Talk:Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Origins in PCUSA, not PCUS

The PCUSA did exist at the time of the founding of the OPC. The OPC did not split from the Southern church, but from the Northern. That body had the PCUSA name from its founding until 1958, when it merged with the United Presbyterian Church in North America, forming the United Presbyterian Church (USA). This same body merged with the Southern church (PCUS) in 1983, at which time the united church reclaimed its original and historic name, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just edited the box on the OPC and changed "separated from" from PCUS to PCUSA, and I was going to explain myself on the talk pages, but find I've been beaten to the punch. For those who are interested, allow me to cut and paste a discussion I had on a different page:

Coming out of the 19th century, American Presbyterians were split between Northern Presbyterians - known as the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) - and the Southern Presbyterians - known as the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). There were also other smaller Presbyterian denominations which had separated from the two big Presbyterian denominations for various reasons.

In 1936, conservatives left the PCUSA to form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

In 1958, the PCUSA merged with the smaller United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA) to form the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA)

In 1973, conservativs left the PCUS to found the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

The UPCUSA merged with the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) in 1983, and the new denomination took the old name of Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).

Adam_sk 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifics?

Can anyone elaborate on the specific issues that caused the OPC to split off? The description here is vague (emphasis mine): "In 1929, the Board of the seminary reorganized along more liberal lines, and began hiring professors who were significantly more friendly towards modernism and some forms of liberalism... Machen and a group of other conservatives objected to these changes ... Then, objecting to theological positions that he believed compromised the distinctives of the Reformed tradition, if not the basic tenets of Christianity itself, Machen pled his case before the General Assembly of the PCUSA..." I only have my early-21st century knowledge of what these terms mean, which may or may not be helpful in the context of an early-20th-century debate within a specific denomination. Later there are more specifics given (e.g., alcohol) but I'd love more. --Jfruh 02:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Find out what you can about the Auburn Affirmation, and the history of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions prior to its attachment to the Bible Presbyterian Church. Learn about the controversy that surrounded the anti-proselytizing movement in PCUSA foreign mission - the writings of Pearl S. Buck. Machen's book, Christianity and Liberalism is important (it's online at http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/ and http://ccel.org/m/machen/liberalism/ ). The books listed in this article are the best explanation; but these issues pretty much sum up the crisis. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I grew up the OPC, and I've heard from several people that the final straw before the OPC split off was a PCUSA resolution to acknowledge that the virgin birth story might be allegorical/illiteral. But I have no source.

The article on the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy goes into the events surrounding the formation of the OPC at great length.

Adam_sk 04:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Need Membership Data

Can someone post how many current members and churches the OPC has in North America and throughout the world? I am unable to find this data to post, unfortunately. Scunning 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for expansion of this article

I would like to see this article expanded considerably in many ways I find it insufficent. However as I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I am reluctant to edit this article myself, as I have obvious biases. --24.213.155.165

It's fine that you're an OPC member. Go ahead and make your revisions, but try to make them neutral in accord with WP:POV. If they aren't neutral enough, they can be fixed (or at worst, reverted). --Flex 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the OPC

It would be helpful if someone could summarise the theological issues raised in Paul Elliot's book, which has been described in various places online such as [1]. DFH 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though I would suggest multiple sources should be used. The Trinity Foundation is very strict (too strict, IMHO) in what it defines as orthodoxy, and I don't think their publications should be the sole basis for a section on the current state of the OPC. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objections for multiple sources to be used. I cited the Trinity Foundation only as an instance which brought the matter to my attention. btw. I reside in England, and have no involvement with the OPC. DFH 18:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive OR

A large violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV has been inserted, and then re-inserted after being removed. It represents a lot of effort, but if there's any sourcing for the arguments, I fail to see it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed... I pass no judgement on the truth or untruth of the added material (I don't know enough to do so)... but, true or not, we can't include it unless someone can provide reliable sources to support it. That is fundamental policy here on Wikipedia (see our WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies for more). Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. This is not original research. The OPC calls itself a largely white and conservative denomination. It has published a report stating the former, and it seems that all of their political statements clearly support the latter statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.170 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Racial Demographics

Section currently Reads;

Nevertheless, decades after the report was released the OPC remains an overwhelmingly white denomination. The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the
reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA is no longer persuasive considering the fact that the OPC has now been a distinct denomination for over 80 years (and the
American Civil War ended almost 150 years ago). There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies, which reflects the
fact that there are very few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination. And in many (if not most) of the
previous meetings of the General Assembly, only whites were present as delegates.

