Talk:International Churches of Christ

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)

I will try to get the original source but here is one where an expert witness testifies that the church is not a cult and “ “none of their teachings and practices could or would be considered by the ordinary man on Singapore as abhorrent or harmful to society”.

The judge concluded: “As we know the facts, the CCC, of course, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be equated with such groups. One can say straightaway that CCC is not a commune of half-crazed people living in isolation from the world at large worshipping and kissing the foot of some self-appointed messiah or prophet. Most of its members carry on with their full-time jobs like members of other churches. Its members do not give up their assets to a commune, and its leaders do not live in riches on the backs of its members. It is not a secret organisation run by persons with an agenda which is kept secret from its members. People are welcome to join its meetings and services. In fact it actively tries to get people to attend its meetings and services so that they can see if they wish to join. They are made fully aware of what being a member would involve. People are never deceived or tricked or trapped into joining it.” JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is an academic paper on the church from Pepperdine University https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=leaven JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

North's list of sources that IMO look like good ones to work from

I quickly scanned all of the references. Some of the off-line books appear that they would would have an overview but not in-depth section because they have a broader scope. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=leaven (3 1/2 page historical overview, 1960 - 2009)
• https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/icoc-members-alleged-abuse-cult-behavior-1234798928/ Not good regarding being a secondary source, but an immense amount of detailed allegations from ex members regarding the 1990's through 2007 and details on the 2023 lawsuits regarding that era.
• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-28/church-sexual-abuse-allegations LA Times article Not good regarding being secondary source coverage, but coverage of detailed allegations from ex members regarding the 1990's through 2007 and details on the 2023 lawsuits regarding the approx 1990's through 2007 era.
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/19/international-churches-of-christ-lawsuits-alleged-sexual-abuse Good secondary source on the recent lawsuits regarding the
• https://christianchronicle.org/revisiting-the-boston-movement-icoc-growing-again-after-crisis/ 2012 summary, primarily of the issues and transitions during the previous 15 years
• https://www.marketfaith.org/2021/04/whatever-happened-to-the-international-churches-of-christ-part-1-history-and-controversy-tal-davis/ short overview of some history, issues and changes
• https://www.marketfaith.org/2021/04/whatever-happened-to-the-international-churches-of-christ-part-2-beliefs-and-analysis-tal-davis/ analysis/critique of their doctrine and methods
• https://www.academia.edu/99822506/The_Need_for_Group_Discernment_in_Leading_Change 8 page 2023 paper written by a high level insider. Mostly about the transition and what led to it. Looks academic and objective. Including being critical, albeit diplomatically
• https://www.academia.edu/44311865/With_Great_Charisma_Comes_Great_Responsibility 27 page 2010 paper written by a high level insider. A study and criticism of the role of charisma in ICOC during the founder's period. Looks academic and objective. Including being critical, albeit diplomatically

End of North's list

The problem with the Rolling Stone source is WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. You say that the LA Times article is "Not good regarding being secondary source coverage", but I'd regard it as a secondary source (the primary source is the lawsuits). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Rolling Stone, I'm not a believer in blanket categorization of sources. I agree that in Wikipedia terms, the LA Times is a secondary source. My "Not good regarding being secondary source coverage" comment related more towards that they were just repeating what the allegations and persons making them said rather than doing study or analysis. But I consider them to be both good sources within that scope and with that caveat. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would love to be able to use the Rolling Stone article because I think it's well researched, but "there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011" doesn't leave much scope for discretion in my reading. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

For this topic, I'd consider them to be a good primary-ish source and a poor secondary source. Wiki-stuff aside.North8000 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

As I noted above, there's no clear editorial policy on the MarketFaith website. I don't think we can regard this as a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I was making an attempt at actual reliability / credibility/expertise and usefulness (within noted caveats and limitations), not WP:RS criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Plus, regarding "analysis/critique of their doctrine and methods" right now we have zero sources that would meet all criteria, especially recent/current. The current conversations/content in that area is based on deriving it from ICOC material. If nothing else, maybe this points that out. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/99822506/The_Need_for_Group_Discernment_in_Leading_Change

https://www.academia.edu/44311865/With_Great_Charisma_Comes_Great_Responsibility XZealous (talk) 11:32, 19 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)

It's a bit unfortunate that the book is from 2001, so was published just before the founder split from the ICOC. Useful for history, but not for anything about the current organization. Valereee (talk) 13:15, 20 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)

I concur with this comment. TarnishedPath^talk 06:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

So, the last thing I want to do here is muddy the waters further, but there is an important distinction that I think needs to be pointed out here. It is not per se WP:original research for an editor to raise questions about the validity of content inside a source, even if it is plainly a WP:Reliable source. While it is true that challenged information cannot be included unless it can be verified, the question of whether or not to include verified information that may be incorrect is more nuanced: verification is, afterall, just the first step in determining whether to include a particular fact or claim. After the WP:V analysis there is an WP:ONUS test to determine whether or not inclusion is in all other respects the right call.

The primary reason content may not pass ONUS is because it is not WP:DUE, but there are a number of other reasons verified content might be omitted. One of those valid reasons is when the local editors decide, via consensus, that there is substantial and unavoidable reason to doubt the accuracy of the source content. If there is enough compelling evidence in the form of internal inconsistencies in the source or manifestly flawed information that cannot be reconciled with well-established facts (say, for example, attributing an act to someone decades after they died) then the source can be disregarded for certain purposes, even if it would typically otherwise qualify as an WP:RS.

That said, the burden of proof for omission on the basis of dubious claims is very high, because verifiable content is presumptively appropriate for inclusion, provided it comes from an RS and is DUE, even if it jars with our personal perspectives on the actual facts. To let editors invalidate claims in RS just because they have doubts as to the veracity of said claims would invite rampant avoidance of the principle of "verifiability, not truth", which pegs inclusion to an objective "Is it verifiable in an RS?" standard, rather than a subjective "Is it the 'truth'?" test. So while an argument to omit reliably sourced information on the grounds that is dubious is not "original research" in the strictest sense, no such omission should ever take place unless there is clear consensus that the inconsistencies and irregularities add up to create a significant doubt as to the veracity of the reliable source's content.

So the question here becomes (and I would ask every editor on either side of this issue to pause and take a beat to consider this question carefully, irrespective of whether you think the disputed content would or would not improve the article): are we confident that the inconsistencies in the article are the result of the author simply mistaking the acronyms involved (ICoC and ICC)? Or do we have any significant doubt that the source may be conflating organizations and churches more broadly? In my opinion, only if we are fairly confident that the errors were limited to that one detail should we use the source to support any claims on its own. If we think there's even a decent chance that the author may be confusing the churches and facts beyond that one misuse of terminology, we should err on the side of caution and not use it to support disputed claims on its own.

