Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)XZealous 9:26, 2 May 2024

Discussion

This should be addressed, but discussed with caution and care noting the subject matter and the inclusion of living persons (WP:BLP)

Noting WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:BALASP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RECENT, is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached?

The people named in these court cases are “low-profile individuals (WP:LPI) in which "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.” (WP:BLPCRIME)

Not that it is always a bad idea, but it should also be discussed if the paragraph on the court cases is “actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time.” (WP:RECENT).

Note that these are 4 cases in the state of California. This brings up WP:BALASP in consideration of its significance in relation to the ICOC as a whole.

In order to be careful with low profile living individuals, I propose that it will only be appropriate to include information on these cases if/once a conviction is reached. It will then become clear what, if anything, will be appropriate for this ICOC article.

Due to the sensitive and controversial nature of this specific paragraph, I look forward to careful, constructive, and respectful input. XZealous (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This might be my lack of understanding of US law, but I didn't think lawsuits resulted in convictions? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You may be right. I took the quote the from WP:BLPCRIME page. There may, however, be a more legally correct term. XZealous (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. A civil case can potentially result in a finding of liability, not a conviction, and the standard used is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! XZealous (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add that most civil cases are settled, so there may never be any sort of ruling by the court. Nowa (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot), if the court case has sufficient sourcing then it should be covered in the article. However if the individuals have a low profile, I'd steer away from naming them at all in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I concur with this answer of yes. So long as court documents are public, and there are sufficient sources, it is entirely appropriate. If the individuals are defendants, I would certainly avoid using names until a court has assed liability. If the individuals are plaintiffs, I would never use their names unless one becomes a notable individual. In both cases, for the time being, I would use generic descriptors is needed like "former congregants," "former staff," "former pastors," etc. if that context is necessary. LoneOmega (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Note there is some question about whether the individuals in the court cases are indeed "low profile" individuals or not. However for the purposes of the question as asked I'd state that we should steer away from naming low profile individuals. TarnishedPath^talk 00:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment XZealous, an RfC should only take place after a matter has already been discussed to a reasonable extent, and that discussion has reached an impasse and failed to achieve consensus. If such discussion has taken place, I sure can't find it, so could you include a pointer to it so that those commenting on the RfC can also read through it and see what points were raised there? If that hasn't happened yet, then this RfC is premature, and needs to be closed in favor of just trying a regular discussion first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  There have been ongoing attempts by editors with COIs to have material perceived as critical of the ICOC removed from the article, of which this appears to be the latest attempt. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry I would advise to follow WP:GF. If you have doubts about my behavior/editing here you can "substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence." My goal is not and has not been to remove "material perceived as critical of the ICOC." I have tried my best to suggest edits according to and citing policies.

  I have noted that you put me on the COI notice board for removing the tag on the belief section. However, the previous RfC (posted after my removal of the tag) has concluded my action to be appropriate. Feel free to discuss any further concerns about my behavior/editing on my talk page.

  I will also WP:DGF in listening to and understand that you also are aiming to improve this article by discussing and following policy. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, which RfC has confirmed that you were correct to remove the third-party sources tag? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  "This RfC has received open comment and discussion for more than 10 days and appears to have achieved a majority view on acceptable uses of About Self sourcing on the beliefs section of a religious organization's article under certain circumstances." XZealous (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're citing Meta Voyager's assessment of their own RfC as demonstrating consensus for removal of a template that the RfC wasn't even about! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry yes, agreed that's some odd reasoning. TarnishedPath^talk 13:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  That was a completely inappropriate close, and I've reversed it. Meta Voyager, editors involved in a discussion cannot decide to "end" that discussion. In the case of something like an RfC, you may ask (for example at requests for closure) that an uninvolved editor close and summarize the discussion once it has run long enough; in the case of an RfC that's 30 days, not 10. Please ensure not to do anything like that again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I take issue with your characterization of my actions as "a completely inappropriate close." According to WP:RfC, keeping the discussion open for 30 days after which it will be ended by removal by Legobot is one option. Seeking a Wikipedia:Closure request is another option, but I found the requests for uninvolved editors to be currently backlogged and, frankly, discouraged. A third option is to manually end the discussion if one of the reasons to end RfCs applies. I chose to manually end the discussion without a closing summary based upon my belief that the discussion had run its course, an "undoubtedly clear" consensus written by either an uninvolved or involved editor was unlikely and one editor suggested that a closing summary by an involved editor was inappropriate. I announced my intention to manually end the discussion and did so a few hours later. I also note that WP:RfC provides for a RfC discussion to be extended which is what you have appeared to have done, so I have no objection. Do you still see it the same way? Meta Voyager (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. It's okay if the RfC just comes to a natural end if all the participants agree that it has or it just peters out, and not every RfC requires a formal close, but once Cordless Larry objected to you doing what you did, you don't do that. In that case, leave it open until someone uninvolved (and that, by the way, is a "you get who you get", not someone of your choice) closes it, or until the discussion just ends on its own accord. But someone involved should not shut down the discussion if anyone involved in that discussion objects to them doing so. Generally speaking, if anyone at all involved in the discussion objects to it being closed or summarized by someone else involved, that should not happen. And the discussion had not clearly reached a natural end—the last comment in it was made just a couple of hours before you did your close, and it's entirely possible people might have liked to respond to that or say more. You don't just get to decide "Well, that's enough here then" and unilaterally shut it down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade, please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs. RFCs are not required to stay open until the bot's 30-day limit. If the answer appears in 10 days, then editors should end the RFC after 10 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing the discussion hadn't run its course. TarnishedPath^talk 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  His statement contained an error. My concern here is about preventing that misinformation from spreading. Most of our 'training' of editors is basically the telephone game: An admin says something, and less-experienced editors believe that the statement is an accurate representation of The Rules™. Almost Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so if none of us correct these errors when they appear, then the fake rule will get repeated, in total trust, until "everybody knows" the fake rule, and nobody knows the real ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry, I initially removed your sourcing tag because I knew that it was fine for the Belief section to use the sources that it already had, it did not need your tag stating "This section may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject,"

  @Meta Voyager's RfC was about this very topic. Can the belief section use WP:ABOUTSELF for its sourcing? The consensus (I now see that the Rfc has been re-opened for further discussion) was that ABOUTSELF is fine for that section. Therefore, your tag is not necessary. XZealous (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC didn't ask specifically about this article though but rather about religious organisations in general, which is why responses included things like "For most major religions, this should be fine, but..." and "But for what I see in the article, no because it is not those things". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Both of the responses you quoted were not from replies that had issues with the sourcing themselves. The issue was with the application of the sources. @Licks-rocks was mentioning about organizations with high discrepancy between internal and external claims which might need more than just primary sourcing. And @North8000's issue was with the wording of the belief section, not just the source used. They later stated they was fine with the sourcing as long as the wording of the section was cleaned up.