The Source does not support this in any way and I think it therefore violates WP:OR, I will remove it now and hope to see a discussion of its inclusion here before it is reverted. SPACKlick (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Reply:

Then feel free to challenge it. But you are not free to delete this whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeated reversions claiming there is no reason to delete do not change the point that

• Adding unsourced material to articles is vandalism
• Making claims not made by the sources, even if you feel they can be calculated from the sources, is Original Research and thus breaches WP Policy
• The way this process should work is An Edit is Made, That edited is reverted as controversial, The controversy is discussed on the talk page You have failed to get to step three and are engaging in an edit war Explicitly forbidden by wikipedia.

I have justified my removal of your content, none of your sources make the claims you are making in this article. Not one of them says there is no census, not one of them discusses racial demography of the OPC. Until you have those sources, the content cannot stay in the article.SPACKlick (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply:

There are no violations in this. I have changed the wording to make it conform 100% to Wikipedia rules. One is allowed to make such statements on Wikipedia so long as they insert appropriate language (i.e. "suggests"). The photo that I linked clearly shows a denomination that is almost entirely white.

If you will to challenge or rewrite a section, please do so. But you are not free simply to continue to delete it whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There are violations of the original research policy, I am challenging the inclusion of any of the material until sources can be provided. Until the material is sourced it should not be in the article. I'm looking to see if I can find sources for your claims, but I can't find any. If you have sources, please provide them, until that point it cannot remain.

As for the photo clearly suggesting something, you cannot determine race of the involved parties from that photo, merely their external pigmentation. And not clearly for several of them, but even if you COULD determine it, that still wouldn't be enough for your claim. You need to find a source that makes the claim. You are misunderstanding wikipedia policies.SPACKlick (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply:

This simply isn't true. You are not "challenging" this information. You are deleting this. You can insert a link asking for additional citations. But for instance, you have deleted the first paragraph of the political section, despite the fact that it is just a lead in to the next paragraph, which is much larger and contains all of the support.

Again, feel free to rewrite or improve sections. But you are not free to delete this whole cloth. This is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional Reply:

The paragraph you quoted earlier has been rewritten. You could have rewritten it yourself instead of deleting it. Feel free to make similar changes to other paragraphs or sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

One (More) Additional Reply to SPACKlick:

You have been warned by Wikipedia before for doing this exact same thing. It seems that you have a history of wrongly deleting valid information and engaging in edit wars. For instance, earlier this month Wikipedia told you the following:

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Marriage penalty. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

Please stop doing the same thing to this page. There are ways to edit and improve pages without vandalizing them. You have started an edit war. I am not an edit warrior. I am interested in working with anyone to find ways to improve this page. But deleting things just because you don't like them will not be tolerated. 78.31.47.43 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Issue a Marriage Penalty was resolved Amicably by an Editor discussing his edits reasonably on a talk page, we were both warned for edit warring, it is true. But note you are equally guilty of edit warring in this case.

Let's look at the disputed sections;

No one has never conducted a census to determine the racial, political, or economic compositions of the denomination. Nevertheless, there is much evidence that the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church is an overwhelmingly white and politically conservative denomination:

There is no source for either of these two claims. Until one is provided it is vandalism to put it back into the article.

The racial composition of delegates to recent OPC General Assemblies suggests that the OPC remains an overwhelmingly white denomination decades after the official report
was released. There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies, which reflects the fact that there are very few non-whites
in leadership positions in the denomination.[2]

This constitutes Original Research as you are interpreting the picture and is again, against Wikipedia policies. You are not only interpreting the races of the people in the picture but then drawing a conclusion from that interpretation.