But in either event, we are not beholden to getting an author to correct or recall their work before we decide not to rely on it. If we have substantial enough reason to doubt the reliability of the coverage, that can be reason enough to omit a claim. It's just that the reasons have to be based in obvious flaws in the source, not whether a given editor agrees with the facts it presents. Personally, I need some more time to parse the content of the source before I weigh in with an opinion as to the whether the one confirmed error here amounts to reason to disregard the source altogether. But I thought it was important to first clarify that inclusion is never automatic, even for claims found in reliable sources: we must also apply every principle of common sense if there are noticeable and indisputable errors in the source. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Given what's quoted above it's fairly clear to me that the author is merely mistaking acronyms. I see no reason why a facebook page should be taken as evidence invalidating a story by a RS. TarnishedPath^talk 09:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I'm not sure that anyone is arguing by using a Facebook page to invalidate the story. I was stating that the sources the author uses points to an ICC Church, not an ICOC. I just want to make sure that comes across clear, so I am not misrepresented. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't even think that the abbreviation is a mistake. Lots of reliable sources use ICC for the International Churches of Christ. It's just an alternative abbreviation to ICOC - albeit a slightly confusing one since it is also used to refer to a different chruch. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the abbreviation ICC is also used for ICOC, although most sources that I see that use this are before the ICC was formed. The confusion may come in because he referenced both Churches. Outside of the abbreviation discussion, the sources he uses are connected to the ICC, not the ICOC XZealous (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The source you quoted above stated that ""Keegan had joined the International Churches of Christ (ICC)". TarnishedPath^talk 11:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've now read the entirety of the source in question, reviewed the disputed content in this article, reviewed the relevant sections in the Kip McKean/ICC article and reviewed all six of the webpages raised my XZealous above, and I'm afraid the combined information does give me reservations as well. The author of the New Zealand Herald piece does seem to be unaware of (or else fails to indicate) a distinction between the ICC and ICoC groups: Keegan had joined the International Churches of Christ (ICC) – also known as "Multiplying Ministries", "International Christian Church" or the "Discipling Movement" – a fringe Christian cult renowned for targeting university students on campuses in Australia. (emphasis added). There do indeed seem to be separate ministries in Sydney for each group, and the one the campus group referenced in the Herald piece does seem to be an outreach organization affiliated with the local branch of the ICC, not the ICoC.

So, again, I am stuck on the question of whether or not the author's confusion as to particular specific facts is compelling enough reason to disqualify the source as a valid verifying citation for the disputed content. On the one hand, it really does seem that the author's knowledge of the organizations and their relationships is somewhat superficial, and this has resulted in demonstrably incorrect information (even if the errors are small and understandable for an outside writing a single piece on the subject).

On the other hand, the more relevant policy question here doesn't directly turn on those errors. The content that the source is meant to support is the assertion that the ICoC have been banned from a number of Australian Universities. The source might still be valid for that assertion, even if we can see that the main story that the Herald piece turns upon ("Keegan's" story and the specific activities on a particular campus) seem to concern a specific campus group that is connected with the ICC and not the ICoC. So maybe the claim can still be WP:verified by this source, even though there would be issues with attributing the particular activities discussed in the main thrust of the piece to the ICoC (which the source is not be using for at present)? Eh, it's a close call, I'll say that much.

But there is perhaps another solution here, and that is to find a way to rework the prose to expressly identify that the source references both "The International Churches of Christ" and the "International Christian Churches". Certainly we have other sources which discuss the kind of activities described in the Herald source in very similar terms, so the Herald author's conflation is understandable and maybe something we can make plain to the reader somehow, and let them process that detail accordingly in trying to determine whether the behaviour being described, and the university bans that resulted, apply most aptly to the ICoC, the ICC, or both at different times and in different cases. But I will say that the concern that XZealous has raised is not groundless: there's definitely flawed/fuzzy attribution in the Herald piece that complicates its usage here in some respects. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the sources article and giving it a fair analysis. It is a tricky situation, but if we are to be fair, we have to realize this article is about an ICC Church. It would be bothersome to have material in the ICOC article when seeing it is not about that Church. XZealous (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This article states unambiguously that ICOC has been banned from campuses around Australia. Not sure if the source is reliable but this clearly backs up the assertion in the New Zealand Herald. TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The same article can be found on News.com.au. From the article:

Keegan had joined the International Churches of Christ (ICC) – also known as ‘Multiplying Ministries’, ‘International Christian Church’ or the ‘Discipling Movement’ – a fringe Christian cult renowned for targeting university students on campuses in Australia.

Originally formed in 1979 by radical preacher Kip McKean, the group became renowned for its rigid teaching and extreme views, with the main line Church of Christ movement quickly disavowing the group.

Given the reference to Kip, I don't find it hard to ascertain that the ICOC is the entity being referred to even if the writer mixes up calling them International Christian Church. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the sources the author is using in the article? They are related to the ICC Church, not the ICOC. XZealous (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

They make reference to Discipling and a church started in 1979 by Kip. That's the ICOC not the ICC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking if you have looked at the sources the author uses.

"The group has been formally banned from operating at a number of universities across the country including UNSW, but remain connected through the ‘UNSW Lions’, who advertise weekly meetings which are held on campus, sometimes in student accommodation.

The student group have renamed themselves multiple times to remain on campus, but engage with ICC churches on social media, and host regular talks by ICC church ministers.

A link on the Lions’ linktree titled ‘our church’ also leads straight to the Sydney ICC branch homepage."

This is in relation to an ICC Church, not an ICOC one. If you follow what the author is saying, you will see this too. XZealous (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You've repeatedly made reference to a the FB page. It's unconvincing given that the article makes reference to facts about ICOC which can be confirmed. TarnishedPath^talk 12:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect this article by Sydney's Daily Telegraph has more to say on the issue, however it's behind a paywall. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This source also states that the ICOC has been banned from a number of Australian campuses, so I've added it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I would defer to Snow Rise's thoughts as they have done a through and objective analysis. I would add (a general statement, don't imply an stance on this question from from it) editors (based on discussions and other wiki-processes) can simply decide to not use a source. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources of possible confusion is that McKean founded both churches, and the two churches started out with very similar practices. Undoubtedly both churches think of themselves as the "real" continuation of McKean's work. So either interpretation of what the source is saying could be true. Valereee (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee its seems more like the ICOC in the early 2000's did work to reform the practices brought in by McKean. McKean then left to start his own group (ICC), as he was ousted from the ICOC which has been reforming itself from practices that were learned to be harmful in some way. From what I have seen, the ICC is getting the same responses from members, ex-members, and the public as the early ICOC did. XZealous (talk) 05:13, 25 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)

The prose you suggested looks good to me. I can't see any issues with WP:BALASP given the limited prose as compared to the rest of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 07:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I support a decently detailed description of the complaints made in the law suit, seeing as such details can be cited to a secondary source. That said, I do think the lawsuits section is getting a little bloated, relative to the number of sources used and the overall article size and source corpus. I think we could use half as many words and still capture most of the over-arching details. If nothing else, the last sentence could go and very little detail necessary to summarize the lawsuits would be lost. But that's just my take and even then, I want to emphasize that too much description of the complaints is far more desirable than none. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of the proposed prose I take you mean? TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, just so: the last sentence of the proposed addition, ending in "before Sunday evening was over." I think if there's anything that could be removed to streamline things a little without hurting the overall summary, it would be that sentence. Regarding the rest of the content currently live in the the article's lawsuit section, I believe there is rough consensus that all of it is WP:DUE and basically in-proportion. Well, plus or minus any additional minor tweaks that results from the caveats that are currently being worked out below regarding North8000's thoughts and the responses there-to. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

So it would read:

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.

