Talk:Calvary Chapel Association/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Articles and books that are critical of Calvary Chapel

The purpose of this section is to collect the "critical reviews" of Calvary Chapel. Right now, references to the critical articles are presented throughout this page, as well as in the archives. The goal would be to have sections on the "calvary chapel" Wiki entry that describe many of the problems with the organization, as presented in the published works. If you come across additional critical references, please post them here, as well as on the "calvary chapel" Wiki entry.

  • A published article by David Templeton, Losing My Religion, published in the April 2-8, 1998 edition of the Sonoma County Independent. This reference is from the website of the publisher Metro Publishing Inc: [1] (Mojo found and presented this to Walter Görlitz). Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Currently ref #42. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Originally in the Wikipedia article, has been redacted more than once. From the archives: "Calvary Chapel has been critized because they themselves criticize others. They say Calvary Chapel has attacked denominations, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostals, Catholics, Lutherans, and word of faith teachers." (one reference, http://www.adherents.com/largecom/calvary2.html) Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that this is a reliable source (it appears to be a self-published website, and thus presumptively non-RS), though I would be willing to discuss it if there are multiple people who think that it is. My first impression is that many of the items listed here are simple statements by Smith of theological disagreement, and to label them all as "attacks" demonstrates a lack of objectivity on the part of the source. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Currently ref #47. If you want to expand quotes from this article, be my guest. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Blue, you went out of your way to condense the section. Further, you won't let anyone expand the Criticism section. It appears you have more time on your hands to protect your Fanpov position than the rest of us have to protect the Encyclopedic value of the article. I ask again that you reverse your position, and restore the previous information in the Criticism section. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Um, that would be your job, not mine. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Publication I've never heard of, hosted on a self-published website. Reads like partisan press. Do you have any argument for the reliability of this source? Does anyone other than yourself think that it is? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Broken link. But in any case, the quote you give here would hardly make CC unusual among mainstream evangelicals. What's the point of mentioning it? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus & Polling from Wiki suggestions

Looking through the history and archives, the Calvary Chapel wiki article has a history that has caused some editors to believe it is being Fanpov protected by Calvary proponents as a marketing tool instead of allowing the article to grow as a neutral Encyclopedic entry. The current protection is being presented as "consensus says". This Talk page alone has three dozen references to "consensus". In addition, there are numerous entries on the Article history that identifies reverts based on "consensus".

  • Wiki identifies,
"Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed."

One of the more recent Fanpovs presented an Opinion Poll. This practice was discouraged by multiple users, yet the warning was ignored by the Pollster.

  • Wiki identifies,
"Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. This is a strength, not a failing, and is one of the most important things that make Wiki special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.
Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made.
Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing."

Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You realize that there is consensus here. You seem to be the only dissenter. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Walter, you have an interesting way of writing. In a previous post, you wrote, "...everyone else who looks...". This type of black and white, all or nothing thinking is presented on your most recent comment. Your quote, "the only dissenter" -- to be completely candid, are you trying to bait me or something? What are you even addressing? Consensus on this subsection? This subsection is directly presenting Wikipedia material, so there should be consensus, no?
However, I'll expect you are addressing the Calvary Chapel page in general. To address the bait, it is true consensus on most of the Calvary Chapel article has been found among the adherents. (I do note, though -- you guys even took each other to mediation. Doesn't your bible say something about taking your brothers to mediation?) Editors get "run off" by the adherents. To remind you of recent disputes, a month ago a writer accused you of going ad hominem. One of the Chuck Smith adherents identifies that most of the article is derived directly from Calvary Chapel marketing material. One writer suggested that Calvary Chapel "passive aggressively identify simply as 'Christians'". Why don't you go and make the article more Encyclopedic, Walter. Maybe even go and research the controversial subjects and add some of that to the article, along with how Calvary Chapel itself responds to the negative attention. I'll be straight, my resolve is weaker than your power to protect this page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh my. This is not an ad hominem attack at all. It's a "you're a pain in the rump" comment. The facts are simple: not every editor here is a fan boi and you seem to have COI with the subject yet won't admit it. I'm not trying to run you off at all. What I'm doing is saying just because you don't agree with consensus doesn't mean that it hasn't been reached. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I thought Bluemoonlet made the criticism section a little bit too toothless, but I wasn't going to push it. I am not familiar with the organization, but as I said before, I think the Metro Publishing Inc. "Losing My Religion" reference appears to be a reliable source and references cult-like behavior, but I also understand the objections to the cult term. I don't know if there's room for compromise on this, or if we need to light a fire under the mediation cabal. Slice, from my interaction with him, I have to say that Walter has been remarkably neutral and NPOV in this matter. In fact I think he argued for the retention of the previously mentioned reference — even though he disagreed with it — because he believed it was properly sourced, while others were edit warring to remove it. So please, maybe a little more assumption of good faith toward him. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mojo, I understand what you mean about Bluemoonlet, but someone needs to push to have this page NPOV. People come to "research" an organization, not to read about the propaganda or marketing material that is already available. Currently, this site is almost exclusively Calvary Chapel marketing material -- what use is that, other than for additional marketing?

What happens is there are Fans who go to this page (just like any Religious organization's Fans), and they will inherently change the page to what they have been told to believe, or have come to believe themselves -- basically, all original research. Any information that compromises Chuck's Church is quickly removed. I'm not saying the fanboi's are unique, they are only doing what they are grown to do, and I know other organizations enjoy the same kind of fanboi behavior.

Walter, you are right, not every editor here is a fan boi. But some are. And reading through the history logs, those that are Fans are more entrenched than the rest who finally give up. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the criticism section has been eviscerated down to 2½ lines, especially since there's an ongoing mediation case about the "Accusation of Cult Status" subsection, which Bluemoonlet removed. I think it would've been better to leave it in place until the case has been resolved. It seems pretty clear it has been called a cult, but I understand that's a word packed with emotion — can it be reworded in a manner more acceptable to all? Another quote was "hyped-up emotionality and psychological control" — is that more palatable. Any other ideas? As I suggested at the mediation page, is it possible to write a "Why some perceive it as a cult, but why it really isn't" section? Mojoworker (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's a concern. The way that the cabal would have seen it is not stating that it was a cult but rather that they had authoritarian issues. See this state. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it has been called a cult does not make it one, nor does it make it noteworthy enough to include on the page. I respect the viewpoints; the idea that the page should mention "well some people have called them X but they aren't because of Y and Z", especially over an item that seems to have fringe (undue weight) support at best seems very peculiar to me. If we opened up an Encyclopedia Britannica to the CC page, would that be included? Somehow I doubt it.
I leave my fellow editors with this thought, which admittedly is not admissible on the main page since it is Original Research on my part: I think most would agree that Billy Graham is one of the most respected Christian preachers of our time. His evangelistic association has a retreat called "The Cove". This year's events at that retreat center include talks by no fewer than 3 CC pastors: Bob Coy of CC Ft. Lauderdale, Pedro Garcia of CC Kendall (FL), and Skip Heitzeig of CC Albuquerque. And this isn't the first time Coy has been there.
Do any of you think that Billy Graham would allow his namesake evangelical association to use guest lecturers that were associated with anything even remotely resembling a cult?
I think not. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you have presented a Non-Neutral POV statement here, 71.199. I'm sure glad, as you say, it is not admissible. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Mojoworker, I am quite willing to work with you regarding your concerns. I made my edit as a suggestion, to get conversation going, and the only comments I got at the time were positive, though you were not one of those. I thought (and think) that my sentence summarizing the Templeton article does it justice, but I welcome your comments. I might suggest that the length of the criticism section should not depend on the magnitude of the article subject's deficiencies, but on the quantity and quality of reliable sources to substantiate critical statements.
By the way, regarding the mediation case, there had been no activity from mediators for 11 days when I first joined the conversation, and that had stretched to 20 days when I edited the Criticisms section. Just today, the mediation case was closed as "stale", meaning that it's sat around long enough to make it clear that no one is going to do anything. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the mediation closed twelve minutes after I posted the above entry and as soon as I saw it, I notified Jeffwang and Oddbodz that the close may have been premature — no activity happened on the case since you or I joined it. Not sure why. Back to the topic... In #Status of Calvary Chapel Twin Falls above, while I realize that Google search results are not in themselves reliable sources, and many of the results are blog posts and self-published, the results beg the question: why are there so many people claiming cult or cult-like behavior? It doesn't seem they can all just be "sour grapes". Perhaps that's why I find it troubling to dismiss the ones that are properly sourced. So, help me understand, why are there so many people calling Calvary Chapel a cult and why is that untrue? Mojoworker (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
All kinds of people say all kinds of things on the Internet. Your observation indicates that there are plenty of people who intensely dislike CC, and who allow that intense dislike to spill into hyperbolic insults. But none of that is relevant to WP. Only people who verifiably speak responsibly (and, to my knowledge, all reliable sources that have been suggested are included in the article) are relevant to WP. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
But why are there "plenty of people who intensely dislike CC" — what is the basis for such enmity versus, for example Presbyterians mentioned above? Also, Oddbodz replied that he's no longer in the mediation cabal, so perhaps that's why nothing happened with the case. Mojoworker (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This is pure speculation, but I perceive that CC is intense in certain ways (some of which may indeed be less than healthy), and some people who have been hurt by that (such as Templeton) will likely react bitterly, as hurt people generally do. Presbyterians can also be intense, and plenty of people have left them with bitterness, but they have their long history to protect them from the particular accusation of "cult", so CC's recent founding may also be a factor.
P.S. This is a reply to a friendly question, and should not be construed as any change in my position that this question is not relevant to WP in the absence of identified RSs. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you quantify "plenty"? Ten? Fifty? One hundred? It would be better to rank them as a percentage of attenders and adherents.
Who are the accusations coming from? Are they people who were involved in various CC congregations around the world or simply people looking at them from the outside? As a comparison, the Roman Catholics weren't too keen on the Lutherans or various other early protestant and Anabaptist church movements in the 1500s and 1600s. Are we to take their opposition as the only source on them? I would sooner read what someone who was part of those early movements and returned to the Catholic church had to say about them. Conversely, some of the people who are criticizing CC may already be unstable so understanding the whole of the person's experience may be required. Finally, are the criticisms levelled against a specific congregation or the entire movement (or denomination)?
We can't determine the reason for enmity until we know who is levelling the accusations and to whom it is being levelled. Now I can attack the Presbyterians on theological grounds much more easily than I can CC, and I can attack individual Presbyterian congregations and pastors very easily. I have actually spent more time in Presbyterian churches than I have CCs, particularly in my youth. However, they try not to make waves so I don't think you'll find a lot of people who will accuse them of things, particularly when they can point to their history to support positions.
And here's one for SliceOfMiami: Google Presbyterian cult. I get 2,050,000 results versus only 290,000 results for Calvary Chapel cult. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
And 1,130,000 for Slice of Miami cult. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing much to add other than a) I am in general agreement with both BM and WG on why people say what they say and have hatred for certain groups and b) the whole Google search approach to proving/disproving points is a red herring that needs to die a quick death. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fanpov

