Talk:International Churches of Christ

Court Cases

In early 2023, 6 Federal Court Cases were filed against the ICOC alleging child molestation, racketeering and other horrendous claims. In July of 2023 the 6 plaintiffs all withdrew their cases and the judge dismissed ALL the cases. This comes from a Reliable Source found at www.pacermonitor.com (which is a site that keeps dockets of court cases in the US). On the ICOC page an editor has referenced that 2 cases have been refiled, based on a Rolling Stone Magazine article. A simple search reveals that no such LA County Court Cases have actually been logged. If anyone has a primary source that proves the secondary source (Rolling Stone Magazine) is accurate please provide it? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article is quite clear in its assertion that cases have been filed: "According to two lawsuits filed July 13 in L.A. County Court, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is not a church, but a 'cult,' a high-control group where leaders allegedly take advantage of the members". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted this addition based on primary sources. I think we need secondary sources covering these recent court filings to be able to note them, but others may take a different view, so I'm raising it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I am surprised that court cases that haven't even had a ruling are even on this Wikipedia page, this comes across like a gossip magazine more than an encyclopedia. Either WP:BALASPS or WP:BLPGROUP seem to apply. Once there is a ruling then that can be included on this page. Until then the basic rule of NPOV or "innocent until proven guilty" should apply. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If they've been reported in reliable, secondary sources and the text is neutral, I don't see the problem. Reporting on an ongoing case isn't the same as making an assumption about guilt. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the primary info on the four state cases pending in Los Angeles against ICC, ICOC and Kippers. Someone keeps removing this info from the article. But these are official, public records.

"As of October 26, 2023, four lawsuits with a total of 16 plaintiffs have been filed in Los Angeles County Court, alleging sexual abuse of children by church leaders and members [Cases Nos. 23STCV16423, 23STCV16430, 23STCV18426 and 23STCV24432]."

Here is the court's website, where these cases can be looked up by the case number [no need to enter any "filing courthouse].:https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/index.aspx?casetype=civil

Here is the actual fourth complaint.:https://drive.google.com/file/d/174tr_QdQqqNPvJ9gdaYXwg-UOJp1S_Aw/view thought1 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The someone is me, 1pameroo, as should be clear from my comment from 30 October above and comments at User talk:1pameroo#October 2023. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

All four court complaints can currently be read here. https://icoc-icclawsuits.com/ Kip has appeared in all 4 cases. thought1 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability and independence of sources

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ about some of the sources used in this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV: Adding summary comment to the lead

To follow the WP:NPOV, since this material appears in the article also, this comment can be added to the summary of the cult discussion in the Lead. "Others have found the church to not be a cult." Cite: https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19980901-1.2.31.11?qt=church,%20not,%20a,%20cult&q=church%20not%20a%20cult

Editaddict (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Since no one discussed this and since it is complicit with the WP:NPOV policy, I will add it to the article. Editaddict (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality and verifiability[edit]

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

•    Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources

•    Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it

•     Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance

Editaddict (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You have NO consensus for your edits, I strongly suggest you revert yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how my simple suggestion does not follow the WP:NPOV policy to create neutrality and balance. My understanding is that the WP policy is what we follow and not just people's opinions. Editaddict (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, your conflict of interest means you should avoid editing the article directly and instead post edit requests here and gain consensus for any proposed changes. I oppose this addition because the source doesn't really support the claim that "Others have found the church to not be a cult"; all it says is that the Court of Appeal in Singapore overturned a High Court ruling that newspapers that had called the Central Christian Church a cult had not defamed it. We should perhaps add something to that effect to the Court cases and lawsuits section of the article, but the statement you've added isn't supported and doesn't belong in the lede. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn't establish that the Central Christian Church was affiliated with the International Churches of Christ, so that would need to be established with a good source. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It is on their website https://centralchristianchurch.sg/

Is that a good enough source? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the website doesn't state that the church was affiliated with the International Churches of Christ at the time of the court case in 1998. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread. The headline reads: "The Appeals Court has ruled that the two newspapers defamed the Central Christian Church by labelling it a 'cult." Please give a good reason this addition to the lead does not follow the WP:NPOV "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance." Just saying it does not belong there does not make it so. Editaddict (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance does not say that, it says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." which is a very different statement Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So there are accusations or the church being a cult, then there are articles where the churches of Christ, the 1,6million member body from where the ICOC came, where the representatives of the COC apologized for using the word “cult” to describe the ICOC https://christianchronicle.org/icoc-mainline-leaders-meet-at-abilene-christian-1/ And there is a law case where an expert testified: “Church not a cult, says expert witness Tan Ooi Boon Central Christian Church hearings By Testifies that its practices were not 'strange, unnatural or harmful' AN EXPERT on religious studies yesterday said that the Central Christian Church here was not a cult because Us practices were "neither strange, unnatural or …” https://web.archive.org/web/20130928102343/http:/newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/SearchResults.aspx?keyword=central%20christian%20church%20hearings. And @CordlessLarry you believe the only Reliable sources are the ones accusing the church of being a “cult”? Tell me you are not serious? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not about believing or not believing the sources; it's about accurately reporting what they say. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So why are you excluding these sources and what they are saying from your editing in the LEAD and elsewhere? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The lede should summarise the main content of the article, so the material shouldn't simply be added there when it's not in the article. I don't oppose its inclusion in the body article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It was already in the body of the article, unless you removed it over the past 6 months.