With additional references used that are already in the current wording. @Cordless Larry can you get behind that? TarnishedPath^talk 10:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I can yes. I think it's worth including a short paraphrase of the final sentence (currently omitted), but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were proposing this as an addition, not as a replacement for the previous text. We've now lost the time span of the allegations, which I think is important (see below). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a revert. Can you give some prose for what you think the whole subsection should look like. TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

How about this?

In 2022, the ICOC and the International Christian Churches were named in multiple US federal lawsuits. They alleged that between 1987 and 2012, leaders of the two churches covered up the sexual abuse of children, some of whom were as young as three, and financially exploited members. 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 lawsuits 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. If the tithing budget was not met, they alleged, disciplers were forced to cover the financial shortfall themselves, or to sit on the porch of the non-tithing member until they arrived home on a Sunday, so as to obtain the funds. The Los Angeles ICOC responded to the lawsuits by stating: "As the Church's long-standing policies make clear, we do not tolerate any form of sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, or sexual coercion, and we will fully cooperate with the authorities in any investigations of this type of behavior". The lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in July 2023.

Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think if we are going to incorporate @Snow Rise's input we would leave out "If the tithing budget was not met, they alleged, disciplers were forced to cover the financial shortfall themselves, or to sit on the porch of the non-tithing member until they arrived home on a Sunday, so as to obtain the funds. TarnishedPath^talk 03:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried to shorten that part by paraphrasing, but perhaps wasn't that successful, so if others want that left out, that's OK by me. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that the sentence hurts but if we're going to establish consensus then I don't think it's that great a loss to remove it. TarnishedPath^talk 08:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In 2022, the ICOC and the International Christian Churches were named in multiple US federal lawsuits. They alleged that between 1987 and 2012, leaders of the two churches covered up the sexual abuse of children, some of whom were as young as three, and financially exploited members. 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 lawsuits 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 Los Angeles ICOC responded to the lawsuits by stating: "As the Church's long-standing policies make clear, we do not tolerate any form of sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, or sexual coercion, and we will fully cooperate with the authorities in any investigations of this type of behavior". The lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in July 2023.

@Snow Rise, what do you think about the prose above to replace the current prose at International_Churches_of_Christ#Lawsuits_related_to_alleged_coverup_of_sexual_abuse? TarnishedPath^talk 10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Was there significant withdrawals/dismissals to the extent that such is needed as context for the above? North8000 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question I'm afraid, North8000. Could you rephrase? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that looks more or less like the combined consensus version as far as I can determine, TarnishedPath. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:04, 17 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)

Well, considering all factors relevant to this scenario, my inclination is that concerns about the coverage focusing on dated events are best addressed by adding content, rather than removing it. I admit I am not keeping up with everything added in each subsequent day as steady additions are being made, but for the most part TP and CL's additions seem to be adequately sourced. But given the substantial amount of criticism being included, I think it probably makes sense to add a bit of any or each of the following, to the extent they are available: 1) Perhaps most useful: additional content that helps clarify the timeline, discussion of which is already ongoing below. 2) even a little bit more the church's responses to particular claims, whether it be in the form of denials, mea culpas, or just contextualizing info. And 3) third-party coverage and commentary. Perhaps you could propose some additional content here that aligns with any of those three purposes, along with appropriate supporting sources? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:36, 14 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)

Conduct dispute: parties advised to either find it in themselves to drop this matter, or take it to an appropriate discussion space. SnowRise let's rap 09:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Yes, but it was done in full view of you, and as an Adminstrator who should have known better, you raised no objection. Last time I checked being an accessory to a wrong doing doesn’t make you innocent, as you are trying to claim. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC) Jamie, I understand your position, but I'd like to suggest to you that this is not a productive line of discussion for this time and place. Talk pages are reserved for discussing editorial issues, rather than behavioural issues. There are specific forums for raising issues regarding editor conduct. For this topic you could, theoretically, raise these matters at ANI, but I strongly recommend against it in this instance for a number of reasons: First off, you will have already have seen that time spent in that space is rarely pleasant and often steals significant amounts of time better spent more productively elsewhere. Second, this exact topic was already raised as part of the previous ANI and COIN discussions, which ended about as well as I think you could have expected, all factors considered. Re-hashing any of those issues is, I think, unlikely to gain you anything but a type of attention you would really rather avoid. And bear in mind, I say that as someone who went to bat against the notion that you had an actionable COI. My strong advice is that dredging up those issues for a second round of "who is the real problem here?" is not in the best interest of the two groups of editors who previously butted heads, and certainly not the best thing for the talk page or the article. I think it is past time for everyone to move on, recognize each-other as valid contributors to the article with something to give, and find a way to work out logger-head issues using the various dispute resolution tools which have been available all-along. You're welcome to dismiss that advice of course (though I hope I have instilled in you enough of a sense of my impartiality that you will take it at face value if I tell you that you are rolling the dice if you do so). But either way, this talk page is not the place for that discussion. If you have misgivings or questions about any of what I've said here, and you want me to clarify any of it, please feel free to stop by my talk page. But for now, in this space, let's turn our attention back to content matters. SnowRise let's rap 09:55, 14 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)

I don't have the depth of knowledge on this to say much more. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

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

NPOV

WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View)

A Quick Look over at the [[Authorship]] show two editors now account for almost 40% of the articles content. Over a four day period there were 63 edits completed by these two combined. I am not saying there is malicious intent or that they alone have done this but the bottom line is what we are left with is:

• 61 negative words are used to describe the ICOC
• Cult is used 3x’s in the Lead, 19 times in the rest of the body.
• 22 other negative words are used in the body, many multiple times for a total of 38 other negative mentions.  
• Words used: Sect. Aberrational. Abusive. Coerced. Disavowed. Aggressive. Banned. Disillusioned. Authoritarian. Oppressive. Controlled. Criticism. Hostility. Shunned. Destructive. Depression. Disassociation. Distress. Barred. Harassment. Mind control. Abuse.

This leaves me wondering is this an encyclopedia or a tabloid??

Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) policy requires that all viewpoints of any topic be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia. When incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner. Additionally, the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The coverage of characterisations of the ICOC as a cult in the lede does rather dominate, in large part because the lede itself doesn't summarise the article as a whole sufficiently. I've been planning on proposing an expansion of the lede for a while, which will hopefully address this point.

On the "negative" tone of the rest of the article though, I would argue that this is simply a reflection of what secondary sources have to say about the topic. You'd have a point if there were a bunch of reliable secondary sources that portrayed the ICOC in a positive light and they were being ignored, but when I recently searched ProQuest and some other databases for media coverage with which to expand the article, a very high proportion of the sources characterise the church as a cult or in other negative light. I did include more positive coverage where I could find it, such as here, but that sort of coverage is rare. If there are secondary sources I'm overlooking, it would be good to hear about them. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Bottom line: this looks like sour grapes... You are just as signficant a contributor and your own edits appear at least as questionable as the ones you are now alledging but not alledging are disruptive. I would also re-read DUE and never use the term "negative criticism" again because that ain't in there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Jamie, if we're going to measure things on the number of edits alone, you have edited the article 894 times out of your total edits to Wikipedia of 2,519. Do you think that's insightful way to view your editing of this article?