Okay Blue, you win. I identified a number of sources on the Talk page, requesting that all of us take a look a the articles to make this Calvary Chapel entry a little more reliable. Your response? "Um, that would be your job, not mine. --BlueMoonlet (t/c)".

In making this page more NPOV (and less Fanpov), it is all of our jobs who have expressed an interest.

Your "complaint" or "references" about the Catholic church's page? You obviously didn't even read the article. You were just looking to justify your position about Chuck Smith. The Catholic_Church page has an entire Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church referenced page. Do you really want to build a separate "Criticisms of Chuck's Church" page? Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is all of our jobs to make sure that this page conforms to WP standards. But it is only your job to research and suggest changes based on a new batch of sources that you (and, I venture to say, only you) think is likely to yield useful material.
This page also has a Criticisms section based on non-CC sources. As I already said, you have failed to point out how your incendiary statements do not apply to the Catholic Church page as well as this one. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit summary, this page may very well have merited a tag in the past, but it has been improved since then. Therefore, editors who supported the tag in the past are irrelevant. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Blue, I think you said it best when you said, "it isn't my job to make this page NPOV" -- and then you go off and remove other people's edits to make sure only your Point of View is heard. You win the Incorrigible trophy. Your "I Love Chuck" zeal is more powerful than my current resolve. Drink that Koolaide, you'll be fine.

You have misrepresented my words. I never said that it isn't my job to make this page NPOV. In fact, I said the opposite in my most recent post above. What I did say is that it isn't my job to follow up on leads that you think are important. If you do not strike your deliberate misrepresentation of my words, and strike all instances of your name-calling (e.g., referring to individual editors as "fanpov"), I will be taking action regarding your disruptive behavior. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Bull, blue. I presented an article for everyone to review, and ask that everyone contribute to enhancing the Encyclopedic value of this page by reviewing the article and extracting out valuable information. You responded, "Um, that would be your job, not mine". Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the Catholic Criticism page, why did you remove almost all of the criticisms of Chuck's organization? Many years of editors came before you, and in one unfailed swoop, you removed almost all of it? Even when more than one editor (including Moderator page editors) suggested additional criticisms need to be on this page, you still removed the information. And then, your retort of "Um, that would be your job, not mine. --BlueMoonlet (t/c)"? Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Criticisms section is still there and robust. Editing was done by consensus to address problematic language. You still have not actually addressed the Catholic Church point. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, you just removed a quoted article reference, and wrote something like, "you should put it somewhere else" -- stop taking referenced material out of the article! If you think it belongs in some other area of the article, CONSTRUCT the article instead of destructing it! Please stop reducing the effectiveness of other contributors, it appears to me that your actions are Fanpov. If my assumption is incorrect, by all means, help me and others understand why you would do this. Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary explains my reasoning, but I'll expand on it. The quote about "a call from 'Dad'" refers to Smith's relationship to other CC pastors. It seems to me clearly metaphorical, not to imply that parishioners routinely go around calling him "Dad" (which would be kind of weird, and is what your edit implied), but to describe himself as a father figure to other pastors. That said, there may certainly be a place in the article for discussion of the inordinate personal focus on Smith within CC. If a proper source could be found, I would say that the best place would be not the Intro but the Criticisms section. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't read, Blue. "If you think it belongs in some other area of the article, CONSTRUCT the article instead of destructing it!" Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

COI disclosures

Hey guys and girls, I want you to know that I would be just as fervent about making any page NPOV and non Fanpov. It just so happens that this Religious page caught my attention about a year ago, because someone at work discussed Chuck's Church with what seemed to be unrealistic & unwarranted mystical "love" towards the leadership. As I looked over the page a year ago, it was like, "what is going on?" In what was supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, I found instead that most of the information was all honeysuckle and roses. So then I started looking through the Archives, and found that there have been many issues with Fanpov and NPOV through the years. This, together with the weird "love" thing from my coworker, caused me enough of an alarm to look further into some of the allegations against Chuck's organization, and it seemed there is plenty -- including some works that akin Chuck Smith and Jim Jones. Let's face it, who would be most interested in building a Marketing Campaign page for Calvary Chapel? It would mostly be Fans. I am also a fan. I've known of Chuck's organization since the early 1990s. After urging from one of the editors (I think it was Walter, but I'll have to review the pages), I attended a Calvary Chapel, and I still meet with them. My attendance does not change the fact that there is significant negative press available to document on this organization. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, Ckruschke, Ltwin I can see why the mediation you guys tried to force on each other never went anywhere. You didn't even read each other's responses. The COI resolution was requested by a different user, not me. I was just trying to get the ball re-rolling, since you seemed to ignore it for a month, and also trying to get everyone talking about where we are instead of arguing about your article. Quoted, "Conflict of Interest questions have been raised about some of the parties involved in this mediation going back more than two years — those might as well be resolved here as well if that's possible in this venue. Mojoworker (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)" Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Please see Talk page" in lieu of Fanpov and NPOV

Okay, Walter & Blue do not want either "Fanpov" nor "NPOV" listed on their page. Is there a way to encourage other interested readers in joining the discussions on the Talk page instead of listing Fanpov or NPOV? I think it would be better overall anyway. Right now, we seem to have stagnated with a bunch of editors who seem to think differently. Once before (in the archives somewhere), it felt as though someone threatened to get a couple of their buddies from Chuck's to bully about -- this is not exactly what I hope will happen this time.