If no-one objects, I am going to remove the contested section and we can replace it once we have consensus here on the Talk page JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The information is already in the article. It is how I found it. You have yet to answer the question "How is including it in the lead summary not following the WP:POV? Your opinions are not the bar for inclusion. Editaddict (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies - there are a couple of sentences on it. A single defamation case in Singapore (and we still don't have a source stating that the church was part of ICOC) doesn't merit inclusion in the lede to my mind. Per WP:LEDE, the lede "is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". This isn't particularly important content. There's also the problem that "Others have found the church to not be a cult" isn't really supported by the source - it's original research to make that claim based on a single primary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This explanation is very confusing. Perhaps it is because you misread and misremembered the article twice now. How does including this statement and reference to the Singapore case and the cult expert not fit this WP policy: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Editaddict (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean I've misread the source or the Wikipedia article? I made a mistake in stating that the material wasn't covered in the body of the article, but I don't see where I've misrepresented the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, what you are stating is the WP:NPOV principle I am trying to follow to achieve a neutral point of view by presenting balance. It is simply a small addition that summarizes content that is already in the article and refers to a reputable disinterested source. Please show how this addition violates this principle. Editaddict (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On the “original research” point @[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry] is making, he is right. On the RS and NPOV issue, @Editaddict you raise a valid point, why is the Singapore court case which is written about in the Strait Times (a Singapore newspaper) being ignored? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not being ignored - it gets two sentences at the start of the court cases section. I'm happy to discuss whether that's the appropriate weight to give the case (I think it probably is), but first you need to demonstrate that with secondary sources that the Singapore church involved in the case is indeed "a part of the ICOC family of churches", with suitable secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

So firstly it is on their own website that they are an ICOC church (I have given the reference above already). 2ndly in the ICOCHistory website the court case and the results are covered in detail https://icochistory.org/download/la-story-courage-under-fire/?wpdmdl=754&refresh=659b9831268ab1704695857 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Their website is a primary source and it doesn't establish that they were an ICOC church at the time of the court cases. The PDF you just linked is also a primary source (written by the ICOC's General Counsel); it does at least establish the connection, but it would be better to have a secondary source. I'm going to open an RfC on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

