Talk:International Churches of Christ

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 [1]. 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Exactly. There is a distinction between the ICOC under the leadership of McKean, and the post McKean ICOC. ^[1] JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You and others have stated that a number of times. However without reliable secondary sources to that effect we can't do a lot. TarnishedPath^talk 07:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree this is what we can do: [WP:CRITICISM]

"Criticism" section

A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. In 2006, Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."

Many criticism sections found in articles are present because editors collected negative material, but have not had the time to properly integrate the negative material into the other sections of the article. Such negative sections should be tagged with a {{POV-section}} or {{criticism-section}} to notify other editors that more work is needed to integrate the material. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There isn't a criticism section and the critical material is distributed throughout the article so I have no idea exactly what are trying to argue. TarnishedPath^talk 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There was a section entitled “Bannings” that needed to be deleted and integrated into the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

By changing the subsection heading? Why didn't you just state that is what you thought would fix the issue? TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

Just reading through this entire thread again. Here is what I find. A couple of editors are convinced this is about an ICC Church, myself included. A couple of editors are convinced this is about an ICOC Church. A couple of editors have noted that it makes sense to have reservations about the source and which Church it is referring to, and has advised using caution when dealing with a situation like this. One editor has also commented noting that editors do have to decision not to use a source, and we don't have to reach out to the source writer for clarification.

With this in mind, I think it would be fair for all editors to proceed with caution with this source, regardless of which side of the "aisle" you find yourself on. If using this source, at advice from @Snow Rise, it might benefit us to rewrite it in a way that could guide the reader to this potential confusion (although I am not sure how that would be done. Suggestions welcome.) I would heavily suggest, due to the amount of conversation about this source's accuracy, that it should not have a place in the lead. Putting a questionable source, based on editor discussion, in the lead seems irresponsible and dishonest.

Thanks! XZealous (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have to plead ignorance on the specific question at hand (and so am NOT hinting at a "side") but wanted to say the same thing as snowrise....wP:OR refers article space content, not talk page processes. I'd guess that 90% of all totally appropriate talk page material would be WP:OR if put in as article space content but it isn't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

Just catching up on all the discussion now. This is not the case with regards to the ICOC. The leadership recognised the dysfunction that McKean brought to the church, appealed to him privately to change and when he refused to hear their concerns, appealed to him publicly ^[2] and when he still rebuffed the public rebuke, they removed him from the church ^[3] JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That source you provide is a publication of ICOC. It would be an inappropriate source to use in the article for any of what you stated as it is not independent from the subject. The two articles you provide would fail WP:ABOUTSELF as they make claims about third parties. TarnishedPath^talk 07:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which 3rd parties? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I have been traveling and away from reliable internet and WIFI for the past few weeks, but on returning to the page I see apart from the above mentioned observation that this article has:

• 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.

Now, an additional 2 mentions of the word "cult" have found their way in to the article.

• Along with a further addition of 15 more words with a negative association.

This again raises the question of the article violating the Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV

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."

Please make this make sense!! How could any person coming to Wikipedia as a reader ever believe that these policies have been followed by the editors!! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I explained above, the "negative" tone of the article is a reflection of the overwhelmingly negative tone of the coverage of the ICOC in secondary sources. To ignore this would be to violate the requirement to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" (WP:DUE). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JamieBrown2011 I see the tags you placed above the article alongside @TarnishedPath's removal of them. I don't see where consensus is need before a tag placement, as long as a discussion is being had. However, consensus is needed for its removal. Noting the conversation ongoing, albeit is has been quiet recently, about the use of the word "cult" in the lead, which is leading into a greater conversation about whether or not that word is being used appropriately in the article, I think these tags are fine to have until a consensus is reached on those issues. I will go ahead and revert the removal as we continue discussing those issues here. XZealous (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@XZealous the addition of POV requires consensus and WP:TAGTEAMING is frowned upon. The addition of those tag to push a content dispute, especially while a RFC which somewhat addresses to the question is in progress, is not good form. You should self-revert. TarnishedPath^talk 09:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see today that Tarnished has removed the NPOV tags I placed on the article. Reading the policies on these tags I find this:

Disputes over tags:

Whether a tag should be placed on an article is sometimes the subject of disputes. Occasionally, editors place tags to make a point, to disrupt editing, or to be tendentious. Similarly, editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags.