Also, Walter & Blue (& others), can you identify your COI in the COI section. Best, Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can easily learn about my relationship to CC, and my total lack thereof for the past 15 years, by perusing this very talk page. In fact, one of those comments was a direct answer to you, Slice, so I am left wondering as to your real motive in asking again.
As has been pointed out, connection with the article subject is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a conflict of interest. Anyone whose feelings (positive or negative) about the article subject interfere with his/her objectivity has a conflict of interest, and this is discerned not by an inquisition into people's connections but by observing their editing behavior.
I think the record contained in this Talk page is quite clear that there is only one currently involved editor who has such a conflict of interest, demonstrated by relentlessly negative comments about the article subject (often with no practical suggestions included), advancing of sources whose quality is highly questionable but that put the article subject in a bad light, rejection of sources that are perfectly adequate to support the statements they are cited to support (but which are not negative towards the article subject), mis-interpretation of sources to put the article subject in a bad light, not to mention name-calling and other borderline-uncivil behavior towards those who reject his suggestions, and that is User:Sliceofmiami. I urge you to consider this, and to back off from your disruptive behavior and strike your uncivil comments. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Blue, you are one of the worst Fanboi's. You don't even realize what you do is completely sided for you. Other editors suggest increasing the NPOV, and you Fanly reject their suggestions and revert their contributions. Uncivil? Look in a mirror. Read the other sections, and the history. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd go that far. There have been two editors, one anon and Esquire880, who have a COI in favour of CC, but Sliceofmiami does have an axe to grind against them and has never revealed why. That undisclosed POV position is what I would call a COI. It's also much greater than the opposite COI represented by the CC members.
Full disclosure again on my part requires that I have an acquaintance who is a pastor of a CC and have attended it three times in the past. I also attended a related CC three times in the 1980s. I have also attended a single service of two different CCs close to where I live. I have never been a member of a CC nor would any CC consider me to have been an adherent at any point in history. I respect the work they have done with musicians, particularly in the 1970s, and have an interest in it for that reason. So for someone to suggest that I'm some sort of CC fanboi is not accurate. My responsibility to this article is the same as my responsibility to every other article on Wikipedia: to ensure that it is well-written and researched. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - there are only a handful of people on this page who seem to have a glaring COI - one of which is you Slice. As far as self-identification in order to "help discussion" on this page, I'm wondering what the point is - should I wear my yellow star every time I make an edit so that everyone knows that I'm one of those evil, non-NPOV CC attendees and thus my insertions are tainted? Please... I've been very honest about what CC is and isn't as a church and the fact that it is hardly perfect (an attribute that the CC's that I attend never strive for nor claim to be).
I'm sorry Slice that you are in the minority of opinion on this Talk page - sometimes this happens in life. However, this doesn't mean that there is some kind of cabal against you or that you are the only one that has a NPOV. Ckruschke (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
Sliceofmiami, after watching this article and talk page for a while now, I have to ask you if perhaps you need to think about any biases or COIs you might have respecting this topic. You may also need to think about if it would be helpful for you to step back from this article for a while and gain some perspective. As far as I am concerned, these discussions have degenerated into a mindless regurgitation of accusations of COI and "Fanpov" and responses to those accusations. These discussions are not for improving the article and thus do not need to be engaged on this talk page. I would encourage all editors to stop indulging such discussions and return to discussing concrete improvements to the article. Ltwin (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
LtWin, I disclosed my COI -- "My attendance does not change the fact that there is significant negative press available to document on this organization". Further, I agree with your position, my suggestion was "Is there a way to encourage other interested readers in joining the discussions on the Talk page instead of listing Fanpov or NPOV? I think it would be better overall anyway. Right now, we seem to have stagnated with a bunch of editors who seem to think differently. Once before (in the archives somewhere), it felt as though someone threatened to get a couple of their buddies from Chuck's to bully about -- this is not exactly what I hope will happen this time." Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see nothing really changed over the course of half a week. Blue is still hell bent on making his page hisPOV and completely Fanpov. From a recent edit, "BlueMoonlet (I have a hard time believing that anyone doubts the accuracy of any of these descriptors. This is basic stuff, and pretty neutral, too.)". Thanks for listening to yet another editor telling you to revert your Fanpov edit. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


How about this to attempt to get additional contributors to the talk page? I will add this unless one of the other fans has a better idea. There has to be something agreeable to everyone to get additional readers to review the Talk page. Specifically, "Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."

{{Multiple issues|date=September 2011}} Sliceofmiami (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need for it and will revert it if added. My sense is this is merely an attempt to have people review "references" on the talk page that would never survive on the main page due to their lack of quality. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Then offer an alternative, 71/66. Sliceofmiami (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sonoma County Register quote by Rick Ross

Regarding the above arguments about "cult-status" and so on...I thought a quote from the Sonoma county register was used that sounded pretty balanced, reflecting multiple perspectives. What happened to that quote? I propose restoring it to the criticism section.DanVanNice (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

Hi Dan. Welcome to Wikipedia, as I see you have never edited before. Please see the section #Cult status issue after mediation above for the discussion that led to the article's current state on that topic. The article is still cited, but with a summary rather than a quote. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dan, welcome. What BlueMoonlet means to say is that he and a couple other fans don't want that kind of information on their page -- so they removed it before the mediation was even completed. Since then, a few fans have joined in the maranatha "Consensus Chorus" to keep any critical information off of their page. So... although I agree with your perspective, it is exhausting to have to argue against the zealots to keep those kinds of quotes included. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I read the discussion above. I think the Sonoma County Independent quote managed to capture the whole issue/criticism (cult vs. not cult) in a nut-shell. A sentence or two for context would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanVanNice (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Request "Multiple Issues" on Calvary Chapel

{{multiple issues}}

Hmm... BlueMoonlet, as I read through the responses that other users have presented on this page, it appears that your Consensus to protect your page is ebbing again. I suggest the multiple issues tag be placed on the page, to encourage additional contributors to visit the Talk page. If you or other readers have a better idea, please suggest it. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Report to WP:ANI

Hi all. Regretfully, I have decided to post a notice to the Administrators' noticeboard regarding the disruptive behavior of User:Sliceofmiami. I am sure that other active editors on this page may want to contribute to the discussion. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I had been struggling with whether that was the next step and you beat me to it. Also regrettably, I have added my 2 cents. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The ANI thread has now been archived. What happened is that one administrator made some helpful comments, and then left a message on Sliceofmiami's talk page. I think this is a satisfactory outcome.

I want to emphasize that this episode should not be interpreted as any kind of persecution based on viewpoint. To the contrary, I hope that we can move forward now and constructively discuss how to improve the article, with both supportive and critical views towards the article subject represented. But the discussion does need to abide by WP policies of civility and consensus. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for doing that. I think that it was handled well and expected the outcome from the outset as Sliceofmiami wasn't really doing anything that can be considered objectionable as per Wikipedia standards. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

removal of content from 'spiritual gifts' section - archive and discussion

I removed the content below from the referenced section. I listened to the referenced Chris Swanson sermon and did not hear the teaching that is quoted here in this section - his teaching mentioned John the Baptist's baptism of repentance as well as the holy spirit at Pentecost. To me, this calls the entire paragraph into question. At this point it is reasonable to ask that if the references are re-added, direct quotes including timestamps be included so that the material can be verified.

"However, there are some Calvary Chapels that do not hold with this doctrine in actual practice. Pastor Joe Focht at Calvary Chapel Philadelphia teaches that the Baptism of Holy Spirit happens at conversion.<ref>Straight from the Heart teaching from Genesis to Revelation. WED10224 Mp3, Calvary Chapel Philadelphia</ref> Other examples of similar teaching are Chris Swanson at Calvary Chapel Chester Springs, PA and and Tim Lloyd at Calvary Chapel of Newwark, DE.<ref>http://cc-chestersprings.com/teachingLists/teaching.asp, Matthew 3:11 , 5/29/2005.</ref><ref>http://www.ccnewarkde.org/matthew.html, Mathew 3:1-17 - John the Baptist Speaking today</ref>"

71.199.242.40 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think direct quotes and timestamps are a minimum requirement in this case. More generally, it's not clear to me that a one-time statement in a sermon, which could be due to misstatement or confusion on the pastor's part, has the same standing as a (presumably thought out in detail) systematic doctrinal statement. Citing such conflicts has a bit of the feel of a "gotcha" mentality.
On the topic of your recent edits, 71, I'm not sure about this one. The text you removed is a close quote of the source on page 48. On the other hand, this one also has a bit of a "gotcha" feel to it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with your first point and I like the way you presented it.
Understood on your second point. My copy of CCD does not have a quote like that on p.48, but perhaps my PDF version does not match the pagination of what the other editor was using. I tried to find a print copy in the church library today but struck out. Ultimately I think we are in agreement regarding the exclusion of the material, however. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In Universe Tag NOW!