3rdly, the court case is discussed in the Singapore newspaper “The Strait Times” https://web.archive.org/web/20130928102343/http:/newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/SearchResults.aspx?keyword=central%20christian%20church%20hearings JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Those would be better sources, but do they mention ICOC? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (talk) The paragraph in question in the Lead appears to fail Wikipedia Policies in a number of key aspects. For the following reasons, the paragraph should be removed in its entirety or moved to be merged with the Court Cases and Lawsuits section of the article. According to WP:LEAD, "[T]he lead . . .should . . . establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (from a neutral point of view). The context and notability of allegations of the church as a cult have not been established by referencing the "Former members" through a mere citation to a Rolling Stone article or the "view" of Janja Lalich, an individual identified as an expert on cults and coercion, who states that the church has "some of the hallmarks of a cult." The relative number of former members who are making cult allegations to the current members, former members or those from the general population who are not is not ascertainable by these general statements of opinion and do not "establish context" or “explain why the topic is notable” for the allegations that the church is a cult. To position in the Lead the viewpoint of what appears to be a minority is inconsistent with WP:UNDUE that states, "[g]enerally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." --Meta Voyager (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If you read WP:UNDUE, you'll notice that it starts "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" - which is different to being in proportion to the number of former members making the allegations, as you seem to be suggesting. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:UNDUE, "[U]ndue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to . . . prominence of placement." The church article contains nearly forty paragraphs about its origin, historical development, various governance arrangements, and its beliefs and practices that take up many pages and which are supported by nearly eighty credible source citations, while the section on Court Cases and Lawsuits, that includes a reference to lawsuits and a cult allegation, is a mere two paragraphs at the end of the article with mostly news media sourcing. To attribute one of three paragraphs in the Lead on the topic of cult allegations and lawsuits that are thinly sourced is out of proportion with the overall substance of the article and its most important points. Meta Voyager (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though much of the article content is based on primary sources and quite a lot of it needs to be removed if secondary sources can't be found. At least the lawsuits and cult allegations material is based on good, secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The last two replies in this thread appear to be an effort to divert from the primary policy discussion about what is appropriate for the Lead and, instead, turn the discussion to a general statement about neutral point of view and the distinction between primary and secondary sourcing in the body of the article. In my view, the overarching concern about the reference to opinions on the cult status of the church in the third paragraph of the Lead is that these opinions don’t belong in the Lead at all according to WP:LEAD. The Lead should “establish context” and “explain why the topic is notable.” The “former members” reference in the Lead accomplishes neither.  It is sourced from a Rolling Stone article that ties the cult allegation to two lawsuits in Los Angeles County Court brought by a total of 7 individuals. In contrast, the church is described elsewhere in this Wiki article as having more than 100,000 adherents and in the Wiki article on the Restoration Movement as a church having origins in the American Restoration Movement and Churches of Christ in the United States that reach back to the 19^th century.  The WP:UNDUE policies on “prominence of placement” further support why the opinions of a limited number of former members on the topic of cult status do not belong in the Lead.  According to recent reporting by the church, there are more than 700 church congregations associated with the International Churches of Christ, mostly outside the USA. Focusing on 2 cases in a Los Angeles, California court in the USA seems out of place. I am aware of the 2 subsequent cases filed in Los Angeles and my point remains the same. In all sincerity, I don’t find this issue to be a close call and that the third paragraph in the Lead should be removed; however, I’m interested in policy-based arguments that would suggest otherwise.  Can we return in this thread to a discussion of the key policies about the Lead an how they apply to the paragraph in question? Meta Voyager (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You're quoting WP:LEDE selectively, leaving out the bit that says it should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". The cult allegations aren't just made in the Rolling Stone article in relation to the lawsuits but are a common feature of coverage of the church in secondary sources. For some further examples, see this ("International Churches of Christ...is largely seen as a cult"), this ("a reputed cult, the International Church of Christ") and this ("Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a 'dangerous cult'. Who makes such claims about this healing group? Ex-members, former leaders, anti-cult groups, and many university officials who have banned the group from campuses because of their 'deceptive recruiting techniques' and authoritarian structure"). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra articles. The "former members" reference is also used to support an accusation of the church "covering up sexual abuse of children" and includes citations to single news articles in The Guardian and Los Angeles Times. The nature of the cover up accusations by former members is alarming and troubling, but, standing alone, does not make the reference sufficient to justify inclusion in the Lead. The paragraph in question also states that "[a]s of August 2023, some US branches of the church were the subject of multiple lawsuits." These references appear to be an effort to justify the inclusion of the paragraph as a "prominent controversy" WP:LEAD. However, the reference to a controversy related to the church is already acknowledged in the prior paragraph in the Lead and does not need to be repeated in another paragraph. A simple cross-reference to the Court Cases and Lawsuits section in the body of the article would be a sufficient way to alert the reader to controversy involving the church. Further and significantly, as of August, 2023 there were in fact no individual International Church of Christ congregations named in the cited lawsuits - only one congregation from the International Christian Church, a distinct and different church group that is recognized more appropriately in a separate Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_McKean#International_Christian_Church. This date stamped reference to lawsuits and the conflation of matters involving the International Churches of Christ and those of the International Christian Church are inaccuracies and represent original research that is prohibited by WP:OR as "a synthesis of published materials that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Meta Voyager (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The reference to "multiple lawsuits" that are being reported in the news media as of a recent date also runs up against WP:RECENTISM "where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." The referenced lawsuits in state court are reported to be preceded by cases that the plaintiffs withdrew from federal court and refiled. Who can say at this early stage of litigation whether the current lawsuits will also be withdrawn or significantly amended by the plaintiffs? While a reference to pending court cases might be appropriate in another section of the article, it carries the characteristics of "breaking news" that are addressed in WP:NOTNEWS, “. . . breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.” This description of pending court cases doesn't represent an enduring description of the subject matter in the International Churches of Christ article and is not appropriate for a prominent placement in the Lead. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Singapore court case

At International Churches of Christ#Court cases and lawsuits, the article currently states: The Central Christian Church in Singapore, a part of the ICOC family of churches, won a court case (SINGAPORE HIGH COURT – SUIT NOs 846 and 848 of 1992 Judges LAI KEW CHAI J Date 29 August 1994 Citation [1995] 1 SLR 115) in which the judge ruled against a newspaper that had accused the Church of being a cult. An expert on religious studies testified that the Central Christian Church's practices were "neither strange, unnatural or harmful." The link between the Central Christian Church and the ICOC is supported by this primary source, provided by JamieBrown2011 in the discussion above.