Now getting to your more substantive argument, NPOV does not require that we give all viewpoints equal airplay. Doing so could potentially lead to WP:FALSEBALANCE. "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". TarnishedPath^talk 00:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I can gather it appears that 20 - 30 years ago they had some cult-like attributes and then kicked off a significant set of changes/evolution away from that about 20 years ago. Whatever we say we should be trying to inform the readers rather than trying to have "sides" debating and wikilawyering (using the kinder gentler meaning of that term) to put in good or bad sounding stuff. IMO it's more important to put in informative stuff. IMO just repeating the epitaph "cult" a lot of times and without adding information and time context (that it was referring to) to each use of the term is not very informative, at best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I generally tried to include dates to the text when adding the material I recently added, e.g. "In his 2001 book The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions, David V. Barrett wrote that the ICOC...", "In 1998, Ron Loomis, an expert on cults and leader of a cult-awareness program at the College of Lake County, called the ICOC...", "In 1994, the New York Times reported that Campus Advance, the ICOC's campus ministry...", and so on. That said, it's not just historical sources that refer to the ICOC as a cult; some recent sources continue to do that. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it might help to get some more editors involved. GreenC, Valereee, and Bdushaw have all worked on the Wikipedia:Crime labels essay, and are therefore probably better suited to talk about labels like "cult" than the average editor. If memory serves, Masem also had some thoughts on this subject. Perhaps these four could take a look at the best way to handle this subject, instead of having the same four editors butting heads over just how often to use that label in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this church or article history, but right away I see a yellow flag in the lead section, nearly half of it is dedicated to "allegations" of a "cult". The word "cult" is vague raising specters of Jim Jones. It's almost always better to be specific as to what activities are of concern rather than vague and contentious negative labels like "cult". It's like calling some a "fraudster" vs. "convicted for stealing $10 million" - which reveals and explains, versus obscures and name calling? -- GreenC 19:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)::Thank you @GreenC, this is very helpful 🙏 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @GreenC, this is very helpful 🙏 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I note above, the lede needs a complete rewrite. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the term. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources use lots of terms that are problematic on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of fraudsters etc says that you should pick a different example... As does Edward Davenport (fraudster), Robert Courtney (fraudster), Mehmet Aydın (fraudster), Russell King (fraudster), John McNamara (fraudster), John Thomson (fraudster), Sarah Howe (fraudster), etc. Its not an either or situation, you say they're a fraudster and you explain why. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Responding to ping. The most reliable sources -- recent academic publications -- very seldom use the term cult any more. What's typically seen recently is "new religions", with discussion of "coercive persuasion" practiced by some. "Cult" is used extremely carefully if at all. Wikipedia shouldn't be using it in wikivoice unless it is being used by recent peer-reviewed academic publications. We shouldn't be using it at all without attribution. Valereee (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've checked and use of the term to describe the ICOC in the article is reserved for attributed quotes - the article doesn't use it in Wikipedia's voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?

The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading:
"Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult. Janja Lalich, an academic expert on cults and coercion, has stated that in her view, the ICOC has at minimum some of the "hallmarks of a cult". The church has been barred from recruiting students on campuses or has been denied student organization status at numerous universities."
TarnishedPath^talk 12:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead)

• Yes, there are numerous reliable sources which refer to the ICOC as being a cult or cultish as can be attested to by the body of the article. Per MOS:LEAD the lead should follow the body of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Adding to my comment here, I'm not opposed to @Valereee's suggested change in wording to "Barrett noted in 2001 that in the 1990s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement". TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Janja Lalich looks a little suspect. She's a former member of a group she calls a cult, so she has an axe to grind. She's an emeritus sociology prof, so probably not publishing current peer-reviewed research? She calls herself a foremost expert on cults, but are other academics calling her that? Valereee (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is she a former member of ICOC? TarnishedPath^talk 12:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, some other group, but does that matter? Valereee (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would think it does. If she has an axe to grind that would more likely to be with the group that she was formerly a member of. TarnishedPath^talk 12:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, wasn't clear: she has an axe to grind on using the term cult, not about this particular group. She runs the Lalich Center on Cults and Coercion. Of course she uses the term cult. The organization doesn't seem to have an academic affiliation -- that is, it's not at Cal State Chico, where she taught -- which means it's her personal hobbyhorse. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  And on wikipedia we tend to present the personal hobbyhorses of acknowledged experts in their field... Having an axe to grind doesn't generally disqualify (imagine trying to use something like Science Based Medicine if we couldn't use the hobbyhorses of axe grinders). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Except that Science-based medicine has an editorial board and staff. The Lalich center has a social media manager, a research assistant, a workbook co-author, and an administrative assistant, two of whom also describe themselves as cult survivors. We can't really compare the two. Valereee (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not to go off on a tangent but there is no editorial board or staff for Science Based Medicine in the link, just two editors and a list of editors emeritus. I guess you could call the two editors the staff, but then they couldn't also be the editorial board could they? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, we've got an executive editor and a managing editor? Valereee (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I don't know anything about this group so I have nothing to say either way, but I edit in this topic area a lot and Lalich is one of a few authors who tends to be very quick to call things cults, which is in opposition to the field as a whole. She isn't unreliable but her opinions may not always constitute due weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Further, cult basically just means (despite our bad article on its pretensions) "religious movement or self help group that someone doesn't like". It is almost solely used as a value judgement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  This whole topic has to also deal with the Cult Wars Academia issue which is, a whole disaster in and of itself, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA, do we have someone calling her 'quick to call things cults'. Valereee (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is the first thing I found; admittedly from a review. I recall reading more but I am away from the computer right now. From the premier NRM/cult research journal:

  "Expert analysis is tilted heavily toward voices that can reinforce the narrative of destructive cults as a social problem. Stephen Kent and especially Janja Lalich are the most prominently featured and are described as "cult experts." Both of these scholars are known for their theories of coercion in new religious movements. [...] Lalich is shown exclaiming "Oh my God!" as a former NXIVM member recounts women being stripped naked and paddled. At one point, she states bluntly that the Jehovah's Witnesses "misuse and abuse the Bible." [...] The series never really provides a definition of a cult and addresses this question only obliquely. Instead, the audience is led to assume that cults are a monolithic force in which their defining feature is the abuse of members."

