Talk:International Churches of Christ

Recent RFC raises reliable sourcing question in the lead and court cases section

In his independent summary to RFC: Ongoing court cases involving low-profile individuals, Chedsford states that, “I believe the consensus is it is appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached provided those cases [ongoing] have significant coverage in reliable sources (emphasis added) and the names of low-profile individuals are not mentioned in that section.” Conceding that a description of ongoing court cases may be included in the ICOC article, Chedsford’s summary highlights that those cases should be “ongoing” and have “significant coverage in reliable sources.” In the description of accusations of covering up sexual abuse of children and multiple court cases found in the second paragraph of the lead and the paragraph entitled, “Lawsuits related to alleged cover up of sexual abuse” in the ICOC article, the cases and sourcing that are used are about dismissed federal cases that are no longer “ongoing” and the coverage is no longer “significant” or supported by “reliable sources.” Accordingly, the statements in the second paragraph of the lead about accusations of covering up sexual abuse of children and some US branches of the church being the subject of multiple lawsuits and the paragraph entitled, "Lawsuits related to alleged cover up of sexual abuse” should be deleted from the article in their entirety unless significant coverage in reliable sourcing of ongoing cases can be identified. Meta Voyager (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford wrote:

"I believe the consensus is it is appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached provided those cases have significant coverage in reliable sources and the names of low-profile individuals are not mentioned in that section" (empasis theirs). They did not insert the word Ongiong between cases and have like you have done in an attempt to chagne the meaning. Do not attempt to delete the material witout explicit consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 23:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it is you who is trying to change the meaning of that sentence. The "those cases" Chetsford is referring to could only mean the "ongoing court cases" he refers to in the first half of that same sentence. What other cases could he possibly be referring to? Please dial back the personal attacks on a reasonable good faith discussion. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Tone it down, there are no personal attacks. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Your post is an inaccurate reflection of mine and ignores its substantive point that the RFC specifically addresses the treatment of "ongoing" legal cases. It is common practice to bracket language within a quote to highlight that the language has been added. In my case, not for the purpose of changing the meaning, but to disclose to the reader that the language is a clarifying addition. Similarly, the use of (emphasis added) is to disclose to the reader that a section of a quote is being emphasized. The only possible meaning of "those cases" in the context of Chetsford's summary is those cases that are "ongoing," hence the bracketed language. Meta Voyager (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The adding of the bracket didn't clarify anything. It changed the meaning and as Larry noted below the summary didn't suggest that a court case had to be ongoing in order to be covered. That would be a really strange requirement and if we generalised that idea it would change many, many articles. @Chetsford didn't intend that meaning and if you think they did you should clarify with them. TarnishedPath^talk 13:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What a strange argument. The summary isn't suggesting that the cases need to be ongoing in order to be covered. There's significant coverage whether the cases are ongoing or not, and therefore the article should cover them, based on that significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a extremely odd misinterpretation to claim that close stated that cases have to be ongoing to be covered. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

My argument makes a clear and persuasive point about the significance of ongoing cases and is not “strange” or an “extremely odd misinterpretation” of the RFC summary”. Did you not read the title of the RFC upon which the summary was written - RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals? By the title of the RFC itself as well as the arguments that were made by editors within the RFC, the subject matter of the summary can only be about ongoing cases. The difference in encyclopedic value between decided and ongoing cases is obvious to even the lay reader. Both need sourcing in order to be included in the ICOC article and Chetsford’s summary appropriately reflects the importance of ongoing cases being reliably sourced. The federal cases that are currently referenced and sourced in the ICOC article are neither decided or ongoing – they are dismissed. These cases have no encyclopedic value and only serve to perpetuate allegations that the plaintiffs themselves no longer feel comfortable pursuing in federal court. If there are other ongoing cases that contain these allegations, they must also be reliably sourced before appearing in the ICOC article. However, what I find curious, is that these specious counter arguments are being offered by @Cordless Larry, an administrator, who has authored 13.4% of the ICOC article within the last 11 months and @Tarnished Path, a veteran editor, who has authored 9.3% within the last 4 months according to today’s Wiki page statistics. Questions of intent and an inherent conflict of interest arise when two who have authored such significant portions of the ICOC article are also active in attempting to shut down the proposed edits of other editors with whom they disagree. Meta Voyager (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Go to the RFC closer and ask for clarification if you think they meant something other than what's in the black and white lettering. TarnishedPath^talk 13:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Wiki policy, closers are to be independent and not involved in the debate within the RFC. Although we may disagree on the application of this closing summary, it was written in clear language after Chetsford considered comments from you and other editors. To try to involve Chetsford now to bolster either your position or mine would be inappropriate in my view. . Meta Voyager (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm clearly not trying to involve Chetsford to bolster my position. I'm clearly stating that if you are in doubt about what they meant with their close you should clarify it with them directly. Please don't assign to me motives that I don't have. You've got three editors in this discussion stating that what you are putting forward as your interpretation isn't correct. Continuing to argue the point, without obtaining advice from Chetsford that your interpretation of their meaning is correct, is coming across as you deliberately not listening. TarnishedPath^talk 11:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Other editors should be aware that Cordless Larry has elevated one of my earlier comments in this thread on this Talk Page to the Administrators Noticeboard on the basis of “tendentious editing” and that Tarnished Path is also commenting on that Noticeboard. Please note that I have made no substantive edits, tendentious or otherwise, to the ICOC article due to being assigned by Cordless Larry the status of having a conflict of interest – a status that I dispute but have chosen to respect by limiting my comments to the Talk Page. Nonetheless, due to the ongoing process on the Administrators Noticeboard, I offer this comment only to further clarify the basis for my position as I believe this topic is worthy of further discussion and resolution. My understanding of the legal effect of a case being voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff is that the plaintiff is stepping away from their allegations of harm in the jurisdiction where they filed the case. At the time of dismissal, their allegations no longer have any probative value for the plaintiffs or defendants. Similarly, any statements from a reliable source about the allegations in a case prior to the case’s dismissal may be true when written, but have little factual value after dismissal except, possibly, to serve as a historical marker of the case’s existence. What has added confusion to the current situation but is known by most active editors who contribute to the ICOC Talk Page, is that some of the plaintiffs who voluntarily withdrew their federal cases have filed new pleadings with similar allegations in a local state court in Los Angeles, California. Of note, these state cases have been filed in reliance on different laws, in a different jurisdiction using different rules of civil procedure. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no reporting from reliable sources on the state cases. To honor Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, it is my position that editors to the ICOC article who want to sustain the current language about lawsuits should, at a minimum, update the language to reflect the material fact that the federal cases have been dismissed. In my view, an editorial response that most closely aligns with Wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing would be to drop the current language that relies on the dismissed federal cases and the dated articles that were written about them and, if appropriate, develop new language after identifying reliable sourcing for the new state cases and their allegations.  Also, since Tarnished Path raised the issue of me “deliberately not listening,” I listen to all comments on this thread, including so far comments by Tarnished Path, JamieBrown2011, Cordless Larry and North8000 and also Isaidnoway who addresses this topic on the Administrators Noticeboard, not here.  There is not uniform agreement among all these editors as you suggest.   Meta Voyager (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to any speculation for the reasons of discontinuing any federal cases. At present the article merely conveys what is covered in reliable secondary sources. If you've got a reliable secondary source stating that the federal case/s have been dismissed then we can certainly talk about refracturing the current material to include that. TarnishedPath^talk 02:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the underlying issue, but IMO the RFC was about a particular subset of cases (ongoing, about low level people) .....to emphasize, that having both of those attributes was central to defining the question and the items in question. And so IMO the close needs to be taken in that context.....that it is talking (only) about that particular subset of cases and that one should not derive other things from that wording such as statements about cases that are not in that subset. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