Rather than reverting or edit warring over the placement of a tag, use dispute resolution procedures. Start by engaging in a calm discussion on the article's talk page.

Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.

@Tarnished, it seems you have simply removed the Tags, with no absolutely no discussion, and have come awfully close to edit warring (3 reverts in a 24 hour period). I would like to request that you abide by the WIKI policies mentioned above regarding these tags and not confuse the RFC below (discussing a very narrow concern over the use of the word "cult" in the LEAD) with the broader concern being highlighted here. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"absolutely no discussion"? Please refer to the RFC below. It is highly inappropriate to WP:DRIVEBYTAG the article while discussion on the issues you state violate NPOV is underway, in order to push a content dispute. It is disruptive to say the least and I dare say a lot of editors would consider it WP:TENDITIOUS. Please desist. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion in the RfC below is entitled "Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead". Pretty clear not the same thing. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This conversation is going nowhere. FWIW it appears that consensus at NPOV/N is for the tags to stay removed so I expect you will cease your WP:DRIVEBYTAG and WP:TENDITIOUS. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 10:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where do you get the idea that consensus was gained to remove the tags? XZealous (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to the NPOV/N discussion. Community consensus there determines if the tag stays or not. TarnishedPath^talk 11:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Drive by Tagging is explained here:

• WP:DRIVEBY

See also: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup

Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging", particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as {{npov}}, it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary. It can be helpful to refer to applicable content policies, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, though WikiLawyering is discouraged.

By contrast, adding tags for obvious, major flaws can be helpful. However, if an article has insufficient references or other issues, then pointing this out with a tag may not result in the problem being fixed. It may be better to fix it yourself.

There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page.

So according to WIKI Policies, here is what I did:

- The problem was clearly identified here on the Talk Page with a heading of #NPOV and concerns raised. The Tag I placed there reflects this reality. Also, there is lots of disagreement over how the LEAD should be formatted, as shown by the current RfC. Hence the Tag on the page that reflects that reality. I have referred to policies and am hoping for more experienced editors to weigh in on the disputed perspectives.

- I have been, and remain involved in this project as an active editor of the article. No-one is "driving by" here. I have "paid my dues", even though it is not required.

- At no point was consensus obtained for all the Tags yourself and Cordless placed on the page over the past year and yet somehow now you are applying a different standard to me than what you apply to yourself. Not cool!

- According to policy mentioned above on "disputes over tags" consensus is required to remove the tags, not place them.

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please take your wikilawyering elsewhere, I'm not interested in it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we can do better than that @TarnishedPath. You claim that @JamieBrown2011 was drive by tagging, tendentious editing, ect.. When he puts up a reasonable explanation of how he doesn't view it that way, you just call it "wikilawyering." I would encourage you to listen and engage more rather than being quick to throw labels like that around. XZealous (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rather than using the article talk page for long discussions about user conduct, it would be more productive to discuss the substantive issue of NPOV. There's been no response to my comment that the "negative" tone of the article simply reflects what most of the available secondary sources say about the ICOC. If the POV tags are justified, could someone explain what significant viewpoints from reliable sources aren't being given enough weight at present? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I tried once to represent a source neutrally as only a negative view from the source was used (for the "awesome families" wording, although the wording could be adjusted the principle still applies.) As far as I remember, representing both viewpoints from that sources was not met with fond responses. I understand that was only one personal example, but I feel as if @JamieBrown2011 is seeing that on a larger scale. XZealous (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

And here would be another example where the source was completely misrepresented. Reading the ICOC page it was stated "a significant MAJORITY of ICOC members experienced psychological distress" and when looking at the actual source is says "a significant MINORITY of ICOC members experienced...https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Churches_of_Christ&diff=prev&oldid=1246004430 Explain that?? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's long since been corrected (as the diff shows), so how does it justify the addition of the tags now? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@XZealous, you were advised why the "awesome families" bit wasn't appropriate given WP:PEACOCK and I suggested rewording what you wanted to include and not including the "awesome families" bit. You kept on going on about why the "awesome families" bit was necessary. I don't think you can blame anyone but yourself for why nothing resulted from that discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TarnishedPath "cult" is on the same "words to watch list", but it hasn't received the same hesitation. As far as I remember I tried to use the correct format (according to the guideline) to include that bit. I was not tied to the "awesome families" exact wording. However, the point that there was a blatant NPOV issue there was just pushed aside. XZealous (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It has already been explained to you that numerous reliable sources use the word cult and therefor it is WP:DUE that we cover it. "awesome families" come from one source alone, therefore it would be UNDUE to use it. At this point you are engaging in WP:IDHT. TarnishedPath^talk 23:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify on the above, I went back to the archived discussion about this, and saw that you did not propose any wording your found suitable. My main concern is that you got caught up in the wording and missed the idea that there was a clear NPOV violation here. Half of the sentence (happens to be a criticism) is in the lead, while the other half of the sentence is not. I am, in now way, attached to the exact phrasing "awesome families." My concern is the lack of concern for the NPOV violation. XZealous (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