  I don't think she's bad as much as she's quite opinionated and her scholarship is a bit deviated from the rest of the field's view; I think it would be due weight in the article, perhaps not in the lead. At least she doesn't think the satanic panic happened, to my awareness. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think we should avoid citing the view of a single individual - expert or not - in the lede, and instead include a more general statement about the ICOC being characterised as a cult by some ex-members as well as anti-cult activists and by academics. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'd think we'd need to use only recent academic sources and quote/attribute those statements, anywhere in the article. IMO, the opinions of ex-members shouldn't be used at all. The fact a person was once a member of a group they now call a cult is meaningless. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I didn't mean we should report the views of ex-members directly, but rather use a secondary, scholarly source. For example, Jenkins writes that "This ICOC structure [discipling] has been greatly criticized by anti-cult organizations, university officials (the ICOC has been banned from several campuses), and ex-members". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Elsewhere, she writes: "Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a 'dangerous cult'. Who makes such claims about this healing group? Ex-members, former leaders, anti-cult groups, and many university officials who have banned the group from campuses because of their 'deceptive recruiting techniques' and authoritarian structure". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think if academics are currently discussing the group having been called a cult previously, we can include. We shouldn't be sourcing even to an academic in 1997 without mentioning both the date and attributing. But I'm kind of wondering why it's even important that we use this term that is arguably simply out of date. I mean, we almost have to explain that 'cult' was commonly used back then for what is now termed 'new religions'. And for what purpose? Why not just describe what they were doing?

  If academics are discussing the group using coercive persuasion and manipulation to recruit and keep members, either now or in the past, definitely include. Valereee (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think that there are enough allegations that the PREVIOUS VERSION of the church was a cult or has significant cult-like attributes that it suitable to mention them (the accusations AS accusations) in the lead. Also IF experts are saying that they have/had cult-like attributes, what is also suitable for the lead. But again ANY SUCH THINGS SHOULD INCLUDE THE TIME PERIOD THAT THEY ARE REFERRING TO. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• So that's No to the literal question of the RFC of simply calling them a cult. This would also violate other policies including wp:ver. For a discussion about the more realistic possibilities/ implied question, see my post above this. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think we'd also have to mention the fact that during the period this group was being called a cult, a lot of 'new religions' were called cults. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so but I think we need to get across that the ICOC received more attention on this front than most, as Barrett noted in 2001: "In the last decade ICOC has attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility from anti-cultists". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

So we could say "Barrett noted in 2001 that in the 1990s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement. That would work for me. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Great minds (ahem) think alike - see below! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that change. TarnishedPath^talk 00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In fact, maybe rather than noting that the ICOC has been described as a cult, we could use that Barrett quote (or paraphrase it) in the lede? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I could see replacing the Lalich sentence with that or something similar. More neutral, describes what was happening, adds date context for readers. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm thankful for this discussion. At the outset, I acknowledged my membership in a local congregation associated with the ICOC and hope that my contribution will be viewed as helpful. @North8000 makes an important point about fixing a time period to the sourced cult allegations. Most of the sourcing describes actions from the late 1990s and early 2000s during a time when the ICOC was aggressive in evangelism and engaged in active discipleship among its members. I doubt that any editor with an ICOC background would dispute this general description of that time period although we might quibble over the details in the wording. In my view, it is appropriate for some description of this time period to appear in the history section of the ICOC article. However, 2003 was the beginning of a period of reckoning and reform within the ICOC. In 2006, major leadership and organizational changes deconstructed the ICOC from a centralized worldwide religious organization into a voluntary association of local congregations that collaborate through regional families of churches. I’ve previously addressed this change on the Talk Page with sourcing about the ICOC’s Plan for United Cooperation published in 2006. Significantly within this same time frame, a small group of former ICOC leaders disavowed their connection to the ICOC and established a separate religious entity, known as the International Christian Church (ICC), and continued some of the same practices of centralized structure, aggressive evangelism and active discipleship that had been dialed back or abandoned by the ICOC. Any confusion between the ICOC and ICC is understandable with there being a period of common history from 1979-2006, but the current distinction and separateness between the two groups is essential to accurately describe in the article the current status of the ICOC. The dismissed federal lawsuits that have been the subject of endless debate on this Talk Page have added to the confusion as the plaintiffs conflated the ICOC and the ICC in their pleadings. My hope is that future editing will acknowledge that the current version of the ICOC is significantly different than the past version and vastly different from the ICC. As a final contextual comment, when I go to church, we sing hymns, listen to a minister’s sermon and engage in a period of fellowship. We have Sunday School for children with many child protection-based safeguards. We have social activities and Bible studies during the week. We adhere to a stated set of shared beliefs that I am attempting to edit into the ICOC article. I acknowledge my bias, but I do not identify with being a member of a cult or view my church experience as engaging in cult-like behavior. I’m well aware of the need for appropriate sourcing before adding my views to the article, but I offer these thoughts on the Talk Page in the spirit of offering what I hope is helpful context as we seek to provide an encyclopedic-worthy description of the ICOC.   Meta Voyager (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, thank you, your comments over here are helpful and quite frankly, refreshing. This testimony by an expert witness (not entirely sure how you get that qualification) and a presiding judge should also be included, yes? https://centralchristianchurch.sg/our-legal-victory/. This case is covered in a RS, the Straight Times of Singapore. It believe is referenced somewhere in the Talk Page. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Or, over here, where the 1million member churches of Christ apologized for using the term “cult” to describe the ICOC. https://christianchronicle.org/revisiting-the-boston-movement-icoc-growing-again-after-crisis/ JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Another article is the Dean of Religious Life at the University of Southern California apologized for unfairly labeling the Los Angeles ICOC a “cult” and reversed the inappropriate banning pg 4 Someone with access to the university archives would need to help find the original. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Both the Central Christian Church and the Christian Chronicle sources appear to be affiliated? We can't use them. USC, we could use, but that link just goes to a google sign in page. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We could use the articles those are based on, for instance this one, if we can find them. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

One of them is already used at International Churches of Christ#Lawsuit by an ICOC member church alleging defamation. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, I am busy traveling and am away from reliable WiFi. The Christian Chronicle is not affiliated, it is the Newspaper for the 1.6million member churches of Christ. Secondly, the court case mentioned on the CCC website are covered in an RS, the Strait Times of Singapore. I can find the link if you think these are usable in the LEDE. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That the churches of christ made the apology is covered in the body, which as I have pointed out before is a bit odd because the body doesn't state that churches of christ had ever made the statement for which they ended up apologising. TarnishedPath^talk 00:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee I also see this as a valid point. Some of the sources I read have other religious group leaders (not related to the ICOC) are ones hesitant to call the ICOC a "cult" as they recognize many NRM (New Religious Movements) usually come out with an aggressive evangelism and such. It seems as time has gone on, these allegations have also died down. XZealous (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they had a paricularly large amount of lot of cult-like characteristics in the period that ended ~20 years ago and much less so now, "Is a cult" is an even stronger statement / more serious accusation and somebody reversing that overstatement does not mean saying that they didn't have a significant amount of cult-like characteristic during that period. But the time period should be specified on any such accusations/discussions. Failure to do so implies that they are about the present organization. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• No This needs to be flushed out more clearly in the body of the article before being added to the lead. As North8000 has pointed out, the current version has some issues. Nemov (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Could I ask you to provide a bit more detail on what you mean by "flushed out more clearly" in the body? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is a really long article and a paragraph in the lead focusing on on cult stuff doesn't really seem to follow the body of the article. This discussion seems like a cart before the horse to me. Nemov (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is some coverage of the cult characterisation in the body - admittedly not in one consolidated section. I'm not sure it needs a paragraph in the lede either way though. Valereee suggested above a single sentence: "Barrett noted in 2001 that in the 1990s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement". That seems sufficient to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nemov, for the record, it's currently in the lead. Valereee (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• No We have to be careful with using the world "cult." This word can be used very colloquially and thrown around easily towards groups that people have a level of conflict with. I do not find that cult accusations by ex-members holds much weight in an encyclopedic article about a Church. Other things to consider before using this word would be the time frame of these allegations, the academic nature of its usage, and the conflation with the history of the Church and its current nature. The "cult" accusation should not be in the lead, and should be used appropriately and sparingly in the article, with a proper in-line citation of where and who the accusation is coming from — Preceding unsigned comment added by XZealous (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but not using the present text. Ideally it would use the form suggested by Valereee: Barrett noted in 2001 that in the 1990s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement. This should be accompanied by a brief explanation of the nature of this criticism, mentioning the practice of discpliping and recruitment tactics. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think you hit the nail on the head. In researching definitions of "cult" in order to respond to this RfC, I feel like I came across everything from "a religious practice that doesn't align with our perspective of the teachings of the Bible" to "religions that put great weight on their religious rites" to "a budding religion that doesn't have mass following yet" to "a group with beliefs and practices that are socially deviant."