My post was narrow and abstract but I think that it somewhat supports Meta Voyager's position. The crux of my post is that the RFC and close did not discuss or cover dropped/withdrawn cases. So one should not try to interpret the RFC as having said anything about them. So that leave them as a NEW question. IMO the case for including them is much weaker than that of any type and would recommend leaving them out. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What this article needs

I read the article a couple times. Most of the history is there, albeit piecemeal and hard to follow. But the main question is "what is the nature of this organization today?" Given that that they've made significant changes in the recent decades, I took a look at the references to see if there is a credible independent overview type source of this organization. It looks like the newest one is 15 years old. For anything newer than that we have self-description type material or piecemeal selected items. I searched a bit elsewhere and couldn't find one. I did find some rather thorough "why I left" stories that seem to describe / allege somewhat cultish behavior without alleging that it is a cult so there are some questions regarding this. If somebody were able to find such a source(s), that would be a good thing to build coverage of the current organization from. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @North8000, Here is a much more recent article that describes "what is the nature of this organisation today" JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is an article in the USC Newspaper where they apologise for "unfairly targeting the LA ICOC church" and that the students have been "a very positive influence in the lives of students" I am not sure how to access the archives of USC directly or to assess how much of a WP:RS this is, but that is for more experienced editors to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, last one for today, an assessment of the ICOC, both strengths and weaknesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here was a critical Rolling Stone article https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/icoc-members-alleged-abuse-cult-behavior-1234798928/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Another source: https://www.marketfaith.org/2021/04/whatever-happened-to-the-international-churches-of-christ-part-1-history-and-controversy-tal-davis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

And another source: JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This sort of source (the MarketFaith one) is unlikely to be considered reliable. It's self-published, with the site it's on having no clear editorial policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's develop a list of sources which are neutral, secondary, credible, and in-depth on the item in question

Let's develop a list of sources which are neutral, secondary, credible and in-depth on the item in question. Or as close as we can find to that. And then use those to develop the coverage in the more complex areas.North8000 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Summarizing Singapore Paragraph

I was going through the article recently and making a few minor changes. The Singapore court case paragraph seems too long to me. In proportion to the content of the article and the ICOC as an organization, I do not think it needs such a long paragraph (WP:WEIGHT). Although it is a part of the ICOC history, it seems to be an isolated case from one Church. This paragraph could be summarized better.

Please look at the edit I made and add your thoughts. XZealous (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

After a quick look the change looks like a mixed bag to me. Looks like you tightened up the wording, but took out than names of the publications that were involved in the lawsuit. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There are 192 words dedicated to a lawsuit from 1991 in one church in Singapore. This probably doesn't deserve more than a two sentence summary. The amount of money awarded to each party is completely irrelevant. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is my suggested summary of the paragraph:

On November 23, 1991, two Singapore newspapers labeled the Singapore Central Christian Church a "cult," leading the church to sue for defamation. While an initial ruling favored the papers, an appeals court later found that they had presented the label as fact rather than opinion. The papers were ordered to pay damages and legal fees to the church and its founder, John Philip Louis. However, a Christian magazine's similar article was deemed fair, and the church was ordered to cover its legal fees. XZealous (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a much more concise description of a court case 30 years old. You have my support 👍 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The current section takes 1,688 bytes out of an article of 61,499 bytes in total. I don't see any argument for a trim. The current wording length seem balanced given the events. TarnishedPath^talk 12:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I tend to not put much stock in the details of civil lawsuits. It's one person or organization alleging something, and usually describing/claiming the worst in every detail. Plus in the US the money motivation weighs heavily. This one might have more relevance because it was over the use of the word "cult". North8000 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you here. That is why I think a shorter summary is more appropriate. XZealous (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the legal issue section is fine. I don't see any WP:WEIGHT issues. Per the policy "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views".