And with WP:IDHT, I think that is unnecessary to throw around. I could have, with good reason, thrown that accusation out to you as well. However, I'm not interested in trying to shut other editors thoughts down because I do not like what they have to say. I think we should really move past unneeded accusations of tendentious editing and such, as previous noticeboards about those things involving editors of this page have not been helpful in any way. XZealous (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write that I proposed anything. I wrote that I suggested rewording your proposal. I see little point in continuing this when you've provided no credible policy based position. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have provided a policy based position. I'm also baffled at how you are so against this.

"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 sentence that is used is half of what the source states. We, currently, only have the negative position stated in the source. In this instance, my additional wording was simply removed. There, at least it didn't seem like it, was no attempt to see and understand the NPOV issue and fix it. I would be happy to have a conversation about the appropriate wording. Instead, I found my edit removed and I have to fight to even get it included. That is not right. XZealous (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no NPOV issue to fix. You are wrong. You've been told so by multiple editors. TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I have been told by multiple editors that this is not an issue. If I have been, please show me.

Here is the sentence from Jenkins. "Imagine now, this very same healing community that most members describe as an awesome family portrayed as a “dangerous cult.”

Are you really telling me that including the "dangerous cult" part, and leaving out the other positive description of the sentence is "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?" XZealous (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've responded to this multiple times and I won't be doing so again. Your repeated WP:IDHT and WP:REHASH isn't going to bring anyone on side with you aside from the few editors who were already in agreement with you. TarnishedPath^talk 08:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not recall you responding to the actual policy multiple times. I, sadly, will have to take this as you deciding to avoid responding to a clearly laid out policy issue. I hope, in the future, we can engage in actual discussion rather than avoiding issues, dismissing editors we disagree with, and loading up on disruptive editing labels. XZealous (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Myself and others have quoted passages from NPOV multiple times in different discussions. You saying it didn't happen doesn't change reality. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was specifically referring to the NPOV issue with the cult sentence in the lead. I have, also multiple times, quoted NPOV sections to address this. XZealous (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Addressed multiple times by multiple editors and also the topic of an active RFC. In the RFC other editors have been workshopping wording with the aim of arriving at something which is agreeable to most editors. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that recent edits to the ICOC article cross the line on NPOV by giving undue weight to negative aspects of certain topics (WP:WEIGHT) and failing to present the material with an impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL). Commencing on September 10, 2024, an editor began posting to the ICOC article, without prior notice or discussion on the Talk Page, numerous additional paragraphs with negative information about the ICOC and shifted some existing sections with negative information to more prominent positions in the article (WP:STRUCTURE). Two recently edited sections of the article, entitled “University campuses” and “Banning” are good examples. 8 paragraphs were added under these section headings that describe the ICOC’s campus ministries in negative terms. All but two of the paragraphs rely on sourcing that is 20-30 years old and report on an era that predates a period of leadership change and reform in the ICOC that is described elsewhere in the article. The two sourced articles from Australia and the UK dated post-2021 are clearly referencing the activities of the International Christian Church, a group led by Kip McKean that spun off from the ICOC in the early 2000s. McKean has not been associated with the ICOC for more than 20 years. The editors responsible argue in this NPOV discussion that the prevalence of negative statements in the article are merely a product of the volume of reliable sourcing; however, it is an editor’s choice as to whether sourcing on similar behaviors is presented in a single paragraph with footnoting from multiple sources or whether each “footnote” deserves a separate descriptive paragraph in the article (WP:PROPORTION). The current presentation is heavily slanted in the negative and does not convey an impartial tone on the subject of the ICOC’s campus ministries. When questioned about the absence of positive points of view to provide balance, the editor states that positive sourcing about the ICOC is difficult to find. The difficulty in finding sources for a religious movement of less than 150,000 members has already been highlighted by other editors and does not excuse the need to portray balance in the article. In such cases, while not preferred, self-sourcing may be considered. (WP:ABOUTSELF). The tags warning readers about NPOV violations are appropriate and should be reinstated until the article can be rewritten with an impartial tone (WP:NPOVHOW). Meta Voyager (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

it is an editor’s choice as to whether sourcing on similar behaviors is presented in a single paragraph with footnoting from multiple sources or whether each “footnote” deserves a separate descriptive paragraph in the article (WP:PROPORTION).