  It's my sense that most people view the word "cult" as incredibly negative, but while researching the definition, so many of the definitions were sooo...vanilla.

  If the intent is to use the word "cult" in this article, we need to make doubly certain we're maintaining the connotation the RS intended when penning the words we're quoting. It's the only way to maintain neutrality. Pistongrinder (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• No. And also no to the Frankenstein version proposed above, for three reasons. 1. The lead does not provide enough space to explain the nuanced history of the church. 2. The anti-cult movement referenced in the above proposal is highly problematic itself, using Deprograming techniques which “have often involved kidnapping and false imprisonment, which have sometimes resulted in criminal convictions.” 3. A Singapore court ruling regarding the “cult” accusations of the ICOC during the 1990’s found “none of their teachings and practices could or would be considered by the ordinary man on Singapore as abhorrent or harmful to society…As we know the facts, the CCC, (Singapore branch of ICOC) of course, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be equated with such groups. One can say straightaway that CCC is not a commune of half-crazed people living in isolation from the world at large worshipping and kissing the foot of some self-appointed messiah or prophet. Most of its members carry on with their full-time jobs like members of other churches. Its members do not give up their assets to a commune, and its leaders do not live in riches on the backs of its members. It is not a secret organisation run by persons with an agenda which is kept secret from its members. People are welcome to join its meetings and services. In fact it actively tries to get people to attend its meetings and services so that they can see if they wish to join. They are made fully aware of what being a member would involve. People are never deceived or tricked or trapped into joining it.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm unclear why aspects of the anti-cult movement having been subject to criticism would prevent us from reporting the fact, sourced to a scholarly publication, that members of the anti-cult movement have criticised the ICOC. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Same. The proposed change links to anti-cult movement, which readers can see has its own problematic history. Using that wording and link takes the problematic term "cult" out of the lead and places into context where the criticism was coming from and when. Valereee (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  This reads as you having a personal issue with the anti-cult movement and the characterization of ICOC as a cult... Your comment here doesn't touch on wikipedia policy or guideline even once. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, in the form quoted above by the OP, which is not WP calling ICC a cult, it is WP reporting accurately, based on RS, that many former ICC members have called it a cult, and that other, unconnected parties, consider it a cult. If there is some kind of "that was then, this is now" factor at play, and this can be reliably sourced, then we can integrate that. But WP is not in a position to whitewash ICC just because they presently allege that they have changed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just to provide some clarity on a non-trivial distinction here, SMcCandlish, there are actually two groups discussed in this article, and I think you unintentionally referred to one while intending to comment on the other:
  The International Churches of Christ (ICoC) is the main subject of this article, and the group which is being referenced in the disputed content describing it as a cult. The ICoC was created substantially under one Kip McKean, whose leadership seems to be heavily tied to some of the "discipleship" practices that some observers/sources have described as "cult-like".
  However, it would seem that at some point in the early 2000s, the substantial majority of the movement's leadership ousted McKean as head of the movement, as part of the period of reformatory activity that may or may not have substantially changed recruitment and lifestyle practices to be closer to conventional evangelist Christian doctrine. At least, that is what some of the current faithful seem to argue: I think it probably is to some greater or lesser extent true, but the problem is that we have a dearth of WP:RS to verify it.
  However, in recent years, McKean has apparently sought to rebuild his movement, creating the similarly-named International Church of Christ (ICC) International Christian Church (ICC), which from some accounts may be re-creating the more aggressive proselytizing/lifestyle strictures that originally brought the ICoC to have so many unflattering labels in the 90's. To complicate matters even further, the International Churches of Christ originally used both 'ICoC' and 'ICC' as common acronyms back closer to the group's founding--but seems to exclusively use ICoC in the present day, while 'ICC' is used by the newer group.
  In any event, I feel fairly confident from both the context and content of your !vote that you meant to reference the main subject of this article, the International Churches of Christ/ICoC, so I thought you might want to be aware of the distinction (which may also be useful to some other late arrivals). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just a note, ICOC = International Church of Christ.

  ICC = International Christian Church XZealous (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  My mistake, struck and corrected above. Thank you, XZealous. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to confuse things by [mis-]abbreviating ICoC as ICC when it turns out ICC latterly tends to mean something else in the context. To clarify what I'm trying to say above, if we have RS that characterize ICoC in its earlier period [and the McKean split-off ICC today] as cultish, then it is okay and proper for WP to say so, and indicate what it is they are saying of this nature and on what basis. It might even, per WP:ABOUTSELF, be okay to indicate that the post-reform ICoC claims to have taken a different, more mainstream (for evangelicals) path, as long as we indicate clearly that independent RS cannot (yet?) back this up. Then again, the WP:Mandy Rice-Davies applies principle (an essay not a guideline/policy) tends to militate against this sort of "we object and say we're not so bad" kind of self-defensive counter-claim. So that part's a bit of a consensus judgment call.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, it's not whitewashing. It's using the term the best sources are using. Using a term that hasn't been used by the very best sources for the most part in decades, particularly in the lead, in a way that indicates it is current thought, based on an extremely iffy source, is what we're arguing over. None of the best sources are describing the current group as being a cult, and the lead currently indicates they are. Valereee (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee it's not just one iffy source that states that ex-members have referred to ICoC as a cult. I understand your concerns with Lalich, however Lalich is not the only source referenced. There are a good number of sources which either reference ex-members calling ICoC a cult or refer to it as cultish. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In the lead, Lalich, Roland (a former member), and a 2005 book are the only sources. Those are all iffy for different reasons. Let's use what academics are currently saying in peer-reviewed publications. The use of the term cult has changed profoundly within academic publications over the past two to three decades, and Wikipedia needs to reflect that. It is a term that we absolutely need the best sources for, and right now what we have in the lead does not have them. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with using Jenkins's 2005 book to support the claim that some former members regard the ICOC as a cult. It's a scholarly source and it's demonstrably true that some former members have made these allegations. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

