Talk:National Council of Churches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent edits by COI[edit]

The recents edits by that added "senior staff" and several inline external links are not encyclopedic, so I reverted them. In addition, they may represent a COI. This IP address is listed as "The Interchurch Center" which has the same address as the National Council of Churches. Novaseminary (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This anon user continues to make potentially COI edits that are non-encyclopedic or have other issues. I have warned this user at User talk: Novaseminary (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversies exist[edit]

It seems like this article avoids mentioning all meaningful controversies, even though a very significant number of evangelicals or Christian right supporters regard the NCC as a highly-politicized leftist advocacy group which blatantly ignores Biblical principles. In some ways, things have never greatly recovered from the Programme to Combat Racism controversies of the 1970s, and there have been a number of issues since that time... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


The scholarly book by Gill has been very well received by critics; Catholic Historical Review [April 2013 p 396] says "Jill K. Gill offers an exhaustively researched, well written, and important study about the National Council of Churches (NCC) and the fate of the ecumenical movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Focusing on its reaction to the war in Vietnam, Gill provides sharp analysis into the NCC’s antiwar platform and how this and other theological stances led to a divide between the laity and leadership, as well as a diminishing of Protestant hegemony in America. " One editor seems to object to this information for unknown reasons. In the Wiki world, POV is a problem that pertains to Wiki editors--not to scholars like Gill.

I have no objection to the "information." As I noted in my edit summary, "might be ok if toned down and made NPOV, but might be too POV anyway". Phrases like: "Its strength derived from a commitment to ecumenism, or the spiritual unity of Christians across denominations" and "strident antiwar position" are not neutral encyclopedic language. It sounds like a press release, as the comment above sounds like a press release for the cited book. The entire few sentences read more like a hypothesis -- maybe an entirely correct one -- inappropriate for a tertiary source like WP. With this edit, I tried to make the text less POV. I also added tags where appropriate. Novaseminary (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"neutral" means Wiki is neutral between rival scholarly interpretations. The book says the strength of the NCC depended on its ecumenism, and that it split from the laity on the war issue. All the scholars agree on this however so there is no POV the editors are adding. There are no "press releases" here-- I looked at the book itself and three scholarly reviews which agreed it is now the standard treatment. Wiki's job is to report what the Reliable Sources RS say. If Novaseminary has found another interpretation from another RS--which I doubt--he should add it in accordance with WP:NPOV rules. Rjensen (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean to strike a nerve with the professor, certainly didn't mean to offend, or even do anything too significant. Your language itself struck me as more poetic than encyclopedic. More running afoul of encyclopedic tone than truly NPOV. That was my objection, and what I tried to change, perhaps not explaining my objection clearly enough above. Anyways, I also made sundry edits unrelated to WP:NPOV. I will list each for Rjensen's approval here below. Novaseminary (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Various edits[edit]

In addition to reinserting what I think is POV/non-encyclopedic language (making a good, cited point so I won't bother to continue addressing it now), User:Rjensen reverted several other changes I made noting "decline per talk page" as the edit summary. I have remade some of them. I hope Rjensen or anyone else disagreeing would at least explain their disagreement before reverting any of these. Here they are:

  • Removed further reading listing - As noted in the edit summary, per WP:FURTHER, "The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list." I think the general rule should carry the day on this one.
  • Moved the "Membership" section - I moved up the membership section. The membership is mentioned first and most prominently in the lede. It should receive the same billing in the body.
  • Added wikilink to ecumenism - Seemed appropriate per WP:LINK.
  • Name and reuse the Gill reference - The reference supported other facts, I think, so name the ref and reuse it for appropriate inline citations per WP:INLINE.
  • Added fact tags - These facts do not have inline citations, so far as I can see. They need is per WP:V. Rather than remove immediately, I thought tagging would be appropriate for now (though text could also be removed pending citations per WP:BURDEN).
  • Tagged section as being unsourced.

The edits combined can be viewed here. I hope this explains things sufficiently. Novaseminary (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)