The questions for the RfC are (a) whether the sourcing (including the primary source linking the Singapore church to the ICOC) is strong enough for this to be included and if so, (b) what the appropriate weight is to give this case and (c) whether it should be added to the article lede. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As a first-time editor to this page, it seems that the question of whether to include the Singapore news article to provide balance for the allegations of the church being a “cult” is a settled issue under principles of WP:NPOV as the reference and inclusion of the Singapore Court case already exists under the Court Cases and Lawsuits section in the body of the article.  However, this discussion assumes that the third paragraph is appropriate for the Lead. I don’t think it is and have offered my reasons in NPOV: Adding summary comment to the lead. Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV: Adding summary comment to the lead Meta Voyager (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Is the question here only about the link between the two churches? Because the mention of the supreme court cases is based on Straits Times and seems pretty legitimate. I think it is strong enough for it to be included in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's more than one question, Elmmapleoakpine (see a, b and c above). It's about whether the sourcing is strong enough to establish the link between the church in the Singapore case and the ICOC to include it in the ICOC article (the Straits Times source is good on the case but doesn't mention the ICOC), what weight to give it if it is included, and whether it also belongs in the article lede. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the link to the ICOC, it is stated on their website that they are an ICOC church (scroll to the bottom) https://centralchristianchurch.sg/

It is also stated on the ICOChistory website that the Central Christian Church in Singapore is part of the ICOC and at the time of the lawsuit https://icochistory.org/download/la-story-courage-under-fire/?wpdmdl=754&refresh=659b9831268ab1704695857. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

For reasons I already explained, the first of those sources isn't very helpful. I linked to the second one in the RfC text. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this clear, you are confused/unsure as to whether the Central Christian Church is part of the ICOC. Yet it was started by the ICOC in 1988, and to this day remains in the ICOC https://centralchristianchurch.sg/our-history/ . Add to that, the lawsuit was thoroughly documented in the www.icochistory.org website and on the CCC’s own website https://centralchristianchurch.sg/our-legal-victory/. I am really unsure as to why you are confused. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not confused, no. I believe that the church is part of the ICOC. That doesn't mean we don't need a reliable source for the purposes of WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF provides this, does it not? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition, as you can see in the discussion above, the question of following WP:NPOV has never been answered by those not wanting to add the link to the lede.

How does including the Singapore link (that is already in the article) not fit the WP:NPOV policy?

Neutrality and verifiability[edit]

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

•    Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources

•    Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it

•     Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance

Editaddict (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• My own view is that the material belongs in the article, though I'd prefer a properly secondary source for the link between the churches. WP:WEIGHT requires us to give due weight to the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. The Singapore case largely received local attention, whereas the more recent lawsuits have been covered by international media. The view of the expert cited in the Singapore source is just that - the view of a single expert - whereas there are multiple sources describing the ICOC as a cult. For those reasons, I don't think we should give this more than a couple of sentences in the article, and I don't think it belongs in the lede. Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarise the most important aspects of the article, and this isn't one of those in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I hear what you are saying but there still is no answer to how including a simple statement with links in the lede does not follow this WP:NPOV policy. Please answer specifically each of these policies in relation to the simple statement to include in the lede.

  Neutrality and verifiability[edit]

  Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include:

  •    Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources

  •    Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it

  •     Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance

  Editaddict (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a request for comment seeking input from the Wikipedia community, not a Q&A session with me. I've expressed my view and will now leave it to others to express theirs. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the problematic section that is under dispute, is you inserting a paragraph in the LEAD where you use the term “cult” 3x in 3 sentences and mention upcoming court cases 2x’s, I think WP:UNDUE would tell us to have that reduced to maybe 1 mention, because you are giving undue WEIGHT to the negative. Then by including those claims in the LEAD, and resisting including the court case where the church demonstrated and won, that they are not a cult (remember the other court cases you mention have not even happened yet) NPOV would say “Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance”. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Remove entirely: I would suggest a brief review of WP:LAWRS, which at least introduces some of why nothing in this paragraph is usable. Most egregiously, what an expert witness says in court is fundamentally different to what we can attribute to an expert RS in a WP article. It's a self-published source from an academic, which can only be used in very cautious circumstances -- furthermore, since the "publishing" was a court transcript, it's arguable that tbis is even WP:SPS. After that is the newspaper article on the court ruling -- are we citing it because it makes some useful statement or summary (or even analysis) of the ruling? If not. then we are effectively making an internal citation to the ruling itself, a primary source. Does the ruling itself say definitively that ICOC has proven misconduct or not? No, the ruling is about the misconduct of a newspaper. This serves a great example of how to misuse sources on issues of law. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that WP:LAWRS, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. The source is not a court transcript but a WP:RS The Strait Times, a well respected Singapore newspaper. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The referenced Singapore court case is a relevant example of WP:NPOV in practice as it represents an official court proceeding where the subject matter of whether an ICOC church was a cult was litigated at two levels of the Singapore court system.  The case was based on a claim that the church was defamed by The New Paper, a newspaper based in Singapore and Lianhe Wanbao, a Chinese evening daily at the time, but now merged with Shin Min Daily News. The lower court ruled that the newspapers’ declarations of the church as a cult did not constitute defamation and the higher court reversed the lower court’s decision. The Appeals Court concluded in its court opinion that the newspapers’ “fact” claim about the church being a cult was in error and awarded damages on the basis that the church was defamed. The history of the case itself makes clear that there are two viewpoints on the question of the church’s “cult” status. Another of the relevant values of the article is that the defendants, The New Paper and Lianhe Wanbao, and The Straits Times, the publisher of the article, were all owned at the time by the same parent company, Singapore Press Holdings, now known as SPH Media. The referenced Straits Times article carries in its headline, “The Appeals Court has ruled that two newspapers defamed the Central Christian Church by labelling it a ‘cult’“ and serves as an admission by a related party that two of its sister newspapers were found in error. Further, the use of the court case and the article that reports upon it are not contrary to the essay on the use of law sources found in WP:LAWRS.  The essay acknowledges that court opinions are among the types of “law” references that are acceptable as Wikipedia sources; however, they should be used carefully. In this thread, there may be a need to revise the language of the disputed paragraph, but, in my view, there is value in adding the court case reference and related Straits Times article as sources for a statement that there are opposing views to the allegation that the church is a cult. These sources provide balance and adhere to WP:NPOV. I disagree with the assertion of another editor to “remove entirely” and would instead invite the author of the paragraph to consider revisions with these thoughts in mind. Meta Voyager (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but you still seem to not understand. The court is not ruling on whether or not ICOC is a cult. Editors cannot interpret anything in primary sources of law or court rulings beyond its plain text (not how they apply, not what they imply -- same goes with any WP:Primary source). A newspaper is not a RS on legal interpretation unless they have a specialist correspondent or expert commentator.

  Furthermore, even if somewhere in the ruling the judge said in plain text "ICOC is definitely 100% a cult", that's WP:Undue because the case wasn't deciding that matter and the judge cannot make that expert opinion. (There may also be zero review or appeal to such a statement.)

  RS are not a binary. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your very helpful comments further explaining the Wikipedia policy on WP:LAWRS. I understand better the concern and caution about referencing legal topics or court documents in a newspaper or when non-legal experts attempt to draw conclusions about them. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  This reference on the outcome of the appeal should be helpful. <ref name="Straights Times2">{{cite web |last=Jin |first=Lim Seng |date=September 1, 1998 |title=Church wins appeal in libel case |url=https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19980901-1.2.31.11 |publisher=The Straights Times |page=26}}</ref> Nowa (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed new paragraph on Singapore court case

I'd like to propose the following new paragraph on the Singapore court case. Comments are welcome.

===Lawsuit by an ICOC member church alleging defamation===

On November 23, 1991, two Singapore Newspapers, The New Paper (English), and Lianhe Wanbao(Chinese) published articles stating that the Singapore Central Christian Church (a member of ICOC) was a “cult”. The church sued the papers alleging defamation. An initial court ruling held that what the papers had written was fair and in the public interest. An appeals court, however, overruled the lower court stating that the papers had stated that the church was a cult as if that was a fact, when it was not a fact, but a comment. The papers were each ordered to pay the church $20,000. The New Paper had to pay the founder of the church, Mr. John Philip Louis, $30,000. The papers also had to pay the legal fees of the church and its founder.

In the same ruling, the appeals court held that the bi-monthly, Singapore based, Christian magazine Impact, which had also characterized the church as a cult in an article, was written fairly from the standpoint of a Christian publication written for the Christian community. The church and Mr. Louis were ordered to pay Impact’s legal fees.

Nowa (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there was no comments, I went ahead and made the substitution with the new paragraph. If there are any concerns, we can discuss them here. Nowa (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we make an addition: “According to Tan Ooi Boon, an expert in religious studies, the church was not a cult because its practices were “neither strange, unnatural or harmful”

I disagree with the addition. The main reason is this is an article about ICOC as a whole. The Singapore lawsuit was related to an individual church that is a member of ICOC. Adding more detail about an individual case would be WP:TOOMUCH (INMHO). On the other hand, if the case itself or the individual church were sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles, then additional detail about the case might be a worthwhile addition to those articles, provided we could get access to the full Singapore Times article so we are sure of what exactly it is saying. Nowa (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