For me the problem is that in the intervening two decades, scholarship has changed. There must be someone out there discussing this more recently. Why wouldn't we use them instead? If we want to use Jenkins for discussion of how academics approached the subject in the past, fine. For instance, we could use the Jenkins for one of the 'Academics X and Y' in [time period] in the proposed language below. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There's not much scholarship on the church, which is part of the problem. But while scholarship may have changed, the fact that some former members regard the ICOC as a cult hasn't, apparently. And remember that Jenkins isn't calling the ICOC a cult herself, just reporting the fact that former members have, so I think the age of the source matters less in this instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Scholarship might have changed insofar as whether academics refer to something as a cult, but there is no suggestion to call the church a cult in wikivoice. We have sources as recent as 2023 which attribute the church being called a cult. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We still shouldn't be using a term that isn't appearing in current academia in relation to the group in any way that suggests it's how academics are currently referring to it. I'm opposed to using how former members refer to it in the lead unless that is being discussed in current academic sources. We can discuss it in the appropriate section (is there one even? The article needs some organization), sure. But laypeople throw the term cult around all the time, and journalists like to quote that kind of language. Let's find an academic discussing it. And CL, if there aren't academics discussing that currently, should we be using it in the lead? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The wording is spread through the article particularly the university stuff and yes I agree that the article could be better organised. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There aren't any academics discussing currently any aspect of the church, so if we need that to include things in the lede, we're stuck. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we really expect recent sources from academics discussing a church which has less than 150k members? Not likely and I don't think we should hold that expectation. TarnishedPath^talk 13:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, there's a paragraph in this, but that's not much Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and think this is an issue we are running up against. It seems like most sources, whether written recently or decades ago, are mostly describing aspects of the Church in an earlier period. Without sources, with the same intensity, describing campus bannings or cult accusations, I am left unsure whether or not these are still happening in the ICOC. I also would not expect sources to write articles about the ICOC being "not banned" on campuses, or articles written about a lack of cult accusations. I guess the best action to take is give the appropriate time framing to these accusations. The discussions would then go to how much ABOUTSELF could be used for the current functioning of the Church. I also see @JamieBrown2011has been trying to give sources with a different perspective on these matters as well. Each side should be considered. XZealous (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

We had the discussion about about ABOUTSELF sources and the consensus was that "editors should prefer independent, reliable sources in describing the beliefs of a religious organization per WP:BESTSOURCE". I think that consensus can easily be extended to other aspects of the church. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand this, but this doesn't mean ABOUTSELF cannot be used at all. However, nobody suggested outright banning the use of about self sourcing" XZealous (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

We can use it, with caution, generally for noncontroversial facts. We can source to self that person X is an organization's current leader, that its headquarters is in city Y, that it makes widgets. In general what the church says about itself is less important than what others say about it. If the church itself is the only one mentioning something, it may not be important enough for inclusion. Valereee (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Without wading into all of that digression, Valereee's point would seem to be clear enough. If we have sufficient independent sourcing about the activities of the post-reform ICoC, then yes that should be covered as well. But this thread is largely not about that question, it's about whether it's permissible to include terms like "cult", based on sources that use them, withr egard to ICoC in its early days (and, in another digression, the later ICC split-off under the same leadership as the original ICoC). However, multiple editors in this thread have clearly expressed skepticisms that "If we have sufficient independent sourcing about the activities of the post-reform ICoC" evaluates to true.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Idea: How about something like this: "During the 1990's and early 2000's there were numerous allegations that the ICOC was a cult or had some cult-like attributes. In 2022 and 2023 lawsuits referring to incidents from the 1990's and 2000's, ex members made similar allegations as well as alleging that they were subject to sexual abuse during that period." And have material in the body that this draws from. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think there's merit in that, although it lacks what the Barrett quote has, which is a sense of how abundant this criticism was during the 1990s. There might be a way to combine the two suggestions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  That combining approach seems pretty reasonable. PS (about North8000's draft language): ex- is a prefix, not a stand-alone word ex (which is a slang noun, not a modifier, for ex-spouse, ex-lover, etc., as in "I ran into my ex at the market yesterday"). We also don't use apostrophes in dates (it's "the 1990s and 2000s").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I could go with 'Barrett noted in 2001 that during the 1990s and early 2000s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement. Academics X and Y in [time period] described the group as having cult-like attributes. In 2022 and 2023 lawsuits referring to incidents from the 1990s and 2000s, ex-members made similar allegations as well as alleging that they were subject to sexual abuse during that period.' Valereee (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to either this wording or North's wording (with the corrections that SMcCandlist pointed out of course). TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee, in what you suggested would you keep the material about them being barred from recruiting on campuses as it has good coverage in the body?

  So the paragraph would look like:

  "Barrett noted in 2001 that during the 1990s and early 2000s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement. Academics X and Y in [time period] described the group as having cult-like attributes. In 2022 and 2023 lawsuits referring to incidents from the 1990s and 2000s, ex-members made similar allegations as well as alleging that they were subject to sexual abuse during that period. The church has been barred from recruiting students on campuses or has been denied student organization status at numerous universities." TarnishedPath^talk 11:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't object to including that as long as we can back it up with multiple recent sources, preferably from more than just one country. If it's only happening in (NSW? too lazy to go check), then probably not important enough for the lead in an article about an international org? Valereee (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, we have sources documenting the ICOC being banned from campuses across Australia, in the US and in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm only seeing sources for that from the 1990s and before in the Universities section? Which sources do we have that say they're currently banned on multiple campuses and countries? Valereee (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  The "Inside NSW's most bizarre religious sects" source is from 2023 and states "Although the group has formally been banned from universities across the country, they remain connected by changing their name". Many of the others are indeed more historical. The LA Times article states "In 1994, when dozens of U.S. colleges banned the group from their campuses", for example. I'd argue that "The church has been barred" isn't necessarily implying "The church is currently barred", but perhaps this could be clarified further. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's one source, and if it's only happening in Australia, is it important enough for the lead of an article about an international organization? Certainly the bannings in the 1990s in the US and the UK should be mentioned, but is that important enough for the lead? I guess I just don't think so. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I disagree and think it is important enough for the lede, because it's a prominent part of the article - in turn because it's a prominent theme in the source material. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  and per MOS:LEAD the lead should generally follow the body. TarnishedPath^talk 12:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'll go along with it as long as we make it clear the time periods. Like, "In the 1990s the group was banned from multiple US and UK college campuses, and in the 2020s from campuses in Australia", maybe? Yes, TP, I understand what a lead section does, you really don't need to link basic policy for me. Valereee (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is fine by me. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies @Valereee and I'm not opposed to your wording.

  So we would have:

  "Barrett noted in 2001 that during the 1990s and early 2000s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement. Academics X and Y in [time period] described the group as having cult-like attributes. In 2022 and 2023 lawsuits referring to incidents from the 1990s and 2000s, ex-members made similar allegations as well as alleging that they were subject to sexual abuse during that period. In the 1990s the group was banned from multiple US and UK college campuses, and in the 2020s from campuses in Australia." TarnishedPath^talk 13:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, I like this suggestion. What do we think about qualifying what those "cult-like attributes" were according to the source? I have found that "cult-like attributes" could mean anything from espousing doctrines contrary to the Bible to being outright nefarious.