As this has been discussed previously, perhaps you should ping editors form previous related discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 05:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the policy you posted above. I do see this case as a "minority aspect." That is why I am suggesting we clean up the paragraph. XZealous (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Minority view in context of the wording doesn't mean there isn't a tonne of sourcing, it means a view that diverges from majority views. There are absolutely no WEIGHT issues with the current prose in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 06:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the ICOC as an organization, this one case in 1991 is a "minority aspect." I am not advocating for it to be removed, I think it should just be simplified and summarized. XZealous (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT relates to viewpoints though, not the reporting of basic facts. Of course, a relatively minor aspect of an organisation's history shouldn't make up a large proportion of the article text, but it doesn't at present. Slimming it down a bit more is fine by me though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The legal sectoin is all of two paragraphs. One Paragraph for the Singapore subsection and one paragraph for the LA subsection. Further they are tucked away at the end of the article. I really don't see an argument for trim. TarnishedPath^talk 23:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you input. I do see the need for it to be tidied up. If you do not want that, do you have a reason why you want to keep it the way it is? In my summary I aim to keep all the relevant information about the case by presenting it in a more concise manner.

It is not only for this paragraph, but I think other paragraphs could also be cleaned up as well, which I have been working on recently. XZealous (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that two paragraphs, one on each of the case/s in separate jurisdictions is verbose and in need of trim. TarnishedPath^talk 13:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting a trim to the Singapore paragraph, not the other legal case paragraph. See my proposed summary above XZealous (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The section in question is 1,702 bytes out of an article that takes up 61,737 bytes in total. I don't see any need for a trim. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Revert of my edit

Moved from User_talk:TarnishedPath#Revert_of_my_edit

Hey @TarnishedPath. I am more than happy to take this to the talk page of the ICOC article a well, but figured I would message you here first. I am unsure why you undid my latest edit on the page. I was going through the sources mentioned in the article and rewriting as to better represent what those sources say. Some information attributed to a sources are not found in that source, hence why I have changed those sentences to accurately represent the source.

In my latest edit I pulled almost word for word from this source (Jenkins 2005, p. 2) which is used to support this sentence "Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult."

This is how the paragraph goes in Jenkins 2005, p. 2: Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a “dangerous cult.” Who makes such claims about this healing group? Ex-members...

My edit is not "superflourus peacock wording", it is what the source itself says.

Could you further explain your issue with that specific edit? Again, I am happy to take this to the talk page if advised.

Thanks! XZealous (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @XZealous, no offence but as this is a content discussion, it is better off had in the article's talk where others can participate if they so wish. Now as regarding your statement that the source says it, just because a source says something/anything it doesn't mean we have to repeat everything. WP:ONUS covers that it's always up to consensus to determine which parts of what sources say that is covered and what parts aren't. TarnishedPath^talk 07:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading the source referenced I was surprised that half of the sentence was not even used. It seems like an unfair representation of the source. I made an edit to represent what the source was saying.

Do you have an issue with that part being included? If so, I am open to hearing why.

Otherwise, I see no issue with adding in fully what Jenkins was saying in those references sentences. XZealous (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I took issue with the framing. The usage of lanugage. Particularly the "awesome familiy" bit.

For the reference of other editors XZealous made an edit at Special:Diff/1241706643 which intserted "Most members describe the ICOC as an "awesome family", while" before "Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult and have accused it, along with the International Christian Church, of covering up sexual abuse of children". I made a revert to that specific edit. TarnishedPath^talk 07:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If your issue is with the wording, then your issue is with the source (Jenkins 2005, p. 2) itself. I did not create a specific wording or framing, I only added in what the source itself is stating. I am not sure why you don't want a fair representation of the source. XZealous (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this is the sentence Jenkins writes "This is how the paragraph goes in Jenkins 2005, p. 2: Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a “dangerous cult.” Who makes such claims about this healing group? Ex-members..." XZealous (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, we need not cover all material from a source or use the precise wording. We are allowed to paraphrase and convey the bits we want and omit the bits we don't. That is exactly what WP:ONUS says. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that we cannot include all the information a source provides, and get to decide what fits the article best. However, it is concerning that you want to only include the information that represents one side. WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides."

"Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

The source mentioned is showing two views that people have of the ICOC, however the current paragraph only represents one of those viewpoints - leaving out the other. The edit I made is perfectly acceptable as it aims to both represent the sourced material and achieve a more neutral tone. XZealous (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to propose alternative wording that doesn't include the bit "awesome family" I'm willing to listen. I'm sorry but that phrasing seemed like marketing to me and I don't think that should be in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 13:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That wording is not mine, it is taken from the source. I am happy to suggest another wording, but I would be careful with not being willing to use the words of the source itself. XZealous (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to find a rewording, however I am trying not to create content for the article, rather to convey what the sources are saying. The source used is Awesome Families: The Promise of Healing Relationships in the International Churches of Christ,

With WP:NPOV in mind "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", I would prefer to keep the wording that sticks close to the source.

Please let me know your thoughts, thanks! XZealous (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require that we closely phrase wording form a source. Per MOS:PEACOCK we should avoid words like awesome unless there is significant usage of such terms in reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that "peacock" terms should be avoided because they sound promotional. However look at the example the page gave of Bob Dylan. The "peacock wording" is in quotations and then properly sources. The phrase "awesome family" is not my own wording to promote the ICOC. I also put it in quotations with the source at the end. It is the wording written by the source, and that source has both positive and critical things to say about the ICOC.

