Talk:Calvary Chapel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Calvary Chapel:
  • Expand the section on the Holy Spirit.
  • Add subsections to "ministries". Ideas include Word for Today, missions, and Maranatha!.
  • Re-wikilink the article.
  • Add Books section on Calvary Chapel History.
  • should include a link to more information about Maranatha!Music
Priority 4

Lack of third party sourcing[edit]

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[edit]

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)

BlueMoonlet's edits[edit]

  • 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 ([1][2][3]). 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: ([4][5][6]). 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[edit]

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

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

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)

Fallen Clergy[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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}}).

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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