  I actually didn't notice that the RfC wasn't about this article. I assumed it was because it was posted on this talk page. I'm not sure how much of a difference the same RfC would make if it was restated to be about this page, as most of the answers were still helpful XZealous (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please avoid quoting me to defend using primary sources where better sources are available. I listed one scenario where the use of primary sources can lead to problems, as an example for why you shouldn't. See also above. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Im sorry if it seemed I misquoted you. I wasn't using you to defend the use of Primary sourcing. I was noting your comment on high control organizations being an issue for using Primary sourcing, and how in those situations there should be more than just primary sourcing. I see you clarified your comment above, thanks for that! XZealous (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  @XZealous, that wasn't my reading of consensus. I certainly spoke about only using WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing when there was gaps in other sourcing and then only with care. Another editor agreed with me. I'd wait for a formal close before claiming to know what consensus is one way or another. Ps, I've called for a formal close at WP:CR. TarnishedPath^talk 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @XZealous, the RfC has now had a formal close from a non-invloved editor. You might want to see what they determined conssensus to be, because it is markedly different to what you stated. TarnishedPath^talk 02:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, since I've been (Summoned by bot), I might as well give my input, premature RfC or not. Yes, it's absolutely appropriate to have a section on an on-going lawsuit with non-public figures, just as long as their names aren't given. Lawsuits can take years, and are extremely important to the affected organizations/people. Omitting them just because they're delicate subjects that need to be treated with care would be negligent. Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Since there was already discussion on this topic in the above section entitled WP:RECENT, the point was made that there are 5 court cases all confined to the State of California. The ICOC is a church in over 150 nations of the world, with the majority of churches outside the US. Therefore the policy of WP:UNDUE would apply. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Well, as it seems like someone's saying that there was at least some prior discussion on this (though I can't find it), then as to the question itself: The article of course should include information about the lawsuit; it's clearly been noted as significant by reliable sources. If lower-profile individuals are involved in the court filings, they should not be mentioned by names, but it is fine to mention the name of church leaders and the like if the sources which discuss the matter do. I don't like having a "Controversies" section in articles and prefer that such material just be integrated in, but that's a question of article style. It certainly belongs in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  The "prior discussion" that is being referred to is in Talk Archive 9 Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_9#WP:RECENT The discussion was whether or not what the article says about the lawsuits should be updated based on primary sources (e.g. court records). The article currently discusses a set of related cases filed in US Federal Court. Court records indicate that these cases have been dismissed without prejudice at the request of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Court records have also indicated that a similar set of related cases have been subsequently filed in CA State Court. These cases are ongoing. The consensus at the time was not use any primary sources and wait until if/when RS provides an update. There was no discussion of "people who are not public figures". Nowa (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Nowa, you are right. The issue I remember you highlighting is whether a few cases in one US state are notable. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's not quite the issue I was highlighting. The issue was not the notability of the state cases, but whether or not we should update the article based on primary sources or wait until RS becomes available. Nowa (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The cases are notable because they've been covered in multiple high-quality independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless, just because it is in the news doesn't mean that 5 cases isolated to one US state should be used to describe 755 churches in 150+ nations in the world. If you had court cases in multiple nations, that would change the picture. WP:BALANCE states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The lawsuits implicate the founder of the ICOC, Kip McLean; they're not just about isolated parts of the organisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  McKean hasn't been a part of the ICOC for almost 20 years now, and he has his own page on Wikipedia if you wish to post over there. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• The way the question was worded, the answer is yes. It is appropriate to include a section about ongoing litigation, if it is WP:DUE and referenced and avoids the names of non-notables... etc. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Cunado, I think the argument is that it is not WP:DUE. The 5 cases are all filed in California and are limited in jurisdiction to that one state. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Since when has extent of jurisdiction mattered when evaluating due weight? On its face that appears to be absurd Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back agreed. If there is extensive reporting in RS then there's extensive reporting in RS. TarnishedPath^talk 16:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  “Since when has extent of jurisdiction mattered when evaluating due weight? On its face that appears to be absurd”.

  Great question… I would say since your fellow Administrator said this:

  “A single defamation case in Singapore (and we still don't have a source stating that the church was part of ICOC) doesn't merit inclusion in the lede to my mind. CordlessLarry 5th Jan”

  “WP:WEIGHT requires us to give due weight to the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources. The Singapore case largely received local attention, @CordlessLarry 17th January”

  Feel free to read all the arguments in their full context on the section above regarding the Singapore court case. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Singapore case received mostly local attention (and is still covered in the article), whereas the LA lawsuits have received international press coverage. It feels very much like you and other COI editors are grasping around for a policy rationale to justify the outcome that you desire because of your association with the ICOC. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Per Larry's comment you're grasping at straws with your argument. We go with the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources. You bringing up questions of jurisdiction is a frivolous and transparent attempt to muddy the water. It's obvious you are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY because you have a WP:COI as disclosed here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for acknowledging that I have self disclosed that I am a member of the church. It is interesting that you would choose that attacking the messenger is your best form of argument. I answered the question I was asked about jurisdiction by quoting an administrators statements made on this very Talk page… Can we get away from personal attacks and return to the purpose of this RFC?