  On the other hand, I don't want to get so lost in WP:NPOV that it become unreadable. I welcome feedback from the editors. Pistongrinder (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think that expanding into what those "cult-like attributes" are is perhaps the place for the body or we could end up paying to much weight to it in the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 03:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree @Pistongrinder. Having a nuanced and NPOV perspective from sources about the history of cult labels on the ICOC and its current operations is bound to be too long and descriptive for a lead. XZealous (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Although on a second read...The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)? And with that headline: "Inside NSW's most bizarre religious sects". That looks like a pretty crappy source. I dunno...I'm waffling. I've developed a 'Bannings from university campuses' subsection, see what you think? Valereee (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  You introduce the acronym "BU" to refer to Boston University presumably? If you're going to do that you should probably refer to it as Boston University (BU) on first usage. TarnishedPath^talk 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ps, I agree that The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) is not a fantastic source, however given it's large amount of usage that wouldn't seem to be current consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 13:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the attempt for proper time framing and sourcing is needed in the descriptions about cult accusations and campus bannings. However, the more descriptive we are trying to get, the less fitting is is for a lead paragraph. I think this level of accuracy in time framing and academic sources on these subjects is very fit for the paragraphs in the body.

  It seems fitting to me to have the lead be a smoother summary, not getting bogged down in to many details and clarifications. The body is where these things can be fleshed out fully. XZealous (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you want academic sourcing for everything then I'm afraid we'd need to wipe out much of what the article says about beliefs including from the lead. I agree that recent academic sources would be good but there's not always many of them available, particularly in the case of a relatively small denomination. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say we need academic sources for everything, but they would be the best sources to use for things like cult accusations in the lead. Things can be fleshed out more in the body of the article. XZealous (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that we don't need academic sources for everything, but for this particular language, in order to avoid undue negativity, we should probably be following the very best sources, which is recent peer-reviewed academic publications. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So my proposal is an idea, I also like TarnishedPath's idea. With the caveat that any "banned" statements include the time period. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Qualified yes. The term 'cult' is deprecated in religious studies, in favor of terms such as NRM (new religious movement). Cult is intrinsically a normative judgment, and pejorative, so I would put the word in scare quotes when used here. The allegation itself seems notable enough for the lead. FWIW, I would be hesitant to refer to Lalich as merely an "academic expert" since this expertise and the ACM (anti-cult movement) are themselves controversial and disputed. If she is not cited in the text itself, that might be wise to complement the lead. Thanks for bringing this to an RfC. ProfGray (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• I say No and agree with the suggestion that the body of the article needs to be better organized. I propose that the information in this low-importance article on Christianity and Religion about a church with less than 150,000 members be reorganized in a much briefer article using the following or similar outline:

International Churches of Christ

I. The Lead

II. Overview of the ICOC

III. History

a. Origins in the Stone-Campbell Movement

b. Campus Ministry Emphasis

c. Focus on the Great Commission

d. Evolving Church Governance

e. A Period of Reckoning and Reform

f. The ICOC Today

IV. Beliefs

V. Controversies

After the article is reorganized and edited to a reasonable length considering the subject matter, the content of language in the lead, including the topics of cult status of the ICOC and college banning should become self-evident.Meta Voyager (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes But I caution editors against the WP:CONTENTIOUS word choice, "Cult," literally given as an example in WP's list of words to watch for. I see it is used often by reliable sources in the case of ICOC so please ensure we are carefully representing WP:NPOV by defining clearly how the sources define cult and its connotations. Cordless Larry's explanation above was excellent, IMO. Pistongrinder (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I second this statement. If Jehovah's Witnesses & The Mormon/LDS wiki pages lack the use of the word "cult" I see no reason for this generally unknown group with academically adjacent restorationist ideals to beat them to the pejorative title. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  We don't actually care what those other articles say or don't say about other religions. What we care about is what the best sources say. I'm not sure what "academically adjacent restorationist ideals" means? Valereee (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is less of a matter of "care" and more a matter of normative motifs to duplicate an appropriate framework. As for defining "academically adjacent restorationist ideals" above, it is a descriptive phrase juxtaposing the various streams of thought post-stone/campbell. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think I understand less. What is "normative motifs to duplicate an appropriate framework"? And what is "juxtaposing the various streams of thought post-stone/campbell"? @Levivich, am I just too stupid to understand this? Valereee (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: nah, just a bit of miscommunication. Allow me to provide a Humanitiesese-to-Wikispeak translation: "normative motifs to duplicate an appropriate framework" and "juxtaposing the various streams of thought post-stone/campbell" means, in Wikispeak, "WP:OTHERCONTENT". Coach seems to be saying that the ICOC article shouldn't use the word "cult" because other articles about new religions that are "adjacent" to the Restoration Movement ("adjacent" apparently meaning "happened in the same country and century"), don't use the word "cult."

  @Coachbricewilliams28: allow me to provide a valereee-to-Humanitiesese translation: "We don't actually care what those other articles say" means the policies of this website that govern article content do not consider as relevant factors any congruities or incongruities between articles about topics that are temporally, geographically, culturally, conceptually, or otherwise related, even if those relations are apparent to, or undisputed by, participants of this website, unless the factors are considered relevant by the sources for the article that this website's policies deem reliable. In other words, whether Wikipedia uses the word "cult" in JV or LDS aticles is not relevant to whether Wikipedia should use the word "cult" in ICOC articles; the encyclopedic summary of each topic is derived from the sources for that topic, and not from the sources for other topics, even if those other topics are somehow related to the topic under consideration. Levivich (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  lol, thanks! It wasn't until after I'd pinged that I thought, Oh, Levivich is busy, maybe I should have pinged Drmies or EEng... Valereee (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This is a good discussion. But structurally the whole thing is about one short statement in the lead, an attributed opinion of ex church members. Maybe we could also work on some more content regarding this? Maybe TarnishedPath's or my proposal would be a starting point on that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think because we're dealing with the word, "Cult," which is on WP's list of WP:CONTENTIOUS words to watch, we are actually building a body paragraph with lots of fleshy details, as XZealous suggested. In that body paragraph, using the draft we've developed between North8000 (talk) and TarnishedPath^talk, we can include a basic definition of what the RS defines as "cult-like attributes," so readers understand the academic terminology as opposed to the loaded word, and we can maintain WP:NPOV, per my suggestion.

Then, in the lead paragraph, we're briefly summarizing the well-supported paragraph included in the body, if this RfC determines the paragraph (that we still need consensus on) is weighty enough to include mention in the introduction. So, I suppose I agree with Nemov's comment about putting the cart before the horse with this RfC.

So, to come full circle like North8000 suggested, let's wrap up the wording of that body paragraph:

"Barrett noted in 2001 that during the 1990s and early 2000s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement. Academics X and Y in [time period] described the group as having cult-like attributes. In 2022 and 2023 lawsuits referring to incidents from the 1990s and 2000s, ex-members made similar allegations as well as alleging that they were subject to sexual abuse during that period. In the 1990s the group was banned from multiple US and UK college campuses, and in the 2020s from campuses in Australia."

Where are we at with this draft? And our discussion is getting pretty lengthy; can resources be re-shared? Pistongrinder (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

References