I don't think such discretion to limit weight in our article (if, for example, we think the sources cited are overly negative) is supported by the section you referenced here, which requires that editors treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. As a matter of policy, it is not permitted, much less encouraged, to reduce the weight given to the views of the balance of independent reliable sources so that the article can give equal weight to a countervailing minority in search of some abstract balance divorced from what independent, reliable sources have to say on a topic. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand your points, but doesn't this point us towards using Tags with clearly non neutral POV headings such as "Bannings"

Wikipedia:Criticism. "Many criticism sections found in articles are present because editors collected negative material, but have not had the time to properly integrate the negative material into the other sections of the article. Such negative sections should be tagged with a {{POV-section}} or {{criticism-section}} to notify other editors that more work is needed to integrate the material." I know it is a guide, but should we not be guided by it? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Guided by what exactly? There is no criticism section. The critical material is distributed. TarnishedPath^talk 07:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your argument, yet again, displays an absolute lack of understanding of WP:WEIGHT/WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE (hint, they're all the same part of WP:NPOV), which states unambiguously that [n]eutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources (emphasis mine). Suggesting that we fill the gap in positive coverage by utilising WP:ABOUTSELF is not a policy based argument as those sources are not reliable and should generally only be utilised to support the most uncontentious of material (who was the CEO at a particular point, etc.). TarnishedPath^talk 05:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is stated down below, but it seems worth stating here again. You can certainly say more than simply who was a CEO. (Although those positions don’t exist in a church. )

“Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information

about themselves

, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.”

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"When questioned about the absence of positive points of view to provide balance, the editor states that positive sourcing about the ICOC is difficult to find. The difficulty in finding sources for a religious movement of less than 150,000 members has already been highlighted by other editors and does not excuse the need to portray balance in the article." If the negative information is covered more prominently in independent reliable sources than the positive information then a balanced article would cover the negative information more prominently, that is how WP:DUEWEIGHT works. What you propose as a solution is actually WP:FALSEBALANCE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiosity which “editor” are you referring to? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, There is a discussion concerning this article at Wikipedia:NPOV/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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

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

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

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

  Yes, thats what I said. The key isn't that what I said is true, the key is that what you said "an editorial board and staff" isn't true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Unless SBM is in the habit of publishing opinion pieces, then it shouldn't have an editorial board. For news/fact-based publications, an executive editor and a managing editor is an appropriate and typical setup, and exactly what we mean in WP:RS when we talk about "editorial oversight". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

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

  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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

• 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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 ^[4] Someone with access to the university archives would need to help find the original. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

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

• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

• 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.” ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

• 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  Just a note, ICOC = International Church of Christ.

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

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

  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)Reply

@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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  @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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

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

  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)Reply

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

  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)Reply

  @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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply

• No updated 14 Nov. 2024. After this very lengthy discussion and more research into the sources, I no longer believe the word cult is WP:DUE, certainly not in the lead and possibly not in the article at all. My previous edit is as follows, in which I expressed my initial concern (Pistongrinder (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)):Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  @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)Reply

  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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

COMMENT The word cult is sooooo subjective and inflamatory (even among scholars), I don not think it belongs in the lead of any article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would support that proposed text but perhaps replace "Academics X and Y in [time period] described the group as having cult-like attributes" with something explaining that it was the discipling system that was subject to particular criticism. I think that's worth noting in the lede, but I'm also unsure which sources this wording about cult-like attributes has come from (unless it's a reference to Lalich?). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is why I was particularly interested in a refresh on sources. I just don't think one reliable source stating the church has "cult-like attributes" is enough to warrant mentioning that person's quote, per WP:Due Weight. Maybe not even enough to warrant mention in the article at all, but certainly not in the lead. Especially considering the word "cult" is literally the first word in a short list of examples given in WP policy WP:Contentious. I'm very uneasy about that.

