Talk:Mars Hill Church

Wording of the introduction needs correction

The article itself states that there are campuses in both Olympia, WA as well as Albuquerque, NM while one could make an argument that Olympia is "in the city" of Seattle, Albuquerque is clearly not.
I suggest the new into read:

...Services are offered at multiple locations in the city and surrounding area as well as a church plan in Albuquerque, NM; the church podcasts content of weekend services, as well as conferences on the Internet[4] with more than 100,000 downloads every week....

This can be easily referenced from http://albuquerque.marshillchurch.org/location-and-services/

I would further recommend that we include in the intro that Mars Hill is planning to open more church plant locations. If you have any comments please post or feel free to contact me. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Largest church?

This page originally said Mars Hill was "one of the largest churches" in the Seattle area, and I changed it to say the largest, and then it was changed to say second largest with Overlake being the largest. I remember about a year ago when Mars Hill became officially larger than Overlake, which is why I made the change, so I'm wondering whether or not the Overlake change was factual. Can we have some numbers? Or, we can just leave it as it is. I'm not trying to get into church wars of who's the biggest; just trying to make an informative article. Squidge37 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually like to see numbers that say it is the largest OR second largest. I'll add a citation needed tag. Isoxyl 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, given that is says "one of the largest" now, I'll leave it at that. But should a change be made to revert to largest, second largest, a {{citation needed}} tag will be necessary, unless someone is providing a reference. (Other than "Matt Driscoll told me so! =) ) Isoxyl 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Matt Driscoll? Squidge37 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - Mark. I was just being silly though. :P Isoxyl 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Senior pastor / teaching pastor

The page originally said "teaching pastor" and it was changed to "preaching pastor". Squidge37 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

With the passage of new church bylaws on 10/29/07, Mars Hill's 27+ pastors are no longer on the same level in terms of authority, as they once were. Now, Mark Driscoll and four other men handpicked by him, wield authority over the rest of the elders, who are actually "elders" in title only. Mars Hill has stated that Jesus is the senior pastor.

"three churches"

I removed an addition that said Mars Hill operates three churches in the Seattle area. This isn't entirely true because Mars Hill is one church that meets in three locations. Also, this was already mentioned earlier in the beginning of the article, so it was somewhat redundant

Cleanup needed

I added the cleanup tag (after doing a bit of cleanup myself), as the article read a little too informally and a little too much like an ad for MHC. It's a little better now, but could still use some improvement. raekwon 13:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with raekwon and have cleaned up the informal language and cut content that sounded like advertising. Staceyburz 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean up, stat updates, mergers and added History & Structure.

I added History and Structure information. Additionally, I merged Acts 29 and Resurgence articles.--EZEK118 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I don't get it. Mars Hill might be one of the largest churches in Seattle, but its also one of the most controversial. How is there no controversy section on this entry? Are all the editors of this entry members of Mars Hill?

abdul muhib

Agreed. I'd take a crack at writing a controversy section, but I'd be afraid it wouldn't meet NPOV criteria, as my dislike for Mars Hill is pretty potent. Although there's already quite a bit of NPOV language (not to mention a complete lack of references) in this and Mark Driscoll's article. Tdogg241 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i apologize for putting my comment in the wrong place, but are you insinuating that Mars Hill is a cult?12.197.241.166 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)BJLA

There should definitely be a section on controversy because I know many people, myself included, who have many problems with Driscoll's doctrine. I tried making a views/controversy section but, even though it just stated their was a controversy and did not call one side right or wrong, it was deleted. Que? 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

IMO, there are still a lot of problems with neutrality in this article. First, it makes numerous claims without backing them up with any references (there's only one reference in the entire article, and it's the one I just added), but mostly the article uses way too much informal language. Also, as I've already noted in another comment, there really should be a Controversy section in this article (a simple Google search returns quite a few hits, some of which can be used as references). If nobody else wants to take a crack at it, I can try my hardest to come up with something that retains a neutral point of view. Tdogg241 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I'd say go for it. I'd be happy to take a look at your section after you're done with it and double-check it for NPOV. abdul muhib 13:33, 25 October 2007 (PST)

I agree. I live in Seattle and there's a great deal of controversy about Mark Driscoll and his teachings, particularly among Seattle self-identified Christians. His teachings tend to be very divisive and black/white -- either you wholeheartedly agree with his opinions, or have nothing to do with his followers.

I think I'm too close to this issue to help, but an outside observer should check the article for NPOV and weasel words.

Also -- this link could be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Definition_of_.27cult.27_according_to_secular_opposition

Gary Seven 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reads like an Ad

The organization of this article is really bad, and the tone doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry but like an Ad or a press release. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the article

So when I was looking around for some references for the history section, I discovered that the entire thing was lifted from the Mars Hill web site. This is a violation of copyright law and Wikipedia policy (I have left a comment above the history section, as a reminder of policy).

Secondly, there appears to be a conflict of interest here. I just noticed that one editor known as Marshillchurch (talk · contribs) has been editing the page, apparently updating as the web site updates (as mentioned before). I also see other editors entering snide comments about the church and the leadership, which does not conform to WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you cannot use this site to publish your opinion, or promote your church. This page is to remain neutral. Please read WP:COI and see if you should be editing this page, if you cannot remain neutral, I ask that you please edit something else.