But there is already TOO MUCH, with 144 words dedicated to who paid who how much! I am suggesting one sentence on an important finding. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The additional statement is sourced to an article published by The Strait Times, a recognized reliable source. See WP:Perennial source. In the current version of the LEAD, an expert’s opposite opinion about the cult status of the ICOC is identified. WP:NPOV would suggest that an alternative expert’s view published by a reliable source would offer balance and be appropriate, even if the reference is to one member congregation of the ICOC. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I did find a copy of the full article. The Central Christian Church posted a copy of it here: "Church not a cult says expert witness" It's a little blurry, but overall legible. There's also a transcription of the article | here. If you would like to propose some edits to the current article based on this, that would be great. Nowa (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I have made some of those changes, happy to discuss further changes needed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Per this revert, it looks like we still need consensus on whether or not to mention the testimony by J. Gordon Melton. Anyone care to propose language for further discussion? Nowa (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The current consensus was reached through an RfC. If you want to try to test whether there's consensus for a revised version of the text, I suggest that really needs another RfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@CordlessLarry, that is a curious statement, please explain how you think we reached consensus on that?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I shouldn't have written "current consensus" - it's more a lack of consensus on inclusion of this element, as can be seen from reading the discussion at #RfC on Singapore court case. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we will need another RfC, but let's see what language, if any, someone else proposes. We can then take it from there. Nowa (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of the testimony of J. Gordon Melton or Tan Ooi Boon based on WP:NPOV in the lead to offer balance to Janja Lalich's view. Happy to collaborate on this. Psmidi (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The policies clearly state that there needs to be a neutral point of view, WP:NPOV. Even reading the Fringe Theory policies notes especially that controversial topics needs to be handled in a "neutral manner." It notes those topics should also be handled in "proportion to their prominence", WP:WEIGHT. It does not seem balanced to include the sentiment of "former members" (which numerically leads to a minority view) without any view from another side. In this case there is testimony from an expert witness describing the church as "not a cult." WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT all lead me to this conclusion. Based on WP:CONACHIEVE, I will wait for consensus before editing. XZealous (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The full quote from WP:NPOV is "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources" - not in proportion to the numerical balance of members. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My quoting was referring to the fringe theory policy that guides to not give certains aspects of a topic more weight than its prominence. A few members claiming something about an organization is not prominent enough to label that organizationas such. Therefore, it should be included in the article, but not given undue weight and spoken about with NPOV.

"Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."

Also, by the nature of things, organizations do not need to describe themselves as "not a cult" up until the point somebody calls them one. Therefore, there won't be any sources claiming the ICOC is not a cult up until these accusations came out. There are a few that claim this, and views that claim the opposite. For a balanced and neutral approach, both should be included. They should also be included with due weight within the page itself, being that this page is about an entire organization, not just an isolated part of an organization.

Also, are you saying that the article should or should not include the quote from J Gordon Melton? XZealous (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a few high-quality sources documenting the cult allegations though, including articles in quality newspapers and at least one academic book. That justifies inclusion. On the quote, I originally thought it was maybe worth including it in the article (not the lede) but SamuelRiv made a persuasive case against this in the RfC above. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What does a court case involving one ICOC church in Singapore have to do with the entirety of the ICOC? Just because some court in Singapore found that the Singapore ICOC church is not a cult does not mean that can apply to the whole organization. The ICOC isn't headquartered in Singapore. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I am reading the court found that the newspaper violated the Singapore church's rights when calling it a cult? The court wasn't ruling on whether or not the Singapore church is a cult or not? If Singapore law applies everywhere then let's bring back caning? You steal something you get beaten? Or your hand cut off? How does that make sense? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the heading of this section suggests that it's an RfC, but the RfC process hasn't been followed, so it's not listed as one. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thanks. Nowa (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Having reviewed the RfC process, I see that I've mislabeled this section. This is not a formal RfC and I don't think a formal RfC is appropriate at this time. I'll modify the section heading accordingly. Nowa (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

WP:RECENT

I know this is an essay and not a policy but how does this section in the lawsuits not go directly against the spirit of an encyclopedia which is supposed to capture content with “Enduring notability”?

“According to a report in Rolling Stone, the plaintiffs' "attorney says they plan to temporarily shelve federal RICO claims related to the alleged 'pyramid scheme' and to refile all of them — with an emphasis on the abuse claims — in state courts".”

- This is putting in content and events that haven’t even happened yet!! It is not only against RECENT, this is FUTURISTIC! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe the statement is appropriate since it is properly referenced. See WP:CRYSTAL:

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

Also, it looks like the follow up cases may have been filed. See Angeles Superior Court case lookup for cases:

Case Number: 23STCV24432

JANE ROE 4, ET AL. VS INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST, INC., ET AL.