The first sentence of the history section is straight up inappropriate: "While Chuck Smith was still a member of a denominational church, a prophecy came to him in which the Lord said to him that He was changing his name. His new name would mean "Shepherd" because the Lord was going to make him the shepherd of many flocks and the church would not be large enough to hold all of the people who would be flocking to hear the Word of God." You need to discuss this subject in terms that objectively correlate to verifiable reality. Don't say that Jesus came to some guy and told him to change his name (to what?) and then every other prophecy he ever made about how much money he'd rake in with a big box church chain came true. Say, "It is commonly stated in the denominations official literature [cite] that Jesus..." 24.91.244.221 (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The citation is to Smith's autobiographical history of CC, and I agree that it should be represented as such and not reported as a fact in WP's impartial voice. Also, the "name" business should be clarified or deleted, as Charles Smith is in fact his birth name. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Not inappropriate, but certainly not neutral. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please just rewrite this history section

Probably the basic content and references are OK. But it has the tone of promotional literature, written from the perspective of someone involved in the movement. Just start rewriting it from an objective sounding, disinterested viewpoint--editors!

While Chuck Smith was still a member of a denominational church, a prophecy came to him in which the Lord said to him that He was changing his name. His new name would mean "Shepherd" because the Lord was going to make him the shepherd of many flocks and the church would not be large enough to hold all of the people who would be flocking to hear the Word of God. [11]

I WOULD DROP THE ABOVE.


In December 1965, Chuck Smith became the pastor of a 25-person congregation and in 1968 broke away from the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel in Santa Ana, California. Before Smith became their pastor, twelve of the 25 members attended a prayer meeting about whether or not to close their church: they reported that "the Holy Spirit spoke to them through prophecy" and told them that Chuck would become their pastor, that he would want to elevate the platform area, that God would bless the church, that it would go on the radio, that the church would become overcrowded, and that he would become known throughout the world.[12]

THE ABOVE SEEMS FINE

An almost identical prophecy was recorded in Chuck Smith's book "Harvest" where the prophecy was delivered to 16 discouraged people ready to quit and throw in the towel.[13]

I WOULD CONSOLIDATE ANY REFERENCES TO THIS REPORTED PROPHESY AND FRAME IT FROM ON OUTSIDER'S THIRD PERSON POINT OF VIEW. SOUNDS LIKE CC APOLOGETICS IN ITS CURRENT FORM. THAT IS FOR A CC WEB-SITE, NOT WIKIPEDIA


In 1969, Calvary Chapel became an epicenter with what later became known as the Jesus Movement when Smith's daughter introduced him to her boyfriend John, a former hippie who had become a Christian.

THE WORD "EPICENTER" HERE HAS AN VERY PROMOTIONAL RING TO IT.

John then introduced Chuck to Lonnie Frisbee, the "hippie evangelist" who became a key figure in the growth of both the Jesus Movement and in Calvary Chapel. Frisbee moved into Smith's home, and he would minister to the other hippies and counter-culture youth on the beaches. At night he would bring home new converts and soon Smith's house was full.[14] Frisbee was put in charge of a new rental home for the steadily growing crowd of Christian hippies and he named the commune House of Miracles, other House of Miracles would be set up throughout California and beyond. Through Frisbee's strong anointing of the Holy Spirit and 'power evangelism' and Smith's sense of running a church, Calvary grew exponentially.[citation needed] A tent was erected while a new building was under construction and Frisbee's Wednesday night Bible studies became wildly popular.[citation needed] Among Frisbee's converts were the musicians[citation needed] that had played on the beaches who now were writing music for praise and worship. This became the genesis for Jesus music and Christian rock concerts. The musicians started forming groups[citation needed] and Maranatha Music was eventually formed to publish and promote the music.[citation needed] The services usually resembled rock concerts more than any worship services of the time.[citation needed] Frisbee was featured in national television news reports and magazines with images of him baptizing hundreds in the Pacific Ocean at a time.[15] The network of House of Miracles communes/crash pad/coffee houses began doing outreach concerts with Smith or Frisbee preaching, Frisbee calling forth the Holy Spirit and the newly forming bands playing the music.[16]

THIS SECTION SOUNDS OK BUT LACKS CITATIONS.

KEEP PLUGGING AWAY. THE HISTORY SECTION HAS IMPROVED GRADUALLY OVER THE YEARS. 

Theradicalrealist (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC).
I suspect we have a sockpuppet here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel has been criticized because they themselves criticize others (continued from Archive 2)

Interesting material in support of "Calvary Chapel has been criticized because they themselves criticize others" which was a comment contained in Talk:Calvary Chapel/Archive 2 (I don't know how to link to that archive)

During the investigation for this article, Smith cautioned CT’s reporter: “The Lord warns, ‘Don’t touch my anointed. Do my prophet no harm.’ I think that you are trying to do harm to the work of God. I surely wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.”–Chuck Smith, 2007.
CT is Christianity Today.

Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a point to this or are you turning the talk page into a forum? Again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This militant position about Calvary Chapel was in the wiki entry when I first reviewed it years ago, and the criticism was removed -- by you? I don't know who took it out. Why don't you re-add it, Walter? That would be a good point of this talk entry. Sliceofmiami (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I have no idea what you're talking about. This appears to have been your first edit on this article. There's no statement with "The Lord warns" or "want to be in your shoes" in it. Perhaps a copy of the original statement would be helpful and when it was in and when it was removed. Ideally a diff of the removal would be appropriate before accusations fly. I don't really appreciate you accusing me of censorship. It's unbecoming and unjustified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I just realized that you might have seen that in the Chuck Smith article. You might want to check there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet's edits