  - On that note, the court cases mentioned in the sources that are referenced in the LEDE are dated 19th of March 2023 for the Guardian and 28th of February for the LA Times. The cases mentioned in those articles have all been dismissed by judge Otis D Wright II on the 14th of July 2023. If we do not have a reliable source dated after July 2023 describing the state cases, may I ask why is this included in the page? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused. Are you saying that the state cases are mentioned in the article? Where? Nowa (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm glad to see this topic resurfacing in this thread. The prior cases that were reported on in the cited news articles and that have been relied upon as secondary sourcing for the Legal Issues section of the article were published in early 2023. If the prior editor is correct, those federal cases were dismissed on July 14, 2023. Thus, the prior news articles are outdated and can not serve as secondary sourcing for any subsequent cases are refiled. A series of 4 state cases appear to have been filed in California beginning on July 13, 2023 based on Los Angeles court records. No matter your view on this RfC, the current state cases do not appear to be appropriately sourced with secondary sources and any interpretation of the content of these cases such as has been done under the section entitled "Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse" would be premature and prohibited by WP:NOR. According to WP:LAWRS as elaborated upon by SamuelRiv elsewhere on this Talk page, “Editors cannot interpret anything in primary sources of law or court rulings beyond its plain text (not how they apply, not what they imply -- same goes with any WP:Primary source). A newspaper is not a RS on legal interpretation unless they have a specialist correspondent or expert commentator." Meta Voyager (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  When you say "interpretation of the content of these cases ", are you referring to the federal cases or the state cases? Nowa (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Based upon WP:LAWRS, interpreting legal court decisions should be left to legal experts. Briefs or legal memorandum are "probably a primary source and should be considered as advocacy for one adversary for which balance from an opposing party is needed and even the balance is often insufficient. While they may quote reliable sources, they are not reliable regarding those other sources, because the quoting is itself a form of one-sided advocacy." Based on this guidance, my view is that interpreting the pleadings from either the federal or state cases is not appropriate and does not constitute RS for purposes of supporting the paragraph in question. Meta Voyager (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  We're not interpreting legal findings. We're relying on the LA Times and Guardian, which are reliable sources, reporting on the lawsuits. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Right, I just want to be sure that you are not saying that the state cases are currently described in the article. If you do feel they are described, please show where. Nowa (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  We can only update the material if we have reliable sources. Even if the lawsuits failed, it would still be appropriate to cover them in the article because they've been covered in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I’m making a point about the lack of reliable sourcing in the cited articles on legal matters based on Wikipedia policy. The authors referenced in the LA Times and Guardian articles do not have special expertise on legal matters. Authors of the LA Times article are Ngai Yeung, a healthcare tech reporter with recent degrees in Journalism and Political Economy and Samantha Moscow, a multimedia journalist with degrees in Journalism and Political Science. Natalia Borecka who authored the Guardian article is a freelance journalist and photographer based in San Francisco with degrees in English Literature and Journalism. Neither are qualified to interpret legal matters. If you feel it’s important to broadly acknowledge that there have been lawsuits, that’s one thing, but to say anything further about what they imply based upon these sources is not RS. The current paragraph under the heading on "Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse" should be deleted from the article. Meta Voyager (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which part of the current article do you feel is a legal interpretation? Can you point to a specific sentence? Nowa (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for seeking clarity on my prior comments. I hope the following information is helpful. Whoever authored the paragraph in the Legal Issues section of the article under the heading, “Lawsuits related to alleged coverup of sexual abuse” makes statements throughout about what is contained in the complaints that were filed by plaintiffs in the referenced federal lawsuits. The entire heading to the paragraph and the paragraph itself are a legal interpretation that is not supported by RS. These interpretations are about allegations in the initial complaints of lawsuits that were never tested in a court of law before the lawsuits were withdrawn. The paragraph's author(s) apparently rely on two news articles written by three journalists who do not appear to be legal experts and who are not according to WP:LAWRS reliable sources. Every allegation in a complaint is rightfully subjected to interpretation by the judge and jury in the lawsuit after considering relevant responsive pleadings and evidence. That's what happened in the Singapore lawsuit that is also reported in the Legal Issues section where the findings of a final judgment by the court were reported by a RS. However, Wikipedia policy makes it clear that it is not up to editors or journalists without special legal expertise to include in the Wikipedia encyclopedia their interpretations on legal matters. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarifying note.

  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) is a Wikipedia:Essays, not a Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If it's helpful, great, if not, then we are not bound by it.

  The essay has suggestions to help editors evaluate "books about laws and articles about laws" that might be suitable RS for a Wikipedia article that talked about a law.

  But the current article isn't about a law. It is simply summarizing what RS newspapers say about the status of particular cases. Citing RS news sources about the status of particular cases is common practice in Wikipedia. Take a look at any article about an ongoing case and you will see how other editors are doing this. Nowa (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I understand that essays are not binding, but this particular essay highlights the special care given to editing and sourcing on legal matters. The essay also encompasses court decisions. In any event, I appreciate the interest that you've taken in editing this article. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not only is it an essay, but WP:LAWRS defines the scope of the essay in the very first sentence, "Law sources such as books about laws and articles about laws in magazines and academic journals may be reliable sources". Clearly it is not meant to cover WP:RS which are news articles about court cases. Please give up your attempts at WP:WIKILAWYERING. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your additional advice. I urge you to consider the second sentence in the WP:LAWRS essay that says, "Whether a law source is reliable or not needs to be assessed separately for each source" and the entire section on News Media and Broadcasts that includes the sentence, "Reliability varies between general media and legal media, the latter probably being more reliable on average." Nonetheless, I take your point and appreciate the willingness of those on this talk page to consider a differing viewpoint on a given issue. Meta Voyager (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  In relation to the last snippet you quoted, there is a follow on putting it contect "When time has passed and more stable sources have been published, generally the latter should be used instead of older news media". We need to bear in mind that academic journals in the field of law or professional magazines are not going to cover every court case that occurs, especially not ones which might be dismissed because of settlement of some sort or other. To try and suggest that just because the reliable sources used in the article are not academind journals or professoinal magazines in the field of law that they all of sudden become not reliable sources is bizarre in the extreme and not in keeping with actual Wikipedia policy found at WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes If there is sufficient reliable sources about the law suit and it is sourced what the suit is about and it is relevant to COC, then it would be appropriate to include the law suits in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. Could you guide me to the policy that led you to this conclusion? Thanks! XZealous (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for all that have put your input so far! Some have said that it is fine to keep the lawsuits in as long as the non public figures are not named. What policy does that come from? I see in WP:BLPCRIME that "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”

Would appreciate further input on this, thanks! XZealous (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PUBLICFIGURE Nowa (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. That policy is regarding public figures. The lawsuits involve (as far as I am aware), non public figures. XZealous (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there any non public figures mentioned in the article? Nowa (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the cases they are not mentioned by name (depending on how public you view Kip Mckean to be). In my reading of WP:BLPCRIME, there should be nothing in an article about a non-public figure in a court case unless a conviction has been secured.