Finally, this page needs a lot more references to reliable sources, both primary and secondary. If you add information, please cite it with the proper citation template. If you do not do this, and the information is not obvious or is questionable, the information will be pulled. I have tagged the other numerous problems with this article, and until it can be demonstrated that these problems are taken care of, do not remove the tags. Thank you. --Kraftlos (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have re-written the entire history section in an attempt to make it more neutral. I have added more references and grouped similar references by ref names. The Wordpress blog that was referenced in the history section was not a reliable source and I removed it as a reference. There are still several claims in the beginning of the last paragraph which were not sourced and were supported by neither the Stranger article nor the times article. I will remove them unless they can be substantiated. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

Look here if you wanna help with the article!--MortenKristensen (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

An attempt to reorganize and rewrite the article is posted here. Please comment on this talk page indicating your vote as either Support or Oppose ('''Support''' or '''Oppose'''), and leave a reason. Remember to sign your post. Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this re-write. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

The rewrite of the article is now "live." Thanks for all the help from Kraftlos and MortenKristensen. Maybe it is time to reassess? Take care.  Geaugagrrl  ☎ 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reassess as B-Class?

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. - Almost 40 references, with roughly 1/3 from reliable independent sources.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. - Article contains all the key elements that should be present in an article like this, including hist. Uses NPOV and covers relevant controversies.
3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. - Uses the same structure as other articles in Category:Megachurches.
4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. - I don't see any glaring stylistic errors, however we should do a quick run through the relevant manuals of style.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. - Infobox and image are used on the page, perhaps another photo could be included, but it's not required.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. I think this might be the one we need to work on. While it is fairly neutral, I think we need to be careful to make sure that this is a "just-the-facts" article, one last copyedit might be helpful.

I think we're close, let's get it done~! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What should be done to improve this article to B-class? I couldn't find churches in Category:Megachurches to compare to (maybe except City Harvest Church). Anyone who has some ideas?--MortenKristensen (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was saying that if you compare it any of the churches on that list, about 8 in 10 use the same structure. Wikiproject Christianity doesn't do a really good job of covering churches and as far as I can tell, very few (if any) of them are higher than a C-class; so its hard to find a comparason. I'll do a run-thru on the article to see if anything else is missing and get back to you in a bit. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it meets all the b-class criteria, however we have lots of short paragraphs and sections that really should be combined. Specifically the controversy section looks a little sparse. Other then that, I'm prepare to rate this B-Class. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Music

Mars Hill has fairly unique music. For example, last time I was there, they had a New Wave band called Mint that did a mix of their own songs and some hymns. I know the times has mentioned the music in some of their coverage, do you think we have enough info out there about the music to write about it? I have a little conflict of interest because I know one of the lead musicians there, so I don't really want to head up the creation of the section. But I can if everyone's ok with that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources, you can write. And if you have the possibility it would be nice with a picture outside and inside:-)--MortenKristensen (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can probably arrange for pictures. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm starting to think that this controversy section is taking on a strong POV. This is not supposed to be a "con" section to balance the other "pro" sections, the whole article needs to be a factual account from a neutral point of view. Unlike last time I think this section is well-sourced, so I would propose the following changes:

• Take out sub-sections and write it as several cohesive paragraphs. It doesn't make sense to have 2-sentence sections.
• Convert some quotes to prose as is common with most of Wikipedia.
• Add in a few more sources (more controversy) and perhaps response to criticism if available.

Opinions? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I made some additions to the controversy section. I know I have a POV, but it's rather difficult for me to be neutral since I've been so involved. I'm hoping someone will work with what I put in instead of deleting all of my additions. I did cite sources whenever possible. Cubetronic (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this response is a little late. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, you can't use yourself as a source of information. One of the core content policies on Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, unless a piece of information comes from a reliable source, it can't be used in a Wikipedia article. Also, since you did indicate that you were directly involved in the controversy, I wouldn't edit this article. If you have something you would like to have added to the article that can be attributed to a reliable source, then it can be discussed here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the Controversy section. There's a number of things entered that I don't think rise to the level of a "controversy." Like for example the fluffy baby bunny rabbit comment along with others. Basileias (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the pastors who was fired, Paul Petry, has posted copies of original e-mails and other documents from the church at this website:

http://joyfulexiles.com/

I'm sure some of it can be cited in reference to controversy surrounding the church, especially since it concerns the church's transition from an elder system (which many Protestant churches have) to a more authoritarian structure. Gar2chan (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have tagged this article with a POV notice. After reading the many talk sections discussing its neutrality (some on sections, others on the article itself), it seems appropriate to note that the neutrality of the whole article is at least disputed. Zach Beauvais (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Been almost a year, but I am going to start going through some of the issues. I will be removing any flamboyant or controversial claims about the group if there is not a source. Already I found one claim that appeared sourced, but then you examined the actual sources, they did not back the claim. Basileias (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am considering moving the Controversy material to the "Structure and organization" section since much of the material has to do with that topic. Thoughts? Basileias (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I am done with the easy clean-up. I would like to remove the "neutrality" tag. Does anyone feel there is other parts that have neutrality issues? Thank you. Basileias (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job cleaning this article up. I'd support its removal.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson Bethke

Recently information on a Jefferson Bethke was added to the article. I removed it because it is more to do with Bethke than the Church. It also seems somewhat of an advertisement for some video. If this is going to be added, there should be some discussion here justifying how it helps the article overall. Basileias (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson Bethke, a leader at Mars Hill Church, released the video Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus on YouTube and GodTube, which became viral within a short time after its release.