  • Material was tagged as unsourced 10 months ago, allowing ample time for sources to be found. Such a tag is a clear challenge, and WP:V is unambiguous that such material requires an inline citation, and that the burden for such lies with the restoring editor.
  • Reliability tags -- claims of prophecy are extraordinary claims, and thus WP:REDFLAG applies. They should therefore have extraordinary and, I would suggest, third party sourcing.
  • Primary sources tag. That the article contains a preponderance of primary sources in not under dispute. There appears to be no clear consensus that this is acceptable, therefore there is no reason to remove the tag.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagged for no really good reason, but that's a different point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Not all the material in question was previously tagged, and some of it was restored with fixes. But even beyond that, I find it disturbing that you persistently refuse to discuss your reasons for challenging various statements. Of course, I hopefully assume otherwise, but your actions make it hard for me to avoid suspecting that your real purpose is simply to remove information.
  • WP:REDFLAG might apply if the article said in WP's voice that a prophecy had occurred. But it says no such thing. That someone claimed a prophecy occurred is hardly extraordinary. So those tags need to go.
  • I agree that it is appropriate for the primary sources tags to remain while the RFC continues.
Yet another issue here is the disturbing practice of wholesale reverts, rather than targeted edits that address the points actually enumerated in the edit summary. Such wholesale reverts are disrespectful and harmful to constructive dialogue.
--BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with BM that wholesale reverts are disrespectful, as it threatening to block people who engage in removing the wholesale reverts that have been challenged. Walter, I have remained respectful to you over the years even in the face of your lack of respect toward me as an IP editor. We're on the same team here. Enough is enough. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yet you make wholesale reverts. I didn't threaten to block you, I simply stated that you're on a path to be blocked. Sorry if you misunderstood. I respect all editors, particularly those who discuss their issues. While I don't agree with the tagging of the article, I won't change it just because the edits are wrong. I will seek consensus first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how your edit summary of "Take it to the talk page or yuor [sic] will be blocked" can be taken any other way. And your addition of a talk page template touting your "graciousness" completely ignores the hypocrisy of the edit warring in which you were engaged. You completely missed the fact that I was doing wholesale restorations of wholesale reverts and that I explained that in the edit summary (not EVERYTHING has to be taken to talk if explained in the summary). I'm sorry if you failed to see that or misunderstood. As for your graciousness, I reject it. Bring it. Have me blocked. Do your worst. Please. I could use the break. The record will show that I attempted to improve the article by addressing the citation requests once you finally stopped reverting. Those are things you could have tackled as well rather than spending time in committee (e.g. Talk). I need neither your charity nor your sanctimony. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if my terse comment was misinterpreted. The comment was meant to stop you from edit warring, which you didn't do. And since you bring it up, anyone who would like to count your edits can see that you have broken WP:3RR. Since you've brought it up here, I assume you want it to be known. Commenting on your talk page is simply my way of asking you to back-off. I have no intention to have you blocked, but other editors may. The record will show that you broke WP:3RR and were argumentative in doing so. I am sorry you don't appreciate Christian charity, but as for sanctimony. I have none to offer you as you seem to have cornered the market on it today. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
By my count, I reverted 3 times, then future edits were to address various citations in an attempt to improve the article. If you or anyone else wants to block me, please do so. Really, I want it to be from you. But you can't say "you will be blocked" and then say "I have no intention to have you blocked." That just doesn't jive. And I do appreciate Christian charity - when it is genuine. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Walter, I believe you are mistaken. I count only three reverts by IP ([2][3][4]). After that, only a commendable effort to actually improve the restored problematic text. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
A revert is "undoing the effects of one or more edits... More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." I can count again, but I saw five changes, without intervening edits, that reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
"A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." The reasoning is that he very well could have done it with a single edit, and it seems perverse to count it against him that he had the propriety to do his edits in pieces and explain them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand. However there were intervening edits. Anon is beyond [[WP:3RR].
# http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=473082384&oldid=473009651
# http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=473083523&oldid=473082587
# http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&action=historysubmit&diff=473089825&oldid=473084766
# http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&action=historysubmit&diff=473091054&oldid=473090449
And you are the intervening editor in the last two, although the last edit includes a self-revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
BMs edit count is accurate; there were three reverts, then I was able to focus on actually fixing issues when you stopped your edit war. If you want to count my fixes and improvements as 'reverts', that would be like the 'lawyers' getting mad at Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Also note that your 3rd bullet is actually an edit by BM, not me. And the 4th is me fixing something that I broke when adding a requested reference. Please: make good on your threat to have me blocked using this 'evidence'. I figure that either the admins will give me some rest or they'll scold you for the silliness. Either one would be desireable at this point. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Not according to the rules. And my third should have been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&action=historysubmit&diff=473089469&oldid=473084766 I included BM's intervening edit. Sorry to be hard-and-firm on the rules, but according to them, you broke WP:3RR. I understand why, but that's no excuse to do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Wrong yet again. The three reverts are as BM listed: ([5][6][7]). After that (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&action=historysubmit&diff=473091054&oldid=473086999) the edits address several citations needed, a few failed verifications, addresses one inline, and adds one word per the reference provided. Improvements like that can't be considered reversion for the purposes of the 3RR law. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Care to present your case at the appropriate Admin panel? I would argue that it is correct, but I have been wrong in the past. Do I have your permission to report? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Walter, I don't understand your purpose here. Yes, I made some intervening edits, but they were improving the work that IP was busy doing. This is a ticky-tack foul at best, and I think it's not even that. I think any reasonable admin would agree that the third revert and its following edits count as no more than a single revert under the spirit of the policy.
I also don't understand your final question. If you find it necessary to report IP, then do so; you don't need his permission. I can't imagine why IP would want to go there without any compulsion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I won't report the IP as I said I wouldn't, however the IP essentially called me a liar in my method of counting and so I cannot go back on my word by having a third-party look at it without reporting IP's behaviour. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, permission has already been granted multiple times. Heck, I've practically demanded it. If you want to continue to be letter of the law and not spirit, I welcome any repercussions the admins may deem necessary. And I never called you a liar. Mistaken, maybe, in your methodology, but not a liar. That is your word. I'd prefer to hope that it was a simple mistake and not something more devious. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see it as permission, but I have now raised it at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Is this a violation of 3RR?. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet (and others):

  1. Any claim of prophecy, in Wikipedia's voice or not, is an extraordinary claim, and needs an extraordinary source -- which at the very least means an unaffiliated source that takes the claim seriously. I will take the matter up on WP:RSN.
  2. (i) A wholesale revert of a wholesale restoration of unsourced material is not unreasonable. (ii) A wholesale revert of a wholesale revert is also not unreasonable -- and it is rather WP:POT of you to make the accusation given your own wholesale reverts.
  3. The 700 Club is not a WP:RS -- it is a highly partisan source with little or no reputation for fact-checking.
  4. (As to the many vague and unsubstantiated accusations made above, I will ignore them as (i) violating WP:AGF, (ii) lacking sufficient specificity and credibility to be worth responding to.)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For posterity, I will note that the WP:RSN thread has now been archived. It can be found here. Hrafn's objection received basically no sympathy. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The 700 Club may be a reliable source depending on the material. I see you still don't understand this basic concept, just as Smith is a reliable source about claims related to his own life, and the collection of churches and their official publications may be a reliable source about themselves. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually agree with your points #2(i) and #2(ii), but they do not describe what you did. I restored some information and proceeded to improve it, and I also made several other changes to the article. As is my usual practice, I did this in small chunks with an edit summary explaining my purpose for each step. You then undid all this work with very little explanation. That is my complaint, and you have not addressed it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Walter Görlitz

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

— WP:RS

700 Club does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" it is therefore not a WP:RS (and there would appear to be no reason why "context; common sense and editorial judgment" would suggest otherwise -- see discussion of WP:QS below).

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.[4] Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

— WP:QS

700 Club is clearly a questionable source, it is clearly being used, inappropriately, for material about a third party (Calvary Chapel).

That I did not explicitly rule out all inapplicable exceptions does not mean that I "still don't understand this basic concept".

That you think that Smith is an acceptable source in the context of:

  1. Pervasive citation of Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith & Smith, both on history and doctrine, in clear violation of "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  2. The fact that the purely Smith-based doctrine section is the largest section in the article
  3. Extraordinary claims like prophecy (WP:REDFLAG).

...suggests to me questions about your own "common sense and editorial judgment" and understanding of the basic concepts. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You missed a big portion. I'll let you find the part you've missed since I've quoted it before. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, only one 700 club reference is used in the current revision and that is simply to reference the fact that the church once temporarily met under a tent while a building was erected (thank you Blue, BTW). We're seriously splitting hairs over THAT?
As for 700 club's lack of reputation for fact checking and accuracy - I see no mention of that in their current wiki article. If it is so blatant an issue, I would think it would be included in their criticisms section.
You continue to miss the part where wiki policy allows groups to reference themselves in certain situations. Calvary and Pastor Chuck probably know best what their doctrine is since they wrote their interpretation of protestantism's belief contiuum (it's called "Calvary Chapel Distinctives", by the way.) Now if Smith were heavily referenced in the criticisms section (except to respond to such criticisms), you might have a point. But at this juncture you seem to only be interested in wiki-lawyering and nitpicking on a trivial matter and I think you'll find an uninterested audience here, especially given the tone by which you approach your fellow editors. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrafn, CBN is a longstanding WP:NEWSORG. I don't care for Pat Robertson's politics any more than you do, but that doesn't mean they can't be trusted to report facts about their own community of interest. I see no evidence that CBN has "a poor reputation for checking the facts" or that it has "no editorial oversight", and it clearly fails to resemble the example of "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


  1. No, CBN is not a "WP:NEWSORG". It is a broadcaster of religious programming, particularly religious variety programming, of which the 700 Club is an example: "CBN was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson in 1961 using a religious variety program format that has been successfully used in religious broadcasting ever since. One of the mainstays of the network is The 700 Club, the longest-running program in the variety format." It is not even close to "mainstream news reporting" as explicitly envisioned by that guideline.
  2. "As for 700 club's lack of reputation for fact checking and accuracy - I see no mention of that in their current wiki article." WP:Complete bollocks! See The 700 Club#Controversy, (the linked-to-there article on) Pat Robertson controversies and the fact that talk shows are rarely reliable sources (yada yada on exceptions, irrelevance of them to current situation, etc).