It seems like the discussion is between not naming them, but keep the case - or don't keep the case.

This revolves around "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

Thanks for your input! XZealous (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

When you say "depending on how public you view Kip Mckean to be", are you saying Kip McKean is not a public figure? Nowa (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I was reading through WP:LOWPROFILE and I think an argument could be made either way. However, there are other low-profile individuals named in the case. XZealous (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

He was the public face of a church. How do you figure you could make an argument either way? TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading through WP:LOWPROFILE he seems to align more with the "low-profile" of the 5 aspects written about. But honestly not a hill I'm interested in dying on. Either way, my main concern is about the other low-profile individuals in the case. XZealous (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

He's a public figure who's named in the media reporting on the case, so it's fine to include his name here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree. Him being the head of the church, i.e. its public face, for 20ish years would well and truly categorise him as a high-profile individual. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I generally think open court cases with non-public people should NOT be included. The outcome of the case is yet to be determined and people who may at some point be declared innocent may be affected. After the case is decided that would be another matter. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Good points, but as indicated above, these are civil cases, not criminal. Civil cases assess liability, not guilt. The vast majority of civil cases are settled before any court decision on the merits. The terms of the settlement are often confidential. Nowa (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Emphasizing one aspect of that, anybody can file a civil case claiming anything and so it's existence is less meaningful/informative than a criminal case. I'm just talking generally, I don't know the particulars here. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry wrote above that the lawsuits implicated Kip McKean, the founder of ICOC. I don't know the specifics of the court cases, however if that is true they are not a low-profile individual. TarnishedPath^talk 00:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Kip McKean is only one person named in the case. If at all, he would be the only non low-profile individual. There are around 30+ other clear low-profile individuals named in the cases. For this reason, I suggest waiting to see the outcome of the case before we put any information about it on the ICOC page per WP:BLPCRIME XZealous (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that these are not criminal proceedings and therefore WP:BLPCRIME is not an argument, even more so if "low-profile individuals" are not named in the article. Correct me if there are current criminal proceedings. TarnishedPath^talk 07:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, I don't think there are criminal proceedings.. I'm not a lawyer so there may be aspects of these cases I don't understand, but the low-profile individuals in the case record are accused of committing crime. However, the case was filed by "civil procedure", so the outcome would be about liability not conviction. Also, is there any WP about how to handle criminal accusations in a civil case? XZealous (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "criminal accusations in a civil case". Even if some things alleged in a civil case could be crimes, they are still claims of civil liability, not criminal indictments. I think we would have at least a rough parallel to BLPCRIME there, but in this case, since an organization is being sued, that doesn't mean we would not discuss the case at all, since the organization is not a "low-profile individual". It just means we wouldn't name individual names of low-profile people who happen to be mentioned. Of course, the organization's leader is not "low-profile", but other people might be—but that means don't mention their names, not don't mention the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Agreed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree here. We should wait until the case it settled before deciding how to/if to include this material. If not, we may be assisting in bringing unwanted attention to (potentially) innocent low-profile parties in a serious matter. XZealous (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed revisions to "Beliefs and practices of the ICOC" section

Based upon the findings of the recent RfC on About Self sourcing and the challenge of finding relevant, independent sourcing since 2010 as reported by @Nowa elsewhere on the Talk page, I propose that the following introduction and Statement of Shared Beliefs (Abridged) from the ICOC's "Plan for United Cooperation" be added to the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section of the ICOC article on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BESTSOURCES and that redundant paragraphs in the section be deleted:

On or about March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches around the world who collectively identified as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. On August 5, 2009, the “Cooperation Plan” was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches.  https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. The Plan for United Cooperation contained a Statement of Shared Beliefs by churches participating in the International Churches of Christ that is presented below in abridged form.

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (Abridged)

“May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” John 17:23 NIV

The following longstanding biblical doctrines and cooperative ideals have already guided us well on our journey thus far. These statements begin with the highest historical Christian essentials and move toward our common aspirations to be well-connected in Christ.

GOD: Father, Son and Holy Spirit We believe in and we surrender our lives to the one God who made the heavens and earth and who breathed life into humanity. We worship and praise the Father who spoke the world into existence. We worship and praise Jesus, the Son, who died upon the cross to redeem us from sin. We worship and praise the Holy Spirit who is the seal of our salvation.

1. Our eternal purpose is to know God and to glorify him as God, and let our life shine so others will see God.

2. The cornerstone of our faith is our belief in Jesus Christ.

3. The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is sharp, powerful, effective, challenging, exposing, and encouraging when it is revered, studied, preached, taught, and obeyed because it is from our Creator and therefore relevant for all generations.

GOSPEL: the work of God The culminating event of the Christian faith occurred between the time of the Passover and Pentecost at the end of the Gospels through early Acts. The death, burial and resurrection of the perfect Lamb of God are the substance of our faith. What the first twenty chapters of Exodus are to the Jews (as God rescued and brought them to Sinai to hear the law) is very much what the events in Jerusalem were for disciples. Many were eyewitnesses to events of the atonement, the risen Jesus as “both Lord and Christ”, and heard the promise that was for everyone, even “those who are far off”.

4. Our salvation totally depends on the work of God, prompted by his own mercy and grace, not our good deeds. That work redeems those who hear, believe and obey the Gospel message through baptism into Christ through their faith in God’s power and continue to remain faithful unto death.

5. Our earthly mission involves every member’s participation in the Great Commission to “Seek and save what was lost,” in bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to all parts of the world.

6. Our motivation to love God, love each other and love the lost is prompted by God’s love for us, demonstrated in its greatest form by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on a cross for our behalf.

The INDIVIDUAL Response: the surrender of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus, we surrender our lives to his Lordship. We rejoice in our adoption as God’s children, and each accepts the call to be holy and follow the example of Jesus.

7. Our conversion begins with belief in Jesus as God’s Son, and in his death and resurrection from the dead.

8. Our personal discipleship to Christ begins with our total commitment to the Father, who is over all and through all and in all.