Filing Courthouse: Pomona Courthouse South

Filing Date: 10/06/2023

Case Type: Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (e.g., assault, battery, vandalism, etc.) (General Jurisdiction)

Status: Pending

Related: 23STCV16423 on 10/23/2023

Related: 23STCV16430 on 10/23/2023

Related: 23STCV16423 on 11/15/2023

I haven't seen these cases covered in any wp:RS, so we will have to wait until if/when someone covers them before mentioning them in the article. Nowa (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nova, however you are confusing the Federal cases that are “going to be re-filed” with the state cases that have been filed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not quite sure what you are saying. The quote from Rolling Stone says that the intention is to shelve the federal claims and refile them in state courts, does it not? Nowa (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the court cases that you placed above are state cases not federal. WP is quite clear that content in an article should be “enduring in nature” and is WP:NOTNEWS. Placing content in an WP article, even if it is published in a RS, about a “possible future event”, can certainly be placed in a blog or gossip column but violates the purpose of an encyclopedia. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove entirely - The edits that have been recently added in an attempt to improve the Lead and Court Cases and Lawsuits sections of this article, despite the editors best intentions, have wandered away from WP policies pertaining to NPOV, LAWRS, SOURCES and RECENTISM. In my view, the paragraphs in both sections relating to recent news publications should be removed entirely and replaced with a more general and reliably sourced description of the existence of controversies involving the church. According to WP:LAWRS as elaborated upon by SamuelRiv elsewhere on this Talk page, “Editors cannot interpret anything in primary sources of law or court rulings beyond its plain text (not how they apply, not what they imply -- same goes with any WP:Primary source). A newspaper is not a RS on legal interpretation unless they have a specialist correspondent or expert commentator.” In the case of statements in the article about the church being a cult or covering up certain abuses, the sources cited are articles in the Los Angeles Times dated February 8, 2023 and the Guardian dated March 19, 2023 that reference pending federal court cases. Subsequently, these federal lawsuits were reported to be withdrawn by plaintiffs’ lawyers in a Rolling Stone article dated August 3, 2023 also cited as source. Continuing to rely on articles that are no longer accurate about pending lawsuits to support any inferences about the church surmised from those lawsuits is not reliable sourcing, even if the sources themselves are known to be reliable. “After a year (more or less), secondary sources tend to become less reliable or unreliable except as history.” WP:Identifying Reliable Sources (Law). This instance is a good example of why WP:RECENTISM urges editors to “aim to a long-term historical view,” rather than have an “imbalanced focus on recent events.” These recent paragraphs about the church are further flawed by citing and using legal interpretations from the Rolling Stone article when the magazine has no demonstrated expertise on legal journalism or the law. The listing of Perennial sources maintained by Wikipedia states, “[a]ccording to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 . . .” WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. Further, any reliance on references in the Rolling Stone article to state cases that were to be filed or their subsequent listing on a Los Angeles court docket could only be used to acknowledge the cases’ existence, not their content. I agree with Nowa that these cases should not be mentioned in the article.Meta Voyager (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. I reviewed the discussion that led to the characterization Rolling Stone as being unreliable for reporting of "politically and societally sensitive issues". See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_353#Rolling_Stone. The editors who commented make a strong case that the way Rolling Stone handled the story A Rape on Campus (amongst other things) makes them unreliable for stories of this type. And this is a story of that type. I would be in favor, therfore, of removing the citation to Rolling Stone and all content for which it is the only support (e.g., the plaintiff's attorney quote). Nowa (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Since we are committed to following Wikipedia policy, I agree with Meta Voyager and Nowa. Editaddict (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added the testimony and removed the Rolling Stone reference. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, the Rolling Stones reference was the only secondary reference I could find that said that the cases were terminated. I'd like to recommend, however, that we mention that the cases were "voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs" based on the court records. Otherwise readers will be left with the impression that the cases are still ongoing. Nowa (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nowa, I agree. That makes perfect sense. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that it makes most sense according to the policy to only add furthet information on these court cases as they happen. It is best to keep this page to what has happened rather than speculating on what will happen. If the court cases progress, there will then be reliable sources of information we can include. For the time being, this page should only report on events that have happened. That way we stick best to WP:NPOV

I think we should also keep in mind WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT as to not give the article too much focus on selected topics. XZealous (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at WP policies WP:NPOV, and especially WP:RECENTISM, I would tend to agree with @Meta Voyager detailed assessment and seeming consensus of @Nowa@XZealousand @JamieBrown2011 to remove any references to the current court cases until a verdict has been reached. Psmidi (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I believe the section International_Churches_of_Christ#Lawsuits_related_to_alleged_coverup_of_sexual_abuse should remain. The only question I was posing was whether or not we should use primary sources (i.e., court documents) to indicate that the cases have been closed. Nowa (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I see it, use of court documents would be contrary to WP:PSTS. We need secondary sources reporting on the court cases. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:PSTS. I think the relevant guidance is "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts..." Nowa (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. You don’t have to have a secondary or 3rd party source for absolutely everything. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Interpreting legal cases is one of those cases where you do require secondary sources, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If the secondary sources do not prevent a NPOV, this Wikipedia page would therefore not present a neutral view. @Cordless Larry, could you present what your conclusion on this? It seems that consesus has been reached on presenting a balanced and NPOV about the court cases and cult accusations in this page. XZealous (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question, XZealous. What do you mean by "the secondary sources do not prevent a NPOV"? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to say "If the secondary source does not present a NPOV." XZealous (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, writing from an NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If you don't think that the sources present a neutral view themselves, then you'd need to take it up with them, but NPOV doesn't mean that the sources have to be neutral. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think any legal interpretation is necessary to state something like "The cases have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by request of the plaintiffs and defendants". We would simply be making a "descriptive statement of facts" per WP:PRIMARY based on the court records.