I could get behind the church "received criticism during the 1990s and 2000s," but do we need to use the WP-defined contentious word, "cult"? I say no. Certainly not in the lead. Pistongrinder (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there are prominent opinions that say it is considered a cult, it's easiest to simply attribute them to said prominent sources, just don't put it in VOICE. DN (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't think anyone's advocating for straight-up referring to it as a cult in Wikipedia's voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would even be fair to use the quote by Kip where he states that critics call it a cult, as long as it's attributed in the right context. DN (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Pinging @Alpha3031, @Berchanhimez, @Cambial Yellowing, @Darknipples, @Firefangledfeathers and @NadVolum as editors involved in a related discussion at Wikipedia:NPOV/Noticeboard#Can we describe someone, in wikivoice, as a cult leader (in principle). TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Question. Would the article for Church of Scientology make a relatively decent example of how to go about this? Cheers. DN (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I suspect Church of Scientology probably has had a more RS describing it as a cult and I suspect that might be due to the size of the organisation and their high profile. The reference list for that article is obviously bigger than this one and this article's reference list is padded out a bit with quite a number of sources which are close to the church which ideally should be minimised. In general though I agree given that article is B Class and this one is C Class. That article also reads well. There was some suggested wording above that a number of editors, including myself, have been workshopping. Have a read of that and your feedback would be appreciated. TarnishedPath^talk 05:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Has anyone looked at this site by Kathleen E. Jenkins yet?

  • "The fall of the ICOC unified movement was no doubt influenced by the unyielding efforts of critics to label the group as a “dysfunctional church” and a “dangerous cult.” Barker (1993, 340) suggests that external obstacles play some role in the success of NRMs: “Throughout history, new religions, especially those that aspire to restructure society, have typically been viewed with the deepest suspicion by the rest of society . . . from sensationalist and inaccurate stories in the media and virulent attacks and lobbying from anticult groups, to forcible hospitalization and illegal deprogramming; from refusal to grant peddlers’ licenses or permission to hold meetings in church halls, to litigation resulting in financially crippling judgements” (340). The ICOC was a constant target of organized critics; ex-members came to develop their own websites and support groups, producing an anti-cult culture of its own. However, the ICOC movement was strongest at a time when the Cult Awareness Network and anti-cult organizations were faltering somewhat in social influence. The “brainwashing/cult” paradigm and the use of “deprogrammers” had been questioned and delegitimated through court cases and therapeutic “experts.” The mid-to late 1990s was, after all, a time when, through bankruptcy purchase, a member of one accused “cult,” Scientology, was able to purchase and now controls the Cult Awareness Network name and on-line activity (www.cultawarenessnetwork.org). ICOC leaders and members then had a powerful social backdrop to successfully enact a form of “tertiary deviance” with ready-made discourse from an anti-anti-cult movement. “Tertiary deviance,” a process named by John I. Kitsuse (1980), represents the efforts of those openly labeled “deviants” to reject these labels and attempt to win acceptance based on their own actions as morally sound. Outside negative labels of family “dysfunction” were most definitely a challenge for the organization, but as I’ve illustrated throughout this ethnography, they were also used as fuel to legitimate discipling on moral grounds. The downfall of the unified movement must be attributed more to in-group dynamics and structural and ideological obstacles rather than to outside labeling and legal pressure. Muse.jhu.edu (page 239)

  DN (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I've not seen her personal website before, but the article cites her work multiple times and use of it to support what might go in the lede is the subject of discussion above. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Woops! I meant to say citation XD. DN (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The statement "The fall of the ICOC unified movement was no doubt influenced by the unyielding efforts of critics to label the group as a “dysfunctional church” and a “dangerous cult.” "The downfall of the unified movement must be attributed more to in-group dynamics and structural and ideological obstacles rather than to outside labeling and legal pressure." suggests that it was indeed labeled a cult by outside critics, but it's "downfall" must be attributed more to "in-group dynamics and structural and ideological obstacles", if that makes sense.