The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA has not been updated since the 1970s, even though the OPC has now
been a distinct denomination for over 80 years and the American Civil War ended almost 150 years ago.

Ignoring the poor writing of referring to "the report" which hasn't been the subject of a sentence this paragraph, this also makes an interpretation not found in any source.

There is no evidence that any Orthodox Presbyterian minister or elder played any role whatsoever in advancing any liberal or progressive cause, such as the civil rights
movement of the 1950s and 1960s or equal pay legislation. Historically, the OPC has only made political statements that have coincided with right wing policies, such as
opposition to homosexuals serving their country, women serving in combat roles, the status of undocumented workers, opposition to the Department of Education, and the
anti-abortion movement.

You cannot claim there is no evidence just because you don't have any, you would need to find a source that makes the claim.

So despite the fact that the OPC has never surveyed its members to determine political demographics, the vast majority of OPC members can be described as either conservative,
Republican, libertarian, or even theonomic.

No problem with the main of this sentence but the first clause is Also original research, and should be removed. I've edited this content several times to reflect that and you've reverted every time, please justify the inclusion of the above questioned pieces of content before adding them back into the article.SPACKlick (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the only instance in which people have complained that you are vandalizing their pages. If you want to ask for citations on the page itself, go for it. There is an easy function to do this. But you are subverting the normal editing process via your deletions.78.31.47.43 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are free to ask for additional citations and change the wording of certain sentences. This is part of the normal edit process. I have already made some changes based on your comments above. But you are not engaging in the normal edit process. You are engaging in an edit war and vandalism.

It is remarkable that you have such problems with this section, but not with others in this article. You seem to have other motivations here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Standard process is Bold, Revert, Discuss You are failing to follow it by re-adding material you have been shown is against policy. Adding unsourced material to Wikipedia is vandalism. An Editor has no onus to fix everything on a page, these are the edits I saw, reviewed, researched, found to be unsourced and removed. You have yet to provide sources for any of the claims. Please cease edit warring and either

• Provide sources for your claims so they can be added to the article
• Stop putting unsourced claims in the article.

You have been asked several times to provide sources, both in edit comments and on this page. You have failed to do so, therefore you are adding material that violates policy to pages. I will be adding Citation needed tags to all the material and if it doesn't have sources soon will remove again.SPACKlick (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been warned several times. I have now reported you for vandalism and engaging in an edit war. You have violated the bold part of the BRD process. Wikipedia has already labelled this page a "start class." But it can't be improved unless you stop deleting things for no good reason. Feel free to change the language without deleting whole ideas, or to add a "citation needed" link when you think something needs to be better supported. But you should not feel free to continue to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There you go. Welcome to the world of responsible editing. Now, let's get down to brass tacts:

Re: the second paragraph of the race sectionL The first sentence is an introduction which leads into the second. You need to delete your objections there and focus them on the second sentence. The photo certainly shows that the overwhelming majority of OPC GA delegates are white. I cannot agree with your objection to this. The denomination has published a photo of leaders that contains less than 1% non-white people. The GA is a representative body, drawing ministers and elders from presbyteries all over the country. Therefore, this is not a controversial statement. But perhaps you can help me construct a sentence that can clarify this. I will wait 15 minutes for you to respond, and then I will move the link to the photo from the end of the sentence to right after the comma.

Sound good?78.31.47.43 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As for your issue with citation #11, I cited the OPC webpage that lists all of their official reports. Clearly, the race report has not been updated since 1974. Again, I will give you 15 minutes to delete or clarify your objection, and then I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As for your issue with the lead in paragraph, I provide the evidence in the next two sections. I will be deleting your "citation needed" objection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The below was drafted before your previous three edits but I think needed to be said.