Having said that, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. If we leave things as they are, a reader might be left with the impression that the cases are ongoing. That isn't completely false since similar cases have been recently filed in California state courts. On the other hand if we put in that the cases are closed based on the primary records, then an equal argument could be made that we should put in something about the new cases that have been opened, also based on primary records. The net effect is the same.

Absent a consensus, therefore, it looks like we will remain at status quo. Nowa (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it require interpretation to determine that these are the refiled cases though? They're cases involving ICOC, but don't we require secondary sourcing to link them to the original lawsuits? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It would, so we would not be able to say the state cases were refilings of the federal cases. Nowa (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My other concern is that if there's no secondary coverage of the cases, we have no indication that they're notable. I don't know how many court cases the ICOC has been involved in, but I presume there have been a few and it takes secondary coverage to determine which are notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. We don't have any indication that the state filings are notable. Nowa (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree, there are 4 or maybe 5 state cases in total, all in California and nearly 800 ICOC churches worldwide. Including these state court cases for a church in over 150 nations is WP:UNDUE.

- I also think there is far too much detail given to the Singapore case WP:WEIGHT. A brief mention with the outcome is all that is needed.

- Finally, if we choose to keep the “cult” allegations that @CorlessLarry seems determined to keep in the article, then the two WP:RS we have disagreeing with that claim should be included as well. 1. The Christian Chronicle reports that the church of Christ apologized for using the term “cult” in describing the ICOC. 2. In the Straight Times article it is mentioned that an expert witness testified that the church was not a cult JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Christian Chronicle doesn't appear to be an independent source. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you think it is? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it describes itself as an international newspaper for Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a separate group from the International Churches of Christ. They have their own Wikipage if you would like to go read up on them. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

They have common origins though, no? Churches of Christ#Separation of the International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think the separation occurred about 30 or 40 years ago. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I've asked for input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Christian Chronicle on the International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

👍 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How can a current online encyclopedia be constantly updated if no current information is added? If the ICOC shut down operations tomorrow would that not be noteworthy? But it's recent news? So it can't be added to the article? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoa. I just did a simple Google search and about 30 results came up talking about the ICOC being a cult. Red flag? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "racially integrated" worth mentioning in the article?

The first sentence in the lede emphasizes that ICOC congregations are "racially integrated". No doubt that is true, but is that worth mentioning? None of the references cited make a point about racial integration being a distinguishing feature of the organization. If we can remove it, then we can clean up the last "third-party source needed" tag. Nowa (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless a secondary source makes clear that this is an unusual or notable feature, it's not justified to include it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So that is a unique feature, most churches are very much divided into black churches or white churches or Asian. There was an article by the Barna research group that described this racial divide in many mainstream churches, which I can try and find. But it is a longstanding part of the page and according to WP:ABOUTSELF is usable. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to WP:ABOUTSELF. I did a little more digging and it looks like in 2020, in response to pandemic related racial tensions, the leadership of the US and Canadian ICOC churches initiated a program called "Social, Cultural, Unity and Diversity" (aka SCUAD). This is an ongoing effort providing multiple resources and programs to address racial issues. It has its own web site. I haven't found any secondary references (yet) that talk about this effort, but I don't think that precludes using primary sources per WP:ABOUTSELF for a modest mention in the article. Once that is done, it may inform whether or not "racially integrated" is the right phrase in the lede and whether or not a secondary source is needed. Nowa (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I found some RS related to racial integration and added a short section to the article. Nowa (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Are not a lot of churches racially integrated? A lot of the churches in Kentucky seem to be racially integrated meaning that they have Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, and other races as members. My Uncle Howard was a member of a church in Hopkinsville that had all races. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we remove {{Third-party|date=September 2023}}?

Several additional third party sources have been added since the {{Third-party|date=September 2023}} was added. Should we remove this tag now? Nowa (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I still see a lot of sources associated with the subject in the reference list. Many of these are now cited alongside independent sources (thanks for your efforts, Nowa) but I'd want to do a proper check through to find any instances where material is still cited to a non-independent source alone before I supported removal of the template. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)