9. Our holiness in daily living is a command from God.

THE CHURCH COMMUNITY: sharing in fellowship and strengthening  As members of the body, we are bonded by our immersion in water that united us with Christ’s death and brought with it the promise of absolute forgiveness, the Holy Spirit and a new life; our hope of heaven and the gift of eternal life; the church body and our devotion to being members of the family of God—a community that helps its members grow to be like Jesus.

10. Our membership in each congregation constitutes baptized disciples, men and women who have pledged to live their lives as saints of God in the holiness he requires.

11. Our community worship includes our devotion to God’s Word, prayer, fellowship, and the Lord’s Supper as a weekly sharing in the presence of Christ as a sacred event—breaking the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine together.

12. We believe in the church supporting women as they serve a vital ministry role in evangelizing, baptizing, teaching, counseling, and training other women. In addition, we recognize the value and significant influence that all sisters can have in the lives of the brothers.

13. The decision-making responsibilities of established congregations belong to the individual congregation.

14. Our communication within the church and outside of our brotherhood should always be genuine, respectful and never deliberately antagonistic.

15. Mature conflict resolution is a priority to our churches and may sometimes require help from outside our own congregation. We agree to obey the scriptures that insist on godly conflict resolution, renouncing gossip and slander. Meta Voyager (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This is far too detailed and too large an amount of text from a non-independent source to include in the article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise what reliable sources say about a topic, not reproduce large chunks of content from those sources (and especially not from non-independent sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have similar concerns as User:Cordless_Larry about this draft beliefs section:

• I agree that it's too long.
• To me, it reads like WP:Promotion.
• It's written in the first person (e.g., "We believe...") Wikipedia should be written in the third person (e.g., "Member churches of the ICOC believe....")

Regarding where to find additional RS, I see from the ICOC web site that they have an international network of regional communications directors. Are these communications directors getting any local coverage for the ICOC? If so, that might be a source of RS on notable beliefs. Nowa (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

~80% of that is the "Motherhood and apple pie" stuff that is in common with all "primacy of the bible" religions/belief sects. (I hope that the "Motherhood..." euphemism is de-codable outside of the US :-) ) So making 80% of it "motherhood and apple pie" stuff is sort of self-promotional and also not very informative, which is what we're here to do. To be informative, we need shorten that part and cover the items that are unique or somewhat unique to this group. The current section has some of that in it. One way to think of it: "How are their beliefs different than a common "Bible Church". North8000 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the proposed text and posting these messages with helpful comments. The proposed text is lifted word-for-word from a longer version from the source document and was offered in an abridged format in recognition of the need for something briefer. No WP:Promotion was intended. I find that North8000's 80% Motherhood comment offers another approach to presenting the information and I will turn to editing down the information for further consideration. I believe the RS comments offered by Cordless Larry and Nowa are at the core of this editing challenge as the current beliefs and practices of the churches that identify as ICOC do not now attract the same degree of external coverage as was the case during a prior, more controversial era of the church. Most of the citations relied upon in the article as RS are reporting on events that predate the 2010 reorganization that is reflected in Nowa's research and the Plan for United Cooperation, so, in my view, some tolerance for About Self sourcing will be needed to update current beliefs and practices. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The Churches of Christ article has a comprehensive Beliefs section as well as a section describing the separation of the International Churches of Christ. At the time of separation, a distinguishing belief of the ICOC was that they taught that they were the One true church and only baptisms by the ICOC were legitimate. With the departure of McKean and the ICOC reorganization in 2003, however, they modified this belief to acknowledge that baptisms outside of the ICOC could be legitimate. Are there now any other distinguishing beliefs of the ICOC relative to the COC? Are these distinguishing beliefs pointed out in any references (RS or primary)? Can we somehow capture these in the article without straying into OR or SYNTH? Nowa (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We're in danger of confusing different types of source in all of this discussion. Primary sources and non-independent sources aren't necessarily the same thing, and likewise, sources can be primary and reliable! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. By "primary" I meant "non-independent". Nowa (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Based upon the statements in the independent closing of the RfC on About Self sourcing, the challenge of finding relevant, independent sourcing since 2010 on the ICOC’s beliefs and taking into account comments from other editors on my prior proposed edit, here is another, much briefer proposal for including in the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section of the ICOC article a summary of the Statement of Shared Beliefs from the ICOC's Plan for United Cooperation published in 2006. The proposal attempts to be in compliance with comments from the RfC on WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BESTSOURCES.

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006)

On or about March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches around the world who collectively identified as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The purpose of the Plan was “to affirm and enhance the unity of the family of churches known, since 1992, as the International Churches of Christ.” On August 5, 2009, the Plan for United Cooperation was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. The Plan for United Cooperation contained a Statement of Shared Beliefs by churches participating in the International Churches of Christ that is summarized below.

The doctrines of the ICOC as reflected in the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) are similar in many respects to those of conservative Christian churches and include a recognition of the identity of God as the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit and recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. A belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the message of the Gospel and the responsibility of each Christian to share the Gospel and God’s love to a lost world are key tenets of the church. The church’s beliefs focus on the church community through sharing in fellowship, community worship and weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Individual responses by church members include the conversion experience through immersion in water baptism, personal discipleship to Jesus Chris and living by a standard of holiness according to the Bible.

Some distinctive beliefs of the ICOC expressed in the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) as compared to other denominational groups or prior beliefs adopted earlier in the ICOC’s history are that decision-making responsibilities of established congregations reside within the individual congregation rather than through an over-arching governance structure, recognition of the vital role of women in church ministry, the importance of communications within and outside the ICOC being genuine and respectful and the recognition of mature conflict resolution as a priority among congregations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meta Voyager (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There are statements of fact being made, particularly in regards to other organisations/groups, in the proposed second and third paragraph which are lacking sourcing. That would be a huge red flag for me. I'd suggest looking for some secondary sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. The comparisons to other organizations/groups was suggested by another editor earlier in this Talk thread. The comparison language can be removed and the remaining content of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph combined into a single paragraph.. Meta Voyager (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with comparisons with other orgs per se, just not with ABOUTSELF sources. Comparisons would be of encyclopaedic value, but as I wrote you'd need secondary sourcing in order for readers to verify the claims. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request (STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006))

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006)