I haven't violated Bold, you were bold, I was revert. You'll note since your last warning I haven't reverted, instead following your suggestion (which makes the article less encyclopedic) to add , and Template:Failed verifiability tags. Also worth noting, as per WP:Vandalism;

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.
Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial,
detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

I have been attempting to improve this article by removing unsourced content I could not find sources to support. By definition, not vandalism. You however have been adding original research to the article repeatedly without providing sources when asked on the talk page and in edit summaries. You have also claimed I have an agenda andmade other claims aout me in violation of WP:PA. Please find your sources. Unless they are found, as per WP Policies I will be removing the article content which is unsourced

In response to your last three edits. 1) No need to be condescending, you are not editing following WP Policies. 2) It's Brass Tacks not Brass Tacts but the edits

First Sentence Second Paragraph of Racial. Claims that something is suggested but not to whom it suggest. Violates WP policy. Also makes an unsourced claim about the demographic make up of OPC without a source making that claim.

The Photo does not certainly show anything, to claim that is to INTERPRET it making the claim [WP:OR]] which is not allowed in articles. Please find a Reliable Source making the claim about the demographics of OPC. They have a published photo, it may not contain all of the leaders and the photo doesn't tell you the race of the individuals within it. You are interpreting it, I cannot be any clearer. Also 15 minutes is excessively quick to expect a response on Wikipedia.I'm not interested at this point in constructing a sentence as nothing in the paragraph is sourced to a reliable source. Find a source, I'll help construct a sentence, without a source it's WP:OR and should be deleted.

The page lists some reports, it doesn't claim it's all the reports, it doesn't claim that there isn't an updated report somewhere, you're making an interpretation. Please read WP:OR and WP:NOR

As for the Citaion needed you're deleting, I don't know what you mean by lead in paragraph. Could you clarify? SPACKlick (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show me how ANYONE could reasonably see a single black person in that photo. This is not a controversial or unsupported statement. There are only two faces in that entire photo that *might* be considered non-white.

The page lists OPC GA reports. This is a reasonable statement. If you can find a single OPC GA report not listed on the website, I will be happy to remove that sentence.

Have you read the rest of this article?!?!?! There are whole sentences, paragraphs, and even sections WITHOUT A SINGLE CITATION!!!! Plenty of naive sentences and claims. So why are you focussing such undue attention here? I am glad that you have taken the first step towards becoming a responsible editor, but you need to focus on removing the huge planks in this article before what may or may not be tiny splinters in this one section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember no editor is obliged to fix any specific problem. Just because it's bad elsewhere doesn't mean you can add a little bad here.

with respect to the photo, you are missing the point that interpreting the photo constitutes WP:OR and therefore your conclusions cannot be included unless they are published. Inclusion on Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not on truth. If you believe that image counts as a Reliable source for the conclusion that the leadership of OPC is not demographically diverse, feel free to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and ask there but I'm confident you'll get the same response.

As for the reports, the page doesn't make the slaim you are making, you are interpreting the claim from the source. This means you haven't sourced the claim. You are misunderstanding the WP:NOR policy and should read it in full.

I will be re-adding the relevant citation tags to the article. Please do not remove them until there is either a consensus here or at the noticeboard that the sources provided are reliable or until you have a reliable source for the claims SPACKlick (talk) 16

12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not original research. You have already been reported for vandalism and starting an edit war. You have violated BRD on several occasions. I have already made countless revisions to satisfy your objections. This is now the best written and documented section in the entire article.

I have invited you to make reasonable changes to the language itself. Your previous response clearly shows that you have a bias here. If you continue to behave this way, you will likely be banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