  Kip may have confirmed as much about their label as a cult in this source “Some call us a cult and accuse us of brainwashing and mind-control,” said McKean on the last page of one of his many Christian manuals. “Yet, the facts are that lives have been radically changed, marriages have been healed, drug addicts have been freed, and the poor have been fed. This rapidly growing movement is spreading around the world just like the first century!” Caplin News fiu.edu 2023 DN (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Reading the body, I am inclined towards mentioning but not attached to any particular wording. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Alpha3031, I would agree. Would you venture to say that the 25 mentions of the word "cult" in the article and the three in the LEAD, might possibly be construed as Wikipedia:WEIGHT and that a reader coming to the article might wonder if the editors had applied Wikipedias policies of NPOV? Just thinking out loud... JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  No idea where you're going here, so I would advise you do your thinking inside your head instead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Sorry, my bad. Trying to make the point already made in the #NPOV thread above. Not necessary here. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @JamieBrown2011, you keep repeating this line over and over and @Cordless Larry has advised you repeatedly of the requirements of WP:NPOV of which WP:WEIGHT is a part. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, contingent on proper attribution and not in WP:VOICE. DN (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Comment I have read through the comments again. Here is what I notice. We should be careful with the cult label, especially noting the time frame it was used where many NRMs were called cults. We should not, alone, take the opinions of ex-members. Some note that any cult usage should only be necessary if there are current academic sources currently describing the ICOC this way. Some say the cult accusations should be mentioned due to the scope of RS using it.

Overall, there seems to be an agreement that we should proceed with caution in the way “cult” is used, noting the time frame of the accusations, and sticking to academic sources. A suggested sentence was “Barrett noted in 2001 that in the 1990s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement.” I could get behind this. However, I think it might be appropriate to have another neutral statement afterwards that better reflects the current nature of the ICOC. Albeit, that might be another discussion altogether on what that sentence might be.

Thanks! XZealous (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Leave this to a closer to summarise. TarnishedPath^talk 23:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think he is proposing some wording changes based on the all the input received from the community. I think they are solid suggestions and I would be in favour of them. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect. His assessment of the community input is off. None of the wording that myself and others have worked on suggests having "another neutral statement afterwards that better reflects the current nature of the ICOC" because reliable sources don't reflect that position. We go where the best sources take us. TarnishedPath^talk 11:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TarnishedPath, "another neutral statement afterwards that better reflects the current nature of the ICOC" is my thought, not a reflection of community consensus.

“Barrett noted in 2001 that in the 1990s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement.” is the suggestion from the community. This is a statement I could get behind. XZealous (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be the best alternative suggested to the currently contested sentence with the word "cult" in it mentioned 3 times. I see other editors seem to support this sentence too. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suggested wording along the lines of:

"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."

That seems to have had some measure of support. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am ok with the first sentence. I don't think the lawsuits should be mentioned in the lead, especially noting that they have now been withdrawn. I think the sentence on the campus bannings as in the lead now is fine, as long as we note the time frame for those bannings.

Generally, since there seems to be a big shift in this Church since the early 2000's, I don't want the lead to get rather chunky with time frames and wording needed to make that clear. I would rather keep the lead concise and general, and fill out those details further in the body. XZealous (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That big shift you mention doesn't have much in the way of secondary sources which are reliable to be sourced to. We can only go where the reliable sources lead us. TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I indicated in the RfC, I'm happy with that wording, pending filling in of the academics' names, though I'm not sure who you have in mind. An alternative is to replace "Academics X and Y in [time period] described the group as having cult-like attributes" with something explaining that it was the discipling system and the group's recruitment tactics that were subject to particular criticism. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good insight. This sentence, "Historically, the church practiced exclusive baptism and strict "discipling", but since 2002, has shifted to a more decentralized, voluntary discipling approach" is already in the lead. I think that sentence is fine, so the "Academics X and Y..." proposal is not needed. Thoughts? XZealous (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lalich is one that could be used. TarnishedPath^talk 07:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's another source I happened across which describes the group as having features associated with being a cult.^[6] TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tarnished, as you well know, those lawsuits went through the long process already of discussion and the reasons established why they were removed from the LEAD. Please don't be TENDITIOUS JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Drop the crap about me being tendentious. If you want to claim that, take it to WP:ANI. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the RfC has demonstrated consensus for mentioning the lawsuits in the lede, along the lines of "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" (as initially suggested by Valereee). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, but it will require careful wording that observes NPOV and MOS:WTW. DN (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the wording that I've suggested above meets those requirements. TarnishedPath^talk 10:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm just not sure that a few, now dismissed, lawsuits from (I think) one church out of the whole worldwide organization of churches is prominent enough for a mention in the lead. I know that controversy generally gains more attention, but if we look at the organization as a whole it doesn't seem prominent to mention in the lead. If we are to look for a summary of the organization that has been around for 50+ years, I do not see how a few dismissed lawsuits are significant enough to include in the summary. XZealous (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