On March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches who collectively identified worldwide as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The purpose of the Plan as stated was “to affirm and enhance the unity of the family of churches known, since 1992, as the International Churches of Christ.” On August 5, 2009, the Plan for United Cooperation was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. The Plan for United Cooperation contains a Statement of Shared Beliefs https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol18/iss2/4 by churches participating in the International Churches of Christ that is summarized below:

The doctrines of the ICOC as reflected in the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) include a recognition of the identity of God as the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit and recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. A belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the message of the Gospel and the responsibility of each Christian to share the Gospel and God’s love to a lost world are key tenets of the church. The church’s beliefs focus on the church community through sharing in fellowship, community worship and weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Individual responses by church members include the conversion experience through immersion in water baptism, personal discipleship to Jesus Chris and living by a standard of holiness according to the Bible. Other stated beliefs are that decision-making responsibilities of established congregations reside within the individual congregation rather than through an over-arching governance structure, a recognition of the vital role of women in church ministry, the importance of communications within and outside the ICOC being genuine and respectful and the recognition of mature conflict resolution as a priority among congregations. Meta Voyager (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you propose that https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/ is used as support for all of the statements in the second paragraph? TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the support for the statements in the second paragraph is found in the Statement of Shared Beliefs section of the document entitled, "A Plan for United Cooperation" that was introduced in 2006 and can be found at https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The reference to the "Plan For United Cooperation Summary" from 2009 and related link at https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/ contains a link to the Plan for United Cooperation and is to document its subsequent adoption by congregations who self-identified as participating ICOC churches. The second paragraph is an attempt to briefly and factually summarize the Statement of Shared Beliefs as published by the ICOC. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

So no secondary sources, then? This prompts the question, of all of the documents that the ICOC has produced, why are we highlighting this one? A secondary source would help establish why this is worthy of inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. This secondary sourced article was published on March 1, 2023 in the Christian Standard and references observed strengths of the ICOC that corroborate in many respects the description of the summarized ICOC beliefs from the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006). The sourced article reflects NPOV by also describing historical and present weaknesses of the ICOC. The source describes many of the historical challenges faced by the church under the leadership of Kip McKean and subsequent efforts of reform beginning in 2001. https://christianstandard.com/2023/03/who-are-the-international-churches-of-christ/. All of this information has factual relevance to the ICOC article and is not presented for the purpose of self-promotion. The author is not a member of the ICOC and the Christian Standard, founded in 1866, is not an ICOC publication. @TarnishedPath @Seraphimblade Meta Voyager (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That source doesn't mention the Statement of Shared Beliefs. Am I missing something? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the Statement of Shared Beliefs is not mentioned and my comment was that the list of strengths "corroborates in many respects the description of the summarized ICOC beliefs. . ." Sourcing for the ICOC article is challenging, in part, because it is identified by Wikipedia as a topic of "Low importance" in the categories of "Christianity" and "Religion: New religious movements" and the church by most accounts has a relatively small worldwide membership of less than 125,000 members. Yet, the article has so far been determined to satisfy WP:Notability and, in my view, editorial flexibility should be considered in order to assure that accurate, balanced and current information about the ICOC is included. The discussion in the now-closed RfC on about-self sourcing on the beliefs of a religious organization provides some guidance on how to do so and this proposed addition to the Beliefs section is an attempt to comply. Meta Voyager (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles aren't "About Us" pages. They should be primarily based upon what people unaffiliated with a subject have to say about it. If the answer is "not a great deal", then what the article says will also be "not a great deal". That's true for many subjects that just barely scrape by notability. But we don't fill the article with fluffy stuff they write about themself just for the purpose of filling space. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Meta Voyager, then why not propose something based primarily on that secondary source if you think it is good? TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a large amount of text for there not to be any secondary sources. TarnishedPath^talk 03:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Why does this start "On or about March 11, 2006"? Is there uncertainty about the precise date? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question. The posted publication date stated on the webpage for the multiple translations of the Plan for United Cooperation is March 10, 2006. See, https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. I was trying to accommodate the time zone variation of a worldwide release of this document in multiple languages. I agree that March 10, 2006 is a better date to use in citing this document. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Kind of "mission" style fluff. Without any secondary sources showing this to be significant, I think this is way too much of their own marketing to include. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that the 2006 document is important in many respects. An apparent reaction to recent problems, defining both beliefs and organizations stuff and an attempt at their overall organizational plan and to at least partially unify/connect churches. Also it appears that it was a major internal process to come up with this. IMO it's not a PR piece, although about 1/2 of it is statements of things held by all of the "primacy of the bible" churches. It would be good to cover it somehow, but being a very lengthy self written document, it would be really good to find a secondary source which summarized it. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It feels important, but we need secondary sources to establish that properly. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I might disagree but in the end we both came up with the same conclusion. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In the above proposed Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) section and two paragraphs that followed, fellow editors have questioned the "On or about" date reference for the document entitled "A Plan for United Cooperation" and requested that secondary sourcing be identified for the Statement of Shared Beliefs. The date reference in question has been edited to specify "On March 11, 2006" for the document entitled "A Plan for United Cooperation" and the following secondary reference has been inserted in support of the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006): https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol18/iss2/4. With these corrections, I resubmit my edit request that the Statement of Shared Beliefs (2006) as revised be added to the Beliefs subsection of the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section of the ICOC article. Meta Voyager (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not a secondary source - it's the statement of beliefs published word-for-word in a journal. A journal article about the statement of beliefs would be a secondary source, but that's not what we have here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion that the reprinted Statement of Shared Beliefs does not qualify as a secondary source. The independent editor of the Pepperdine Beacon digital publication made the editorial judgment that it was appropriate to include the Statement word-for-word as a separate article about the International Churches of Christ. The footer to the article reads: “This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons.” Nonetheless, in a good faith effort to make progress on this edit request, I have deleted the prior sourcing for the Statement of Shared Beliefs from my proposed edit in the Beliefs section and replaced it with a sourced statement by the editor from the Pepperdine Beacon about the Plan for United Cooperation (that includes within it the Statement of Shared Beliefs). Please consider this change in further evaluating my edit request. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

a verbatim reprint of a primary source, is a primary source. TarnishedPath^talk 22:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Meta Voyager: Edit requests need to be specific. Exactly what text would go in where etc. Yours is not which means that only a few people who have spent a lot of time here know even generally what you are asking and nobody knows exactly what your proposal is. My suggestion is to make an exact proposal here. Maybe we could work something out. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be put in clear 'please change x to y' language. TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@North8000 @TarnishedPath Thank you for the helpful suggestions on how to present proposed edits using the COI edit request template. Please consider the following specific request: Please insert the following title and paragraph immediately following the initial 3 paragraphs at the beginning of the Beliefs subsection of the “Beliefs and practices of the ICOC” section of the ICOC article and immediately prior to the 3 paragraphs entitled “One True Church (OTC) doctrine”:

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006)

On March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” that included a Statement of Shared Beliefs (the “Plan”) was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches who collectively identified worldwide as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The Plan drafted by ICOC leaders was part of an effort to clarify the nature and mission of the ICOC and to develop new ways for participating churches to work together. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=leaven page 4. On August 5, 2009, the Plan was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. A brief summary of the Plan’s Statement of Shared Beliefs includes a recognition of the identity of God as the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit and recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. A belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the message of the Gospel and the responsibility of each Christian to share the Gospel and God’s love to a lost world are key tenets of the church. The church’s beliefs focus on the church community through sharing in fellowship, community worship and weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Individual responses by church members include the conversion experience through immersion in water baptism, personal discipleship to Jesus Christ and living by a standard of holiness according to the Bible. Other stated beliefs are that decision-making responsibilities of established congregations reside within the individual congregation rather than through an over-arching governance structure, a recognition of the vital role of women in church ministry, the importance of communications within and outside the ICOC being genuine and respectful and the recognition of mature conflict resolution as a priority among congregations. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO it would be good to put in a Wikified summary of that in. I think that the context of it would also be useful .....was it to try to solve some problems/issues? North8000 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The problems/issues that prompted the Plan for United Cooperation are described in the history section of the ICOC article under the heading "The ICOC: 2000s". The issues included a leadership change at the highest levels of ICOC governance and a corresponding recognition of a need for changes to longstanding cultural practices within the church. BTW: what is a "Wikified summary"? Meta Voyager (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant that summarized in an enclyclopedic manner that is informative for the reader. For example, try to use common words to explain things instead of relying on knowledge jargon. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm reviewing old edit requests and this one seems to be in limbo after a lot of back and forth. I'm closing it. If @User:Meta Voyager wants to continue addressing the concerns raised by other editors with their suggested edits they should feel free to do so and either ping those editors directly or open another edit request, but this not implementable as it stands. Rusalkii (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

COI editing

@JamieBrown2011, given that you have an establish actual conflect of interest in regards to the article, can you please cease making furhter WP:COI edits like you did at Special:Diff/1222994242 and Special:Diff/1222994487. If you wish to request an edit to the article can you please utilise the {{edit COI}} template in a talk thread. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 06:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, you may want to read the policies in full

- Making uncontroversial edits

Shortcuts

WP:COIADVICE

WP:COIU

Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits (but see WP:FINANCIALCOI). They may:

remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,

remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living personspolicy,

fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors,

repair broken links,

remove their own COI edits, and

add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.

If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. If an article has few uninvolved editors, ask at the talk page of a related WikiProject or at the COI noticeboard. See also WP:COITALK.

Supplying photographs and media files

Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial.

The use of non-free contents are restricted. Generally, using press photos or images provided by client who wish to feature them in the article but unwilling to irrevocably release the copyright under Creative Commons is unacceptable. Editors may not upload images provided by client for "Wikipedia article purpose only" and falsely claim they're licensed under CC BY-SA, as such photos are fundamentally incompatible with free content principles. Only the copyright owner or their authorized representatives may grant permission to use a work under a Creative Commons license, not the photographed subject or their public relations agent. If the same image is found copyrighted elsewhere prior to the upload date, it may be removed as a copyright violation. If you are the copyright owner and want to release content to Creative Commons for use on Wikipedia, see Commons:Volunteer Response Team § Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Since you've quoted it the pertinent bits are "although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add" and "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit". I object to any edit made by an COI editor, therefore any edit you make to this article is not an uncontroversial edit, to quote policy. So please use the {{edit COI}} template in talk in future. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 10:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath this seems like a childish response. You are going to preemptively object to all future @JamieBrown2011 edits in a wikilawyering way of blocking all of his edits? He has disclosed a COI, and has stuck to making non-controversial edits. If he happens to make a controversial edit, it will be seen and undone. For this instance, he has even offered for someone to revert his edit if they think it is out of line. However, lets be realistic, all he did was remove a section that was unsourced. XZealous (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@XZealous No, I'm not objected to all future edits. That should be completely clear. I'm objecting to them conducting them directly and advising that I have a preference for them making edit requests here using the {{edit COI}}. They did more than remove a section that was unsourced. I provided two diffs. They also introduced unsourced information which another editor then put a citation needed template on. No as per your personal attack, I advise you to retract it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Three comments by sock removed.

I think we should also keep in mind "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." XZealous (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

comment by sock removed.

Can I ask where you got "Since 2010" from? It doesn't appear in the (non-independent) source cited at the end of the paragraph. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally good with declared COI folks making gnome edits. But IMO the first edit at that first diff crosses that line. Not sure about the second. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that humans, almost universally, lack complete objectivity when it comes to themselves and whether what they're doing is uncontroversial or whether others might object to what they're doing and what the reasons for those objections might be. This is a perfect example where Jamie has made at least one edit that is not uncontroversial and they think it is. I think it's best if they just don't edit the article given they have a COI and use the edit COI template if/when they want to make any suggestions for updates/corrections. TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your opinion on these matters.

- Firstly, to respond to some earlier questions, the "2010" date that I added to the article is found here

- Secondly, I removed unsourced WP:OR, it was even tagged as having no citation. In my 15 years or so of editing wikipedia I have never once heard that kind of edit described as anything else but "unambiguously uncontroversial." If the statement had a reliable source, or any source at all, of course that would be a completely different matter. (If someone wants to add that sentence back in with a RS, that is perfectly fine)

- Thirdly, whether the polarised editors on this page, who have made it clear they are anything but neutral or unbiased in their view of the church acknowledge it or not, you actually need editors like myself who actually know something about the ICOC. For example, CordlessLarry didn't even know that McKean had been disfellowshipped from the church almost 20 years ago or that the Singapore church (mentioned in the Court Cases section) was even an ICOC church. There are many other examples like that. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking me arguing that we need a source to verify something with me not realising something was the case, at least as far as your Singapore example goes. Here's how I put it above: "I believe that the church is part of the ICOC. That doesn't mean we don't need a reliable source for the purposes of WP:VERIFY". I'm not sure which of my comments your reference to McKean concerns, but please don't misrepresent my arguments when I've already clarified them. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see how that source supports the statement that the Ministry Training Academy was established in 2010. It doesn't mention the Ministry Training Academy by name but seems to be about planning for such a body, ahead of it actually being established. It could have been established in 2011, 2012, etc. as far as the source tells us. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Three comments by sock removed.