AS I have said before, the language isn't, for the most part, the issue. It's the fact the the content is not sourced to another source that makes the claim. if reading policy on reliable sources and policy on original research hasn't shown you that the sources provided don't meet wikipedias criteria for good sources then I don't know how else to discuss this. I may suggest you read this article about citing things you feel are uncontroversial. Anyway, I've marked this discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to request assistance from a more experienced editor. SPACKlick (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is blatant vandalism. You are demanding a link that the denomination has existed for over 80 years and that the Civil War ended almost 150 years ago. You are editing in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very much NOT demanding that, you'll notice that neither of those claims has come up in this discussion, or had a Citation Needed tag added to it. I think it's unencyclopeidc language but I don't mind either way on that one. You however are refusing to find sources that make your claims. Did you read the article I linked?SPACKlick (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You did indeed demand that in a previous attempt. You are being ridiculously unreasonable. I have provided links to show that the OPC has not updated its race report since 1974. The report (which I linked to) concludes by saying the committee was dissolved. And I have provided proof of the GA as a body that represents OP leadership. You are not editing in good faith. I would like to spend time making this entire article better. There is zero support for entire paragraphs and sections. In contrast, the demographics sections I have added are very well supported. I have cooperated and made many changes, despite the fact that you were violating BRD. But you continue to seek to sabotage this section through new means. As a result, the main parts of this article continue to be in need of major help, while we waste time working through your bizarre objections. This is vandalism, and you need to stop.

In fact, your edits are even deleting one of the citations that I have added to satisfy your issue with the OPC being a representative body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)78.31.47.43, I hope you understand that edit warring isn't considered vandalism. Adding unsourced content, however, is, if the user has been warned about it. Both are a form of disruptive editing.

However, in this case it appears that you two are quarreling over unsourced content. According to the verifiability policy, it says:

Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

— Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy

Any sort of unsourced material may be removed, although in theory it's better off if you either 1. Tagged the unsourced content with the {{fact}} template or 2. Find a citation to support it. Google's your friend here.

Also, 78.31.47.43, your AIV report was declined. K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You are deleting citations just so you can say a citation is needed!!! This is your last warning. If you continue to do this to this section, I will apply the exact same standard to the rest of the article, adding "citation need" throughout the entire thing. Is that really what you want, or do you want to be a bit more reasonable here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is as much sourcing in this section than in all of the other sections of the article COMBINED. Do you really want to vandalize the only decently written and supported section in the entire article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the "suggests" issue, I don't think this needs to be tagged. I realize that some don't like this section because it demonstrates realities that some people would rather not be broadcasted. But this sentence is very reasonable. The second clause is the logical consequence of the first clause, which is sufficiently sourced.

Regarding the census thing, the previous statement was fine. But I changed it to be beyond reproach. I think we can all leave it alone now. It seems like there was some bad blood between the two editors, but I can't see why there is a problem at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.203.242 (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I still have a problem with two of the inclusions in the racial and demographics section

Neither the OPC website and nor the website of the office of the OPC historian
indicates that a census has ever been conducted to determine the racial, political,
or economic composition of the denomination.

This doesn't seem to add anything, neither of those pages says they don't believe in dragons. It's a 1 sentence paragraph and the sentence is Stating a weird negative. I think it should be removed.

There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent
General Assemblies. Since the General Assembly is a representative body drawn from
ministers and elders throughout denomination, the fact that there are so few
minorities present at the General Assembly suggests that there are few non-whites
in leadership positions in the denomination.

My problems with this section are much the same as before

• There is no source for the racial profile of people pictured making a claim about their racial profile OR
• There is no source which suggests anything about the make-up of the assembly as a whole.
• There is no secondary source to suggest that issues of racial demography are notable wrt this denomination.

All in all, I'd rather find a secondary source for this issue but I have looked and can find nothing. Probably also needs to be removed wholesale.SPACKlick (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sections Containing Primarily or Entirely Unsourced Material

There seems to have been a lot of attention on the demographics section the last few days. This is a good thing, as the "racial" and "political" subsections now provide more citations than the rest of the sections in the article combine.

But there are still sections with absolutely no support whatsoever. I am not super familiar with this denomination. But maybe it is time for those who are to either delete or provide sources for the other sections.

As far as I can tell, the demographics, governance, and missions sections are pretty good. They can still be improved, but they are well supported.

The Ecumenical Relations Section needs considerable work. But it is better than the Notable Members (no support), doctrine (massive quote, possible plagiarism), schism & continuity (no support), Machen & The Departure from the PCUSA (no support), and Background (very little support) sections.