Also, MOS:PEACOCK encourages the avoidance of words such as "cult" unless found used in reliable sources. I went through the entire Jenkins book, and she actually uses "awesome families" more than the word "cult." Although "cult" is both attested to and criticized against in sources about the ICOC, so it is fine to use it appropriately here as well.

Again, I am only trying to represent the source used. Jenkins is used quite widely in this article both for seemingly positive and critical uses. To only have a critical statement of hers and not a positive one in the lead is clearly wrong, especially when I am trying to add in what she said just one sentence before what is being referenced. XZealous (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Want to touch base with this again. The sentence in discussion is in clear violation of WP:NPOV, and should "explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." I'm not sure that can even be up for discussion as it is clear that the lead has taken a side without representing other viewpoints, especially when other viewpoints are expressed in the sources already used.

"Members have shared stories of reuniting families, having a racially diverse community, healing from past abuses giving credit to the Church's Christian counseling structure. However, former members have alleged that the Church is a cult."

I think this is a fair representation of different viewpoints as described in Jenkin's book pages 1-2. I would suggest reading the source before making comments. Would be great to come up with a fair and balanced representation using the sources we have. XZealous (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It's important to note that Jenkin's book only discusses what members of ICOC wanted her to show her and that her attitude towards ex-members was often dismissive. Janja Lalich discusses this in her review of Jenkin's book. So while we have one book by Jenkin's talking up what members described to her as being positive aspects of the church, we have multiple sources describing the ICOC as a cult.

If you were looking to balance that bit you shouldn't spend twice as much prose on what then current members had shared with Jenkin as you do talking about former member's experiences. You would also take into account other sources and reviews of Jenkin's book. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. I have to admit, however, that I'm starting to become concerned with your apparent desire to not see positive aspects written in this article.

The lead is two paragraphs, one of which is exclusively about cult accusations and lawsuits (that are now dismissed btw, which is nowhere noted in the article.) I don't think trying to add half a sentence about member's positive experiences is in anyway extreme. If anything, it would still be underbalanced. If my original edit stood, it would be 9 out of 82 words in that paragraph. Hardly a contentious edit.

I will hold out good faith in your suggestions. However, it is getting harder to maintain as it seems you are against most edits including anything remotely positivity about this organization.

Thank you for Janja's review of Jenkin's book. Sadly I cannot access it as it is behind a paywall. XZealous (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There's the Wikipedia Library, which grants access to multiple journal databases and newspaper archives. You wouldn't be eligible to access now, but once your account is older than 6 months and you've made more than 50 edits you will be.

Also, do you have any secondary reliable sources which state that the lawsuits have been dismissed? TarnishedPath^talk 05:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the Library link! In this thread I am not interested in arguing about the cases being dismissed or not, only the lead being balanced per my original edit. XZealous (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the "awesome families" bit is inappropriate and should remain out. It certainly would not belong in the lead in any case; maybe in the body with some contextualization of how that conclusion was arrived at. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I at least think there should be a balancing aspect to the sentence currently in the lead. XZealous (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a few vague comments. The lead should be a summary of the article, not a place to select the items to give the highest visibility to. Regarding the sexual lawsuits, I think it would be interesting to see if they alleged anything about them being particularly bad in this area. Every large organizations has had members commit some of those things, and at lawsuit time, the lawyers pick whoever has the $$ / insurance and find something that they didn't do to prevent it. It would be interesting to find coverage if something beyond that was alleged. The "cult" question is a big one. They apparently went through a big transition. It would be good to find coverage of any cult-like attributes or accusations, but clearly cover "past" and "recent" as such. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This article covers past and recent quite well What do you think? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

XZealous stated that the sexual assault lawsuits had been dismissed, if that was the case I would think about the suitablity for its place in the lead. However the only reference I can find is Rolling Stone (Wikipedia won't let me post a link here because it's on a blacklist) which is generally unreliable for this sort of material per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a note (as this page is on my watchlist): I'm not sure you all are using the author's intended (typical literary) definition of "awesome" (see #1, as opposed to the US/Aus colloquial #2). The term in that case is neither inherently complimentary nor derogatory, but instead impersonally descriptive; as such it is suitable for an encyclopedia. (In either case, the source should be directly quoted as much as possible for context, as it is the only source used, and it is reporting the author's own assessment of the reported opinions of the members of the church.) SamuelRiv (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Jenkins is not the only source supporting that former members have described ICOC as a cult. There's two in the lead, Jenkins and The Guardian. There are further sorces which could be used if wanted (e.g., [1]). There are even sources to be had from Christian news sites which demonstrate that the ICOC has been referred to as a cult and some of them refer to ICOC as a cult in their own voices (e.g., [2] and [3]). TarnishedPath^talk 06:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Since we are trying to find sources with differing POV's, here is one where the Churches of Christ (1-2 million member group) apologised for using the word "cult" in describing the ICOC. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That source is already in the article in the International_Churches_of_Christ#The_ICOC:_2000s section and it's also mentioned in the International_Churches_of_Christ#ICOC's_relationship_with_mainstream_Churches_of_Christ (I'll add the source to that section) that Churches of Christ had apologised for previously calling ICOC a cult. TarnishedPath^talk 09:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv, I agree with you here. Taking a look at my original edit, I took care to have the "awesome families" in quotes, as shown in examples from MOS:PEACOCK. XZealous (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Moving forward after the ANI and COIN discussions