One side note, I think that the COI connection here is a very weak one.North8000 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That they're member of the church is a weak COI? TarnishedPath^talk 14:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Plus, the majority of their edits are in relation to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't claim any knowledge of this particular situation which would be more relevant. But answering your question, I'd call just being a member 1/100th the strength of paid editing COI. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the strength of bonds that religious affiliations can provide, combined with the controversial nature of this particular church, I'd judge this to be a similar strength of COI to paid editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I was writing generically about just being a member, because some comments seemed based on just being a member. The particulars are more important, and you folks know those better than me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. That this is an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived or potential conflict of interest is the only distinction I would draw between it and other types of conflicts of interest. TarnishedPath^talk 04:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that JamieBrown2011 is being paid by the International Churches of Christ to edit this Wikipedia page? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Being paid by the organization that is the topic of this page to edit this page would certainly be a conflict of interest? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest don't occur only when there are payments involved. TarnishedPath^talk 04:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011 did once mention that he/she is a member of the International Churches of Christ. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:CC70:67C4:656A:B185 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we've already established that. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It said, "This topic could not be found. It might have been deleted or moved."  ?? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:1D37:6886:D747:4B9B (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion in that thread about the use of the word cult. Do a simple Google search and dozens of results will come up that call the International Churches of Christ a cult. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:30EC:579C:10DB:A7AE (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If hundreds of organizations call the International Churches of Christ a cult how is it not a cult? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:30EC:579C:10DB:A7AE (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @North8000. Merely belonging to a larger organization is not necessarily a COI. We let scouts edit Boy Scouts of America. We let university students edit articles about the schools they attend. We let Catholics edit Catholic Church. If you have a specific role in the organization (especially if you're in any type of publicity department), then that could be a significant COI, but merely being 0.0009% of the ordinary members is not really a COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Is JamieBrown2011 a leader in this organization? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:30EC:579C:10DB:A7AE (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There has been no statement to that effect. That question should not be asked or expected to be answered. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The Boy Scouts of America are not a religious cult. Universities are not a religious cult. The Catholic Church is considered a real church and not a Jim Jones type religious cult. Do a simple Google search and dozens of websites come up that call the International Churches of Christ a religious cult. 162.205.180.187 (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Three comments by sock removed.

• Although I haven't ever edited this article, I have a theory that all these ANON posts above are still this [perma-banned] user. I couldn't help but notice all [ 1 , 2 , 3, & 4 ] users were in the same region. Either this user is who I suspect, OR they have a similar trolling motif unhelpful to the page. Perhaps an admin can run a CheckUser and look for a match between the 2 to see if this COI page has a confounding variable. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• :@Coachbricewilliams28 Why are you trying to give away someone's location and information? Isn't that against Wikipedia rules? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:29CD:9764:81A0:2718 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Coachbricewilliams28 You basically posted where that person lives and some other private information about that person. Does Wikipedia allow this kind of thing? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:29CD:9764:81A0:2718 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal information being posted. The linked IPs are all WP:SPAs on this subject and Coachbricewilliams28 suspects they are socks of an editor blocked for edits in this area. Note that all of these IPs, and yours, were covered by a previous 6 month range block by user:Bbb23 on 2600:1700:4260:35D0:0:0:0:0/64 for socking by the user in question. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qewr4231. Meters (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Meters,

It is confirmed via Qewr4231's own social media accounts on alt platforms.

This indeed is (once again) formerly banned userUser:Qewr4231 still lurking here to spread his agenda.

Could you handle any SPA/SP paperwork as I am rusty on protocol. Thank you. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Done before I saw this. Meters (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

user:2600:1700:4260:35d0::/64 has been blocked again, for one year this time. That's every IPV6 editor who has commented in this thread. Meters (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sock's posts have been removed, or stuck where replied to. Meters (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@North8000Based on what is happening over at the administrators board can we get the COI tag at the top of this Talk page removed? Or do we wait for that to close? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the tag should be removed. Maybe I'll take it off myself eventually. But I really don't want to spend my wiki minutes in a big discussion over a tag. I do have an interest in stopping editors from getting unfairly sanctioned, hence my participation at ANI. I also do have an interest in trying to help out here a bit, and if I could find good sources that cover the more complex areas in some depth I'd have an interest in some bigger work improving the article. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll need to establish consensus for that removal. Relationships to outside bodies have been established and that means COIs exists. TarnishedPath^talk 01:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO there are two main questions, and the answer to both would need to be "yes" in order to retain the tag:

• Is there a sufficiently strong COI to invoke the Wikipedia COI editing restrictions? I think that the discussion at the COI noticeboard is a good place to look for this determination.
• And if so, and if the editors in question aren't editing the article, is there a reason the retain the tag?

IMO a consensus would be required to keep the tag and not the reverse as described in your post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate second question than asking if the COI users are still editing the article is whether there is still material in the article added by COI users. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is also a good question, albeit also presupposing that the answer to the first question is "yes". North8000 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @North8000, that's precisely why I brought up the discussion at COIN. I think I framed my questions similar to yours, at least I hope I did. On the point of the editors not editing the article, the article history shows numerious edting by Jamie between 24 September 2021‎ and 9 May 2024‎. May 2024 is about when you and I appear to have came accross the article. TarnishedPath^talk 00:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Yes, I think that you did the right thing. Let COIN decide once and for all if there is an actionable COI. My own opinion is that there is a mild COI....not enough to trigger full wp:COI measures, but enough to be taken into account in future editing decisions. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the 3rd COIN consensus seems to have concluded that the COI tag attached at the head of this page was placed there without receiving community consensus and hence was placed there against WIKI policies, would some kind editor please remove it? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011 done. TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References