Now I've gotten sick to my teeth of such vacuous argumentation and associated personal abuse. It is now blatantly obvious that there is a WP:CONSENSUS here to WP:IAR and treat the article as though it has the subtitle Hank Smith talks about how absolutely wonderful his denomination and religious beliefs are. Fine. I personally believe that such a strategy makes for an absolutely shitty and unencyclopaedic article on a number of levels -- but see no point in tilting at windmills. I therefore call WP:DEADHORSE on myself and withdraw. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Enough opinion. Show me that they are exluded for the purpose for which they are used in this article at WP:RS's archives of move on. You have been pushing your anti-Christian (or is it just anti-mainstream Christian) POV here and I'm tired of it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Just because you've called DEADHORSE doesn't mean you get the last word. Addressing Hrafn's points in order:
  1. Immediately after the sentence you quoted from the CBN article (which means you can't possibly have missed it) is this: "The network's journalistic branch, CBN News, provides news updates to The 700 Club and produces religious news programs..." In other words, CBN News is a WP:NEWSORG that specializes in reporting news from and for the religious community -- just the kind of news source one would expect to be interested in the subject of this article. All mention of talk shows is irrelevant, because we are talking about CBN News, not The 700 Club.
  2. Yes, Pat Robertson says outrageous things, yada yada. So do all manner of commentators whose talk shows are linked to nonetheless reliable NEWSORGs. I note that not a single point in the articles you cited mentions any question about the reliability of CBN News. So none of them are relevant.
Regarding "vacuous argumentation": WP:POT
Regarding "personal attacks": I have done my best to carefully avoid comments directed at your person. However, I make no apology for frankly saying that I don't care for the way you have been editing.
Regarding "Hank Smith talks about how absolutely wonderful his denomination and religious beliefs are": If we were relying on subject-related sources to make evaluations of the article subject, then you would have a point. But, yet again, this remark misfires.
Finally, regarding your DEADHORSE: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - this discussion is going absolutely nowhere so I just can't resist adding to the deepening expanse of comment, smart use of WP tags and links, and growing ill will.
Have to disagree with you Hrafn on your somewhat narrow definition of a news organization. It appears by your comments on CBN that ESPN cannot be a creditable news organization simply because it is a "broadcaster of (sports) programming". Or is it specifically about Pat Robertson? Are you saying that CBN has a certain inherent bias? They probably do, but what does this mean? We dump every news organization that has a bias to their reporting? Well goodbye MSNBC & CNN as a credible news source and for you Libs out there, we have to dump Fox News too because its founder Rupurt Murdoch is Conservative and therefore has obviously instilled his bias into his news people. I'm not a supporting CBN in any manner - I've never even watched a second of their programming - and this is a little of a straw man exercise, but you keep coming back to argue about references and attacking the sources you don't like. After re-reading the previous string on "Primary Sources", it seems pretty obvious to me that your arguments have been largely dismissed by the rest of the group. Rather than continue to accuse those who disagree with you of drinking the Chuck Smith/Calvary Chapel kool-aid, it might be time to cut your losses. Ckruschke (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Oh, the "kool-aid" guy was someone else. I don't know what it is about this page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is no kool-aid being consumed here. That is a failed attempt at a character assassination. We're trying to be reasonable but it It seems you have Hrafn has a WP:POV and WP:AXE. We can't figure you out. Again, I have no affiliation with this collection of churches other than enjoying the music that came from members of it, so I know I have no POV here, but I can't speak for other editors. Just give me the facts, and WP:PRIMARY states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" and so you have no case against them here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Walter, to whom are you talking? Ckrushke was replying to Hrafn (rather effectively, I might have thought you'd agree, though we should all probably lay off as Hrafn has announced his determination to withdraw) and attributing the "kool-aid" remark to him. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The edit level and the edit conflict tag implied that I was responding to Ckruschke, but I seem to have misread Ckruschke's response as an attack on editors other than Hrafn rather than directed at Hrafn, but the comment is still a character assassination and should not be made. I obviously only read the opening and closing sentences. I've made some changes. Sorry for the confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Hrafn never said anything about "kool-aid", to my knowledge. That was a previous guy whose arguments were similarly frustrating, but completely different in detail. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This is my exact point! This thread has devolved into emotional reactions.
1st - Walter - I'm not sure what you read or didn't read, but I was not directing any ill will towards anyone in my comment about "smart WP tags and link" - "smart" means "well used" not "You are an idiot". If anything, I'm the idiot. I don't know Wiki enough to be able to use those and I thus feel pretty stupid since I have to look up each one to know what they heck you guys are talking about. Honestly, I wish you would have simply asked me what I meant before flaming me. The accusation of character assasination is taking it WAY beyond what was appropriate from my comment. Geez - I'm on your side...
2nd - the kool-aid comment was my - obviously too simple - interpretation of what Hrafn seems to accuse those who disagree with his opinion - thus his Hank Smith talks about how absolutely wonderful his denomination and religious beliefs are. It was OBVIOUSLY not a direct quote.
So I guess I'll butt out of this one. I'm obviously not helping things. Ckruschke (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Yes sorry. I was tired this morning and took a shortcut, which is now costing me. Let's not talk about drinking kool-aid (that phrase set me off) as it's a vile accusation and while it paints what I feel is an accurate picture of Hrafn's view of us, it's not a pretty one. Sorry if I blew this into something it wasn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
No blood, no foul. I tried to be funny and failed. I should have left well enough alone rather than continue to stir the pot. Ckruschke (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Sooooo...moving right along then. At the risk of beating the dead horse again I do need to respond to a few items, being pretty much in agreement with my fellow editors. Regarding the bullocks comment, I think that applies more to Hrafn's POV. 700 club is indeed a Newsorg, whose anchor was once a respected anchor of a large (and secular, I might add) NBC affiliate. That Robertson sometimes adds controversial editorials (the focus of those criticisms included in the wiki entry) after the news segments is immaterial. It's like saying 60 minutes can't ever be trusted just because Andy Rooney occasionally went off the reservation.
And Hrafn: if you want to take your toys and go home, no one will stop you. Really I think we've probably made a collective mistake by even acknowledging the tantrum. But lost in all of this drama (including your dubious distinction of being the only editor that has ever raised BM's ire, in my experience) is the fact that your questions and challenges DID actually result in what I hope are positive improvements to the article's sourcing. I can't say that I will miss your demeanor, however. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose we could take this to WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what would be the purpose of that??? There is no remaining controversy here. Everyone currently editing the page seems to agree on the sources issue. Let's please drop this and move on. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree - the overwhelming opinion/evidence is that any sourcing issues have been fixed. It's time to end this. Ckruschke (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Lack of third party sourcing

I'm seeing far far too much repetition of the name "Smith, Chuck" in the references section -- to the extent that this article could more accurately be renamed to What Chuck Smith says about his church. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Add to this the fact that this material is largely self-published, and you also have a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF: "the article is not based primarily on such sources" (and quite possibly "the material is not unduly self-serving"). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear to me that these sources are "self-published", as The Word for Today is not a blog or a vanity publisher, but a media company that is several decades old.
Be that as it may, WP:ABOUTSELF notes that "self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Indeed, what other source would be as reliable for information on the subject's theological teachings? If you think any particular statements are self-serving, then by all means let's discuss that. That aside, would your objections go away if the theology sections were counterbalanced by a longer and more robustly sourced history section? But it's not clear that gutting the theology sections is a needed compensation for that lack. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, Hrafn, I would be interested to know more about your research that led to these two edits. I imagine you obtained and read the cited sources (some of which are not available online) and found something other than what the sources are cited to say? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. I see no evidence that 'Word For Today' exists as anything other than Smith's/CC's mouthpiece, so it seems reasonable to classify it as a WP:SPS.
  2. What part of "the article is not based primarily on such sources" did you fail to comprehend?
  3. No, my "objections go away if" each section is based on third-party sourcing. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for Smith to expound his theological views. It is there for (predominantly) WP:SECONDARY source analysis of these views, and other matters relevant to CC.
  4. The references were tagged because they fail to WP:Verify the material to which they were attached. As you say, the references in question can be found online (directly, via Google Books, or via Amazon).
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe I comprehended the point well enough; thus my question about counterbalancing material, which was meant to address the word "primarily". You, on the other hand, seem to think the policy says "each section" where it actually says "the article".
I have previously made the point on this talk page that the article on the Roman Catholic Church extensively cites the RCC's catechism in the sections that describe the church's theology. Can you find a difference between that case and this one? Or do you think that the RCC page is similarly objectionable?
Finally, since you appear to be reading up on these sources, I would encourage you to use them to beef up this article with what the sources do say, rather than only looking to remove things that the sources don't say. Both you and I, and many others, have noted that as a major need for this article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Hrafn, your assertion that all statements must be made by third-party sources is not valid. Primary sources are completely acceptable when supporting claims by and about the subject. That's what WP:PRIMARY states. So you're going to have a difficult and long wait for your third-party sources since they're not necessary. If you want to find some, feel free. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


  1. Bulking up one section in an attempt to make up for another, badly primary-heavy section, would appear to be more WP:WIKILAWYERing around policy than in the spirit of the policy.
  2. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a very poor excuse for violating policy elsewhere. If Catholic Church#Doctrine is predominantly based upon primary sources, then tag it (as I just did). Don't use it as a lame excuse to violate policy elsewhere.
  3. I DID NOT SAY "all statements must be made by third-party sources" -- this exaggeration of my statement is a strawman, a misrepresentation of my statement, and thus a violation of WP:TALK. For the avoidance of doubt, I meant "based (predominantly) on third-party sourcing" -- the very same wording I used in the very next sentence. <sarcastic>Please forgive me for not hammering down that point with inane repetitiousness.</sarcastic>

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Your not making you're point. Thanks. All of the primary sources are fine as is as per WP:PRIMARY. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

— WP:PSTS
  1. This article is not "based on reliable, published secondary sources" -- such sources represent a tiny minority of the material in the article.
  2. This article contains extensive "material based purely on primary sources" -- most obviously in the 'Doctrine' section, but also elsewhere.