If you have knowledge of this denomination, I would suggest that the time has come to either delete these sections or source the material. Maybe we should agree to give it until Feb. 5th and then delete the material?31.6.58.43 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

“ Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. ”

What's the hurry? The oldest unsourced material tags, dated January 2004, more than 10 years ago, are still in the article about George Orwell's wife Eileen: Current version.

Except for certain kinds of claims about living people, which require immediate production of inline citations, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided.

— Template:Citation needed/doc
(underline added)

The When not to use this template section of {{Citation needed}} guidance specifies:

While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all (hit-and-run). ... This template is intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}.

— Template:Citation needed/doc#When not to use this template
(underline added)

As noted before, "WP:V does not require that citations be repeated through every sentence in a paragraph". What is the point in placing multiple Citation needed tags per sentence? That's just plain disruptive editing. 172.129.34.141 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

References

I think the issue is that several posters required multiple citations per sentence in the demographics sentence. These standards need to apply equally throughout the entire article. It is not acceptable to pick and choose which sections require extensive documentation. There are several paragraphs and sections without any sources whatsoever. This either needs to be corrected or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.212 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't drive by tagging. The editor explained his or her reasons in talk, and gave a reasonable date to correct this information by. It is time for people to stop trying to protect certain sections but not others. The same standards need to be applied throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.24.61 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a valid concern. If one section needs multiple citations per sentence, then all sections do. It is not acceptable to have entire sections and paragraphs without any citations whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.130.175 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the content of this article, no, it is never appropriate to insert all of those cn tags in one sentence, in this article or any other. It's being disruptive to prove a point. A point which likely needs to be made, but that's not how; we've got a perfectly workable unreferenced section tag which says all that needs to be said about long pieces of unreferenced, unsourced data. That being said, it's certainly not a valid argument to say "well unsourced stuff has been sitting in article XYZ for years so it's acceptable if I add unsourced stuff to this article". No, that's not OK at all; the way to fix a problem (insufficiently sourced material on Wikipedia) is not to add more insufficiently sourced material on Wikipedia. Nothing whatsoever should be added to Wikipedia unless it can be reliably sourced. That's what WP:V and WP:RS say. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Finding sources

Here are some useful search links to help you all find cite-sources

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Users unable to edit the page while it is semi-protected may include the {{edit semi-protected}} template in an edit request. Please be sure that consensus concerns are addressed first. Thank you.

Doctrine

The citation for the doctrine section is not correct. The link does not support the material. There is a big quote that needs to be paraphrased. But more importantly, it is unclear where the quote comes from (as the citation is not correct). Could someone who is more familiar with the OPC's doctrine fix it? Mg3942 (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mg3942: That entire section was verified 2 February 2014. The official doctrine cannot be changed or paraphrased by anyone except an official of OPC. The link is correct. There are 3 electronic formats of the booklet to choose from on that page. The PDF version is what I used to verify the article section. Look in PDF at Part II, section 1 for the article's first paragraph and section 2 for the doctrine part. The information is both cited and attributed, so it is not plagiarism as was suggested on Mattythewhite's talk page. Happy editing. ...172.129.34.141 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As a first step, could you change the link to go straight to the pdf then? As it currently stands, the link is incorrect. But if you switch it to the pdf, then the attribution would be right. Also, I don't believe the .pdf speaks of the OPC using the American revisions of the WCF. Could you please find an appropriate link for that?

Finally, I think you are mistaken about summarizing quotes. There have been lots of things written about the OPC by non-OPC oficials. Whenever possible, it is best to have third-party independent summaries of the OPC's doctrine. Check out Wikipedia's policy. I have quoted directly from some important sections of Wikipedia's official policy below:

Quotations are a good tool to comply with the no original research policy but must be used with care.

Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence). Wikipedia policy for proper attribution of quotes is found in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other guidelines are found in WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time, however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE). . . .

While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit. Mg3942 (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)