After reading over the input received from the ANI and the recent COIN noticeboard discussion, two editors have created a narrative that they are simply trying to prevent the ICOC page from being "whitewashed" by myself and MV. I think that is a false narrative. As you may know I was the first editor to put the court cases into the article [4]. I want to be clear, I believe the ICOC should be accountable for sins its members and leaders commit. Accountability can only make organisations and churches better. However, the opposite appears to be happening. Court cases, that have been dismissed over a year ago, require pages and pages of argument, discussion, primary sources provided, legal WIKI policies debated to the point of exhaustion, to convince certain editors to remove them from the LEAD of the article. Only when ANI appeals fail, and boomerang sanctions are threatened, do certain editors "see the light" and acknowledge that secondary sources exist that the cases have been dismissed. No consensus is required to label myself and others as COI editors, while "consensus is required" to remove the labelling!! When articles are used to accuse the ICOC of cult like behaviour, (some of them from 30 years ago) and other articles are presented where mistakes are acknowledged and changes made, (even apologies made from organisations that previously labelled the ICOC a cult), there is a reluctance to present those perspectives alongside the accusations. Those objecting even saying they are trying to prevent "whitewashing the article" while in my view tarring and feathering a group sincerely trying to learn from its mistakes. I hope with more experienced editors looking on from the recent ANI, we can have a more constructive and collaborative approach to the article going forward. Here's hoping 🤞... JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Where have boomerang sanctions been threatened? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Over here on yourself and Tarnished [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Snow Rise-20240905093800-JamieBrown2011-20240905071100] and a second one here [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Snow Rise-20240906084600-TarnishedPath-20240906064800] and here a complaint/statement about not listening WP:HEAR and being WP:TEND [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Snow Rise-20240905125100-TarnishedPath-20240905110000] JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. The idea was suggested by one editor, should TarnishedPath and I fail to respect the consensus reached. I'd note that the ANI discussion hasn't been closed yet and that I will of course respect consensus, as always. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to wikilawyer with WP:LAWRS (an essay) and presenting primary sources was not sufficient reason for removal of the content about the court case from the lead. What constituted reason was a secondary reliable source being presented that stated that the court case had been dismissed. If it had been presented earlier I can't see any reasonable editor not agreeing to the removal of the content from the lead. So drop the personal attacks and aspersion casting please.

As per the material stating that ICC apologised for calling ICOC a cult, that is already in the body of the article. It's in the body of the article even though the body doesn't have material stating that ICC called them a cult in the first place which is putting the cart before the horse if you ask me, but I'm not too fussed. That the ICC apologised for calling ICOC a cult certainly doesn't belong in the lead when the lead doesn't state that ICC called ICOC a cult. What is in the lead is a reference from The Guardian from September 2023 which supports that former members have called the ICOC a cult as well as the reference from Jenkins. There are more secondary reliable sources than just what's in the lead which state either that ICOC is a cult or has been referred to as a cult. Some editors in the ANI discussion, even including one that voted against the topic ban, stated that their reading that ICOC can be referred to as a cult. If you really don't think it should be in the lead start a WP:RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, the lede would be expanded so that it provides a better summary of the article as a whole. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In theory I agree with you but there's a lot of cruft in the article in the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section. I'd want to see a savage trim there prior to expanding the lead to provide a better summary of the article as a whole. TarnishedPath^talk 12:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just found a new independent source (Barrett), which might be helpful. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice, I see that has it's own WP article at The New Believers. I've just done a search on the Wikipedia Libary and found that the full book is available via the MasterFILE Complete database. That database doesn't appear to be in the Wikipedia library, which is a shame because reading PDFs is much easier than reading from the internet archive. However there are also some book reviews which you can potentially look at. TarnishedPath^talk 13:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of UNSW content

XZealous, you've removed recently added content on the ICOC at the University of New South Wales, with the edit summary "Source is not about ICOC Church". The source states "Keegan had joined the International Churches of Christ...", so it is about the ICOC, is it not? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I was curious as it states he joined the "International Churches of Christ" in the beginning of the article, but then only goes on to discuss the ICC (International Christian Church.) I went to the UNSW Lions Facebook page (as mentioned in the article) which had a had a link to the Church; both of these are ICC related, and not an ICOC Church.

Just to make sure I went to look if the ICOC did have a Church there. Here is the FB page and link to Church website of an ICOC Church in Sydney.

This shows that the article is clearly written about the ICC Church in Sydney. I assume the author just made the mistake in the start of the article. I could see how that mistake could be made as ICOC and ICC are related and have similar abbreviations XZealous (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that the source has made an error, you would need to contact them regarding making a correction, not do your own research and come to your own conclusion that it is wrong. Of course if they do correct, then that should be reflected appropriately, but only then. Otherwise, what the source says is what the source says, until and unless they correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

FB pages are not reliable sources in which to dispute the content from a reliable source. We don't edit articles on the basis of original research. TarnishedPath^talk 05:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The source itself calls the group the "ICC" (International Christian Church) over 9 times in the article. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that lots of sources use the ICC abbreviation for what we call the ICOC. It's very clear that the article is about the ICOC from details such as "Originally formed in 1979 by radical preacher Kip McKean, the group became renowned for its rigid teaching and extreme views, with the mainline Church of Christ movement quickly disavowing the group". Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually think the opposite. Noting the references to UNSW Lions and the link to the Sydney ICC Church page, this article is written about an ICC ministry from an ICC Church. XZealous (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be advised that FB pages are not reliable sources to draw inferences and doing so is original research? This is coming across as a WP:IDHT issue. TarnishedPath^talk 08:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The accusation of disruptive editing when I am aiming to use sources correctly is inappropriate. I am not doing my own research, I am referring to the sources that the article is pulling information from. The sources the author uses are in reference to the ICC, not the ICOC. This is clear as the article references the ICC many times.