Does this make my point clearly enough? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think that primary sources are not permitted at all, which is not the case.
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
So if you can show how these primary sources are being misused, go ahead. Since they're not, they're fine, as per the policy. While secondary sources would be ideal, there aren't any. So unless you have something to add, I think we're saying the same thing and you should now spend your time finding the third-party (or secondary) sources you so desire rather than trying to push a point that's not contested.
As for "this article is not based on reliable, published secondary sources" , you have not looked at the sources. While many, perhaps the majority, are primary, there are sufficient number of secondary sources on issues where it matters. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
In fact, perhaps you could indicate some sections of the article that are currently referenced only with primary sources that require a secondary source. Please keep in mind what WP:PRIMARY states (quoted in part above) while doing so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


  1. What part of "It is there for (predominantly) WP:SECONDARY source analysis of these views, and other matters relevant to CC" did you fail to comprehend? My own words contradict your claim that I "think that primary sources are not permitted at all"
  2. What part of "only with care" did you fail to comprehend? Basing the majority of the article on primary sources is NOT using them with only care.
  3. "Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ... Smith, Chuck ..." etc, etc, etc is NOT a WP:SECONDARY source on the topic of Calvary Chapel, nor are documents published by CC (and its subsidiary) itself. I don't have to read through the entirety of these sources for this to be blindingly obvious.
  4. An article where the majority are primary (there is no "perhaps" about it) (i) is not "based on reliable, published secondary sources", (ii) does not use primary sources "only with care".

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You are are the most uncooperative editor I have had the opportunity to work with in the past six months. I cannot believe your unmitigated arrogance and refusal to discuss. You are simply pushing your POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, you're ignoring a policy and imposing your own. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter, seems you are attacking Hrafn now for no real reason -- the writer does not appear to be imposing anything, instead you seem to be the "imposer". I agree with Hrafn in much of what was written. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't think I am. I think you're both imposing a bias on this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad you feel that way! Then you agree that this page is filled with NPOV, which means you should suggest that the tag be added, dear. Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I am not your dear.
Second, you have the POV, not the article.
Third, you're only purpose here is to stir-up trouble. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Slice - The issues of Primary Sourcing and Third-Party Sourcing have been closed for some time. I see no other reason for you (or Hrafn) to comment on either threads other than you didn't like the resolutionand you wish to to further beat a dead horse. Move on. Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

RFC: Use of primary sources

Is the use of primary sources, particularly the writings of Calvary Chapel's founder Chuck Smith (pastor), and Calvary Chapel's own publications, in this article excessive? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment From my count 22 of the 66 references listed (some of which are repeats) are Chuck Smith. So I guess my question first is, "So What?" If someone feels there is too much primary sourcing, in the History or other sections, then one can feel free to add some second- or third-party references to "even it out". Deletion of primary sources simply because "there are too many" should never be a solution. Responsible, level-headed editors should be able to come to equitable solutions w/o flying off the handle... Ckruschke (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • I counted 25 citations to Smith himself, plus a further 12 citations to Calvary Chapel (and subsidiary organisation) documents, for a total of 37/66. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Still don't count 25 and you are the only one who lumps in the CC publications as Smith's "mouthpiece". Regardless of the actual number of citations, my points remain valid. Nice try though. Ckruschke (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42. That's 24 (sorry, was out by 1). I did not use the word "mouthpiece", so putting it in quotation marks is misleading and a misrepresentation. That "Chuck Smith, and Calvary Chapel's own publications" both are sufficiently closely entwined with the subject that they are problematical from a neutrality viewpoint should be blindingly obvious. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No one accused you using the word mouthpiece to refer to this, rather that's the interpretation so you're misdirecting if you think we're putting words in your mouth (or keyboard).
Your list simply proves that you don't understand where primary sources may be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hrafn - Your count is right - I missed 31 and 32 because the references weren't done as well as all the rest. Regarding my "misrepresentation" of your words, "mouthpiece" is a direct quote from your original stance in the "Lack of third party sourcing" thread that started all this conversation. Here's the full quote to which I was referring 1.I see no evidence that 'Word For Today' exists as anything other than Smith's/CC's mouthpiece, so it seems reasonable to classify it as a WP:SPS. No mischaracterization there - right or wrong, you were pretty clear in your intent. Ckruschke (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • Ckruschke: read this very carefully. I did not claim "CC publications as Smith's 'mouthpiece'" (therefore this is indeed a "mischaracterization") -- I stated that "Word For Today" was "Smith's/CC's mouthpiece" -- because I could see no evidence that this "media company that is several decades old" does anything other than publish material for Smith and Calvary Chapel (I would further point out that Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa states that Smith started WfT). If you are going to pick out single words that I used in a previous section could you please at least use them in the right context otherwise I have little chance of recognising them as my own. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Isn't "Word for Today" a Calvary Chapel Publication? I understand what you are saying, but I (obviously) misunderstood your specific meaning to ONLY flag Word for Today. Instead I took your comment as incriminating all CC Publications and assumed that your mention of WfT was just a specific citation of the worst offender in your mind. Much truthful apologies for inadvertently twisting your words. Ckruschke (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • Comment I believe the argument is that Word for Today is also a primary source. In other words, any publication that has any ties to the subject is considered a primary source. With that said, they are describing statements made by the subject so it seems reasonable to quote the sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment They should be considered primary sources. They are too close to the subject at hand and (importantly) not published through a media with meaningful editorial oversight (like peer review). The main problem here seems to be that way too much of the text is in the voice of Wikipedia, which lends too much credibility to the claims considering the sourcing. I believe most if not all of these issues could be overcome by changing the wording to reflect which media is being quoted, i.e. not in the voice of Wikipedia. That way the reader can make his/her own judgement on the reliability of the source. --Useerup (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment They are considered primary sources. Nobody is arguing that point. However, they are not too close to the subject when they are simply describing the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment As much as I wish I currently had time to participate more fully in this instructive conversation, at the moment I will only note that Hrafn's action on Catholic Church#Doctrine, to which he referred, has generated a lively conversation. It will be interesting to see what the community on that page, which (at least speaking for myself) is better established than the one here, concludes on the topic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's been educational, to say the least. It is unclear however how the argument there (that the Catholic catechism is a tertiary source, based upon a large body of secondary church scholarship, based in turn on a large body of primary documents such as "Creed, church council canons, encyclicals etc etc") is applicable here -- where Calvary Chapel's doctrine appears to have been written by Smith himself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And if he did write it himself, which is not the case--he adopted existing theology and others who agree with it create branch churches--why wouldn't you want his own hand to explain it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Only one editor made the "tertiary source" argument, while several others expressed dissatisfaction with your argument (which is essentially the same as your argument here) for other reasons. In particular, it was pointed out that the SPSs are the only authoritative source for what the article subject teaches and must be quoted as such, while secondary sources (where they exist) are desirable for commentary. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment 37/66 does seem excessive. If secondary sources can not be found for much of the article it indicates issues of due weight of text. Exclusively primary sourced material could be removed and then re-added as reliable and independent secondary sources are found to justify the inclusion. In this way there will be a primary source is used to corroborate the secondary source but the primary source will not be used in itself to solely verify statements. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Citations are not excessive and render a reasonably well written overview of the doctrine and practice of Calvary Chapel. However, I am concerned about the Ministries section and would push further than the primary sources tag to a notability tag. I doubt that an ecclesial fellowship such as this group would have very much notability outside their own outreach.Whiteguru (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agree with the ministries section. Much of it could be pruned without damaging the article. Imagine if all of the ministries of any larger denomination (yes, I understand that CC is not a denomination) were listed in their articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If this section grew much larger than it is, it would be split off to be its own list page. For example. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I was prepared to agree with this, but looking at the section again I see that the large number of SPSs cited in this section are cited for no reason other than to verify their connection with the article subject. This section is already limited to links to other notable subjects with their own pages, and if the CC connection were not supported with a reference the article could be dinged for that lack, so it's not clear that the references are causing any problem or that they should be removed. What really is the problem here? The SPS-counting is starting to smack of wiki-lawyering to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with BlueMoonlet that there seems to be more going on here (given Hrafn's talk-page history on religion articles) than a good-faith questioning of sources. Hate to say it, but to me it looks like disruptive editing and if we're endlessly stirring the pot on the talk page, it takes time away from improving the article in question. FWIW, while the reference weighting can be improved it's no worse than many articles I've seen (and better than many others). Miniapolis (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you labelling Hrafn as a WP:SPA? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No, certainly not an SPA, but I've run into Hrafn at several RFCs in the recent past and the song always seems to be the same :-). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Is that some sort of joke Miniapolis — "if we're endlessly stirring the pot on the talk page, it takes time away from improving the article in question"? So, since it appears you've never edited it, just what have you done to improve this article? Perhaps there is indeed something more going on here...
And my 2¢: whether it's 22, 24 or 25 of 66, that seems to me like too high a ratio of primary sources. Mojoworker (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I have too much respect for Wikipedia to joke when talk pages become longer than the articles they concern. As a subscriber to the Feedback Request Service, I was invited to contribute to this RFC as an outside observer. As such, I have as much as right to comment as anyone else; however, I don't expect my comments to carry the same weight as those of editors more vested in the article. Life is too short for edit wars. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was confused by your use of "we're" in the quote above. You certainly have a right to comment on the proposal — I just (mis–)read your statement as though you were taking credit for improving the article. Mojoworker (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I tend to agree with user Useerup above. I would think there are many editors who would find the likes of ref 11 — "While Chuck Smith was still a member of a denominational church, a prophecy came to him" — as a statement of fact, in the voice of Wikipedia, to be troubling. I think I'll go reword it right now. Mojoworker (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Good edit, Mojoworker. In fact, we all agreed a month ago that this should be done, but no one actually did it. On the other hand, you seem to be using this one bad-apple example as if it showed that this article has a problem with primary sources. I don't see how that follows. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


