with a new heading and my "vote". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not proposing this poll as a substitute for discussion. We've already had plenty of discussion, and my purpose here is only to have people's evaluation of the discussion stated concisely and in one place, for the benefit of future editing. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polls are indicative of POV & COI on this page. Further, opinions have nothing to do with reliable sources. Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)