It was also inappropriate to put the text back in the article while this discussion is ongoing. Noting the nature of this talk page, it is going to be important to gain consensus when edits are disputed or in discussion. XZealous (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The source uses ICC as an abbreviation for International Churches of Christ: "International Churches of Christ (ICC)". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this is the case.

"Keegan had joined the International Churches of Christ (ICC) – also known as "Multiplying Ministries", "International Christian Church" or the "Discipling Movement"." The ICOC is not "also known as 'International Christian Church' Looking at this and the sources he uses, they are in reference to ICC groups and an ICC Church page. XZealous (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is the case that the source uses ICC as an abbreviation for International Churches of Christ, as that quote demonstrates. If you believe the source is wrong, it might be best to contact the publisher to ask for a correction. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Detail on recent lawsuits

XZealous has removed detail about the recent lawsuits that I'd added to the article. I think this should be restored because it helps the reader understand the claims made in the lawsuits and reflects the coverage they've received in independent sources. What do others think? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO details of a lawsuit are claims by an individual, often in an effort to get money or engage in a battle. If they are being added from a primary source, that makes them doubly at issue. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The material was based on a secondary source (which the article needs more of, not less). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that XZealous has provided a policy based reason for removal and the content should be restored. TarnishedPath^talk 05:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath you have recently reverted an edit of mine with no policy reason either. I hope you are not setting up a double standard here. I followed your example by reverting and taking to the talk page for consensus. XZealous (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's significant coverage that should be included due to WP:RS and WP:V. Your argument is that you don't like it. TarnishedPath^talk 05:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to refrain from making my argument for me. I could claim the same when you reverted my edit of the Singapore paragraph. You didn't like the resize, so you reverted. You were allowed to do that, and I'm not sure why you are taking issue when I take the same action for another edit. XZealous (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Taking into consideration that the events laid out in the cases were only notable for a short period of time, and ended with the cases being dismissed by the plaintiffs, the paragraph should be sized to reflect this. Considering WP:BALASP and WP:RECENT, it is fine to have the cases noted in the article, but the extended paragraph is "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

If new information is being presented from new coverage, then adding it into the article should be accepted. However, expanding information of the already dismissed lawsuits is not needed. XZealous (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability doesn't expire. If the cases were notable then, they're notable now. As per your argument that the same could be said in regards to me not liking the resize. I've previously engaged in trimming the section at Special:Diff/1243896989 to remove a sentence that was highly duplicative, so no it can't be said. TarnishedPath^talk 07:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

They are not notable because they are now dismissed.

"Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable."

It was fine that information about the cases were made while the cases were ongoing. However, the coverage stopped when the cases were dismissed. In this case, it may be fine to include something in the article about them, but time has shown that these cases are not notable, especially for an extended paragraph. XZealous (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NTEMP. Notability is never temporary. The information was of significance then and it remains of significance now given the amount of reporting concerning allegations of abuse from a relatively small denomination.

Exmaples:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/19/international-churches-of-christ-lawsuits-alleged-sexual-abuse

https://www.christianpost.com/news/church-families-pressured-to-tithe-to-point-of-suicide.html

https://www.crosswalk.com/headlines/contributors/guest-commentary/international-churches-of-christ-faces-lawsuit-for-covering-up-child-sex-abuse-financial-manipulation.html

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-28/church-sexual-abuse-allegations

https://julieroys.com/women-sue-icoc-denomination-allege-coverup-child-sexual-abuse/

https://christianchronicle.org/lawsuit-against-icoc-alleges-systemic-scheme-of-abuse/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/multiple-women-sue-christian-organization-alleged-abuse-coverup-source-anxiety-depression

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2003/06/boston-movement-apologizes/

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/we-should-be-better-at-fighting-sexual-abuse.html

https://ministrywatch.com/five-women-sue-christian-organization-alleging-cover-up-of-child-sexual-abuse/ TarnishedPath^talk 09:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If I can just suggest here, I think the two sides are talking past eachother a little bit here. I think XZealous' argument here is as follows: it is not that notability ever accrued and then "expired"; rather their argument seems to me to that "notability never existed, it's just that the nature of the process and some ambiguous wording in the policy around notability often causes us to lean towards a finding of "significant coverage" while a story covered by news media is unfolding, but when you go back and look at the actual weight of coverage in the grand scheme after the fact, you can reasonably decide the topic wasn't notable afterwards."But putting aside for the moment that editors on both sides here are conflating a policy that speaks to the appropriateness of the existence of articles with the ones that are meant to govern inclusion of content within existing articles (WP:Notability, WP:GNG and WP:SNGs are the former and WP:V, WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT, and WP:ONUS the latter), I don't find that the argument applies particularly well here.