It seems this article is still plagued by Primary Sources, and Point of View issues. As a reader years ago first pointed out, the article still reads as a marketing article written on behalf of Smith's organization, yet the tags that would alert a Wikipedia reader that this is in dispute are not present on the main page. This has been an ongoing dispute for years (way before I ever showed up), and now new editors have joined and have to start over and battle a few Wikipedians that kind of guard this page. My suggestion: Put NPOV, Primary Source, Marketing Material, and other tags on the main page to alert new readers to visit the talk page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagued? Not really. We are all aware of your WP:AXE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stick to the point, dear Walter -- your comment sounds like a continued and unwelcome personal attack that I will once again ignore. The point of this section is that yet another reader has suggested adding "alert tags" to the page. At this point, most are aware of the WP:NPOV of Chuck's page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sticking to the point: you have none only an axe to grind. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Blue, how do you see this as "RFC has concluded" and thereby permission to remove the tag? Past criticisms of this article were that it is written as propaganda and marketing sheets, now a new contributor identified basically the same problem -- too much self sourced material. I don't see your justification for removing the tag, please explain? Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Because no one cares except those who have WP:AXEs. It has been resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you also Blue, dear? Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No. But talk page guidelines do not state person-to-person conversations must be honoured by other members. If you have a problem with me responding, take it to an appropriate channel. Since this is an open discussion, I feel no compulsion to honour your direct request any more than you honour responding to direct questions posed of you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Slice, the conversation had indeed concluded. There had been no new posts for a while, and the editor who had initially brought the complaint had specifically withdrawn it. Finally, after I removed the tag, no one restored it.
Your concerns and Hrafn's concerns were actually quite different. However, both have been thoroughly discussed and consensus has been reached. Unless you have something new to say, I suggest you drop it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fallen Clergy

Added Bob Coy, recent fallen clergy. Should list other notable "high visibility" fallen clergy listed as well. Sliceofmiami (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as they have Wikipedia articles, it's not unreasonable to add them. I moved the new addition to the end of the list based on number and fixed MOS:CAPS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Fallen clergy" doesn't sound terribly encyclopedic or NPOV. "Former clergy" sounds much more appropriate. 108.34.252.222 (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Moved "fallen clergy" to just "preacher" section. Lonnie Frisbee was a homosexual preacher, unclear whether he was "fallen" or just lived a lifestyle accepted by Calvary. On reflection, fallen is kind of a red herring word. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Using common parlance vs. CC insiders parlance

Looks like this continues to be an issue for editors this article. For example:

"The requirements do not include a seminary degree. In accordance with Calvary's interpretation and understanding of the Bible (see 1 Timothy 3:2 and 1 Timothy 3:12), Calvary Chapel does not ordain women or homosexuals as pastors"

This should be changed to:

The requirements do not include a seminary degree. In accordance with Calvary's interpretation and understanding of the Bible (see 1 Timothy 3:2 and 1 Timothy 3:12), Calvary Chapel does not ordain women or openly LGBT pastors.

The word "homosexual" is now used either among conservative evangelicals as their preferred nomenclature or as a clinical term in the sciences. I think it's clear that it's being used here in the former sense. Newspapers, magazines, public communications now use "LGBT" as the most common, accepted word choice. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donvduyse (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified February 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Calvary Chapel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Calvary Chapel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calvary Chapel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

2 separate Calvary Chapel groups?

I'm confused. The lede suggests that there was a schism within this association, but the article is written as if we're speaking of one single association of churches. Is this article going to be about both associations or just one? Ltwin (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This Christianity Today article] indicates that the Calvary Chapel Association is the original body that Chuck Smith founded, and that the pastor of the Costa Mesa church left it to organize the Global Network. It seems to me that this article should properly be about the Calvary Chapel Association. The Global Network needs its own article. Ltwin (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The only split was when the Association of Vineyard Churches split away over the prominence of the Holy Spirit's role in the church. I do not know if something has happened more recently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
According to the Christianity Today article I linked to there are now two organizations, the Calvary Chapel Association (which was founded by Chuck Smith) and the Calvary Chapel Global Network (which is a newer organization founded by Chuck Smith's son-in-law and successor to the Costa Mesa pastorate). The split was also covered by Charisma News, in this article. There is also this blog post from a local Calvary Chapel website written in 2019 placing the split in perspective for regular pastors and churches, UPDATE ON THE CCA / CGN KERFUFFLE Ltwin (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
PS, it seems from my reading of the situation most local churches in the Calvary Chapel movement don't want to choose sides and are basically affiliated with both groups but there is a possibility that the leadership may force each church to choose sides at a future date. This needs to be made clear in the article that there is not one single organization claiming to lead the Calvary Chapel movement. Ltwin (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Exapanded Sources

I'm adding this back in. BrainUnboxed2020 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

In an effort to increase the number of extrinsic, non-calvary chapel sources to this article, I offer the below references to fuel some careful rewrites for neutral pov All 3 of the below sources tell the story of Calvary Chapel. Orange County by Arellano has an opposed point of view. Whereas the current article continues to maintain a tone of at turns piety and credulity, Arellano is impious and incredulous. Neither the tone of Arellano, nor that of pieces of the current article, really maintain NPOV. Instead, look at the Handbook of Denominations and the Encyclopedia of Gospel Music. While both books represent of positive, assertive point of view on Christianity, they are neutral, adopting a third-person fact based point of view, rather than a first person, faith-based point of view that promotes claims of supernatural origins and spiritual visions.BrainUnboxed2020 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL27695165M/Orange_County

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Arellano BrainUnboxed2020 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calvary_Chapel_Association/Archive_4&oldid=1136331370"