On the one hand, the abstract policy argument being advanced by XZealous is subtle, but in my view correct (but I'm going to swap in the actual relevant policy language, because "notability" is not the right policy term of art to be utilizing in this case, as we are not discussing an article's viability but rather the appropriateness of specific content): there's a weird little grey space that our policies create where some things could become felt to be presumptively viable for inclusion which we later re-assess as not having had that much WP:WEIGHT ultimately, once we have the fuller understanding of the available sources--and, intrinsically to our project and process, once we have a fuller image of what the content of the article looks like and how much balance each piece of content should be given, at present. It's a valid argument. It just doesn't win the day in this case, imo. At the end of the day, I think the sourcing (and the size of the proposed content derived from it in the disputed section) satisfy both the weight and utility tests for inclusion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective this could be created into a standalone article say named Allegations of abuse against the International Churches of Christ and with the available sources pass AFC and any AFD. Does that mean it should be created into an article. Not necessarily when the size of the content can easily be accommodated in this article. When Larry slightly expanded the material it resulted in the section taking up 4,531 bytes out of a total article size of 68,926 bytes and I simply don't see any valid arguments about WP:WEIGHT (which actually covers not unduly giving airtime to minority viewpoints as against majority viewpoints) or WP:BALASP which hold against the slight expansion that Larry undertook. TarnishedPath^talk 02:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ps, a section of 4,531 bytes out of total 68,926 bytes for the article is a very long way from "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". You have no valid policy argument and you can't simply stonewall demanding consensus without a valid policy basis. TarnishedPath^talk 07:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the source that is the issue here. There are not three articles used as sources for the information about the court cases. The were all written within a few months of each other, and written within a few months of the cases. The cases were later dismissed, and have not received coverage since. Due to this, I think the size of the paragraph at the moment should at least stay the same and is in no need of expansion. XZealous (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The size of the section with the material restored is 4,531 bytes out of 68,926 bytes total for the article. I see absolutely no balancing issues. Do you have a policy based argument? TarnishedPath^talk 05:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I have seen @TarnishedPath has made a revision to a paragraph currently under discussion. If intentional, this action is inappropriate and against the consensus building process. I will revert this edit and allow the discussion to continue. XZealous (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask the same question as TP: what's your policy-based objection to the inclusion of this material? The detail you're removing allows readers to understand the lawsuits and what happened properly. For instance, the source states "This case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in July 2023" but you've reverted so that the article simply states "The lawsuits were dismissed in July 2023", which doesn't really give the full picture. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to have the "voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in July 2023." I must have reverted to the paragraph before that edit. XZealous (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some more experienced editors can weigh in here like @North8000 or @User:Snow Rise but how can accusations made in lawsuits that have been dismissed be encyclopedic in nature? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not . If the lawsuits have an outcome, then that is notable and like the Singapore case should be included in the article. In this situation, According to the LA Times, there has been a flood of litigation in the California state’s final days of a three-year window that gave adults additional time to sue. Dozens of lawsuits are being filed every day. Spurred by a 2020 change in state law, thousands of lawsuits alleging abuse as far back as the 1940s have been filed against dozens of organizations, including religious groups, private and public schools, sports groups and nonprofit organizations. In some cases, the alleged perpetrators have been dead for decades. The Methodist church had over 800 lawsuits filed, the Catholic Church thousands, the School district of California also thousands, the ICOC five. You don't see these un-litigated lawsuits showing up on these other groups WIKI pages, because most editors understand that until there is an outcome, these things belong in gossip columns not in an encyclopedia. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out above original research is not a basis for editing WP articles.

Ps, you've engaged in WP:CANVASSING by pinging Snow Rise. Not that I don't welcome their contribution, however please don't engage in canvassing again. TarnishedPath^talk 07:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR refers (only) to things put into article space. Most of Wikipedia editor discussions. and about 80% of all talk page content would be WP:OR if put into article space, but they aren't and so they are OK and normal. Degree of relevance and informativeness for the reader are valid criteria to discuss. My own opinion is the contents of dismissed or dropped lawsuits per se rates very low by those criteria and others. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything in a lawsuit. I think that it would be much more useful if a source could be found that gives some analysis and overview of these. For example, whether they as an organization were particularly culpable or responsible in those areas. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a nuanced situation, but my ultimate take is that most or all of the disputed content should come in. Even a single secondary source is sufficient to verify these details, provided it qualifies as an WP:RS. Further, there is no automatic, per se policy proscription which prevents articles from covering court cases after they have been dismissed, as evidences by uncountable numbers of such references across a huge number of articles--often even cases where BLP concerns regarding specific and identified parties are concerned.

Obviously this is a matter of weight, but also of utility. If I were a reader coming to this article (as either an outsider to the church, or if I was a member, incidentally), I would want to be aware of this information. Utility to the reader is an important factor to remember in close cases of WP:ONUS after verifiability itself has been basically established.

As to the arguments arising out of the legal context of these suits--specifically that the legislation temporarily enabling cases otherwise barred by statutes of limitation is a mitigating factor on how important we should deem these claims--are infeasible here, as manifestly and innately based in too much speculation and WP:original research/WP:SYNTHESIS. Likewise, whatever the local editorial groups are doing on other articles for other religious institutions which have faced suits is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and largely uncompelling to me: for all I know, I would support more coverage on those articles, but the main point is that process call upon a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here, based in application of policy to the existing sources and proposed content.

Therefore I support both sides on their arguments for inclusion of different facts: the existence of the civil suits is due, some coverage of the details of the complaint are due, if verifiable, as is the fact that some of these cases were dismissed, as is the fact that some of those dismissals were voluntary. I also find the ICOC's response not only acceptable, but a typical and normal thing to cover in such circumstances. I wouldn't grow the overall profile of the coverage of the lawsuits much beyond that, unless and until there are additional RS, but all of the disputed detail look roughly relevant to me and would not create an-outsized section. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Snowrise, your input is extremely valuable. Now, how do we practically do that? Do we pull the current content into the Talk page and work on it together as editors (following your direction given above) before re-inserting? Do we rollback the page 24 hours and tackle each section by section? In the past 24 hours or so, it appears that @Cordless and @Tarnished have made 45 page edits and additions combined!! It is overwhelming to even get your head around all these changes flooding the page at the same time. It may not be or maybe intentional, but It feels very much like WP:Tag Team editing to bypass the consensus building process. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath's recent edits have mostly just been reference format changes. The substantive additions have been mine. I had to time to look for secondary sources yesterday (following on from recent discussions about the need for more use of secondary sources), so was adding material from those. I'm not really sure why you see sourced additions to the article as bypassing the consensus building process; if anyone objects to my additions on policy grounds, they're welcome to do so, but a wholesale reversion seems extreme absent any argument for why the material doesn't belong. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, I find that you demonstrably made zero effort to find out what my edits were before making wild accusations about bad faith to be particularly egregious. I suggest strike most of your last comment. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, at present it looks to me as if the lawsuit section strikes the right balance. It includes a very brief description of the complaint, the ICOC's response, and the fact that some cases were voluntarily dismissed. Is there anything that seems to you to be missing from the section, over and above what has been previously discussed? Note that my previous reply was intended to address just the changes to that section, and only those that were being discussed at the time.

That said, I did just generate a large diff of the article, comparing the current version to that of 48 hours previous (which would include all changes introduced by CL and TP, as well as anyone else), and I didn't see anything that jumped out to me as problematic. The changes did on the whole give a fair bit of additional weight to certain criticisms of the church's recruiting methodology, but these additions are pretty robustly supported with additional sourcing, so I'm hesitant to describe any of it as undue. But your mileage may vary, and if you have specific concerns, I can try to give a WP:3O as to those as well. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

My only suggestion is that we restore my addition of quotes from an article about the lawsuits, to give more of a sense of what form the allegations took. This would involve re-adding the following:

The lawsuits alleged that the ICOC, together with its affiliates the International Christian Church, the City of Angels International Christian Church, HOPE Worldwide and Mercy Worldwide, "indoctrinated" the plaintiffs, keeping them isolated while they were sexually exploited and manipulated through the ICOC's "rigid" belief system. The lawsuit also named ICOC leaders, founder Kip McKean and the estate of Chuck Lucas, as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the ICOC and its leaders created a "system of exploitation that extracts any and all value it can from members". The lawsuit alleged that members were forced to give 10% of their income as a tithe to the church and additionally to fund twice-yearly special mission trips, which drove some to depression and suicide. The lawsuit stated that "If the tithing budget was not satisfied, leaders or 'disciplers' were forced to contribute the financial shortfall themselves, or members were required to locate the offending member who failed to tithe and sit on their porch until they arrived home in an attempt to obtain their tithe funds before Sunday evening was over."

Without this, the reader is left wondering what form the financial exploitation took, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @SnowRise, yes I agree the legal section seems to have found balance. Please help us if TP and CL continue without consensus trying to add WP:WEIGHT over there. Where the latest set of edits seems completely unbalanced and WP:UNDUE is the focus on a period in the 1990’s where the church received a lot of bad press, some merited some not. (I have counted 14 new sources added in the last 24 hrs all from the 1990’s) As you may know, the church stepped McKean down from his leadership roles in the early 2000’s, wrote apology letters and embarked on a reform process. McKean was eventually disfellowshipped from the church entirely and started the ICC (International Christian Church) in 2006. The Tarring and Feathering and POV pushing seems extreme for supposedly “neutral” and “un-involved” editors. If you recommend a WP:3O that might be helpful. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an article written about the reforms "Evertt Huffard, vice president and dean of Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tenn., attended the summit and said he witnessed a “humble spirit” among those present.

“I saw a group who have learned from their mistakes and have tried to respond accordingly,” Huffard said. “My feeling is, if mainstream Churches of Christ were ever so open and honest about the mistakes of our past and responded accordingly, we’d be a healthier, growing church today.” JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not our task to judge whether the bad press is merited or not, but rather to summarise what reliable secondary sources have to say about the topic. If the material added in my recent edits seems negative, that's because the sources about that period have negative things to say about the ICOC. Also, there's been no attempt to subvert consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

How about putting COI tags and restrictions on MetaVoyager and myself without gaining any community consensus?? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who placed the connected contributor tag on this talk page, so that's not really a question for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Degree of wp:relevance and informativeness for the reader are valid considerations for editor decisions. A large amount of withdrawn civil lawsuit accusations from a long time ago during a different era of the church, with wording that does not put it in time/era context from sources that are just including factoids without analysis or "overview" type coverage IMO does not serve those goals. Ideally we'd find a good source that provides an overview and use that as the main source for coverage of those actions from that era. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The lawsuits aren't from a long time ago but rather last year. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

As an example, the addition didn't even specify which time period the withdrawn lawsuits were about; very essential information. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be very happy for that to be added. The LA Times article reports 1987 to 2012. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hang on, this information is already in the article! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about lack of identifying the time period(s) for the specific allegation(s) when putting those allegations in. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't give specific dates for each of the allegations, so I think 1987 to 2012 is the best we have, unless we use primary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about a higher level of precision, I was talking about coupling insertions of specific allegations to a general time frame. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. The proposed insertion would be to the paragraph that contains the sentence starting "They alleged that between 1987 and 2012", so I think this is already covered by my proposal. See here for what it looked like before XZealous reverted. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's just a link to the whole article, but I did take a look at the main revert. I'm not deep in enough here to give a solid opinion, but after my superficial look my first impression is that appears like good article content. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It should go to the specific section if the link is working correctly. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Is there any key update info missing from there? (e.g. decided, withdrawn, dismissed etc.) North8000 (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Not that I know of. It includes that the lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in July 2023. Rolling Stone has reported that some of the allegations subsequently featured in two new lawsuits filed in Los Angeles, but we can't use that source per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)