However, this RfC is about the usage of "cult" in the lead. I don't want to lump the lawsuits issue into this specific RfC as well, especially noting how long this has already gotten. If we want to open up a discussion on including the lawsuits in the lead, I am happy to have that as a separate conversation. XZealous (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The RFC is about whatever participants determine it's about. If that wasn't the case whoever started any RFC would have a first mover advantage and I don't think that's what Wikipedia is about. TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping that the "Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?" question would be answered in the RfC. If the participants want to add the lawsuits in that conversation as well, that is totally fine with me. I just think it is easier to tackle two issues in two separate conversations. XZealous (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Once an RFC is started, and I hope you appreciate that me starting it was the best course at the time, there is no control over its direction. The best that we can hope is that whoever closes it (and I have requested a independent close at WP:CR) best sums up what the consensus of the discussion is. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you starting this RfC! Thank you XZealous (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't take a deep dive on this but it looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also think that the line about attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement is a good way to describe the facts, and the only change I would suggest is stricter attention to MOS:SAID.

(Also, @GreenC, this discussion reminds me of the principles we talked about at Wikipedia:Crime labels.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see that it would make a great change but per WP:SAID we would write:

""Barrett wrote 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."

@WhatamIdoing, look good? TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder to all the editors that are not familiar with the details. All the lawsuits mentioned in the RS have been dismissed. Using "allegations" from dismissed lawsuits is not encyclopedic material, especially if you are deliberately failing to mention their dismissals. We already went through the lengthy and time consuming process of trying to make this clear to CL and TP here (Dismissed Lawsuits Discussion.) Trying to re-insert this narrative into an RFC that is specifically headlined about the use of the word "cult" in the LEAD just re-inforces the impression of a lack of NPOV JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't me who suggested including the lawsuits as part of this addition , but North8000 in their comment of 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC) (see above). That suggestion seems to have broad support, aside from you and XZealous. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@North8000 has done a great job on pointing out how the church went through a shift about 20 years ago, and things should be attributed as such. I think, as has been suggested and agreed upon, that adding the time frames is appropriate. In the same manner, a statement or two, reflecting the current nature of the church would be needed. However, as has been noted in this RfC, the the lead may not be the best place to get bogged down in the details. I hope we can aim for a concise and accurate summary, while having plenty room to flesh these details out in the body. XZealous (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No matter who suggested the idea, I oppose the inclusion of the 2022-23 lawsuits in the lead. The voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits is reliably sourced and the allegations within them do not merit a reference in the lead. I also question whether the allegations of dismissed lawsuits belong in the body of the article, but that's a different discussion. This topic has been well-covered on this talk page and I am surprised to see it resurface again in an RfC about whether the ICOC should be referred to in the lead as a cult. Meta Voyager (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't be a surprise, because the most recent allegations of the ICOC being a cult were made in the context of the lawsuits. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Take it to WP:NPOV/N. I'm getting extremely tired of you three carrying on about NPOV when it is extremely clear that you either don't know what the policy requires or are misinterpreting it to suit your own POV. TarnishedPath^talk 08:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@North8000 a few suggestions have been thrown out. Which one are referring to looks good? XZealous (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That was referring to Tarnished Path's idea. They had two nearly identical proposals, both of which look good. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought we had agreed, just six or eight weeks ago, that dismissed lawsuits should not be mentioned in the lead. Do we need to take a leaf from Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus and start documenting agreements, so they can't be "accidentally forgotten" the next time there's a chance to promote the Right™ POV? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Inventing false stuff and motivations ("accidentally forgotten" the next time there's a chance to promote the Right™ POV?") is beneath your normal standards. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

For better or for worse, I was just giving a quick opinion to try to move something forward and while I've participated a bunch here, there's a lot in the immense amount of discussion here that I haven't seen or don't remember. Maybe lets just take out the recent lawsuit stuff. Not because they were dismissed ( I think that they were just in essence narrowed for tactical reasons, not dismissed) but because they are too narrow of a topic to be in the lead. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for being forgetful, but could you point me to where it was agreed not to mention the lawsuits in the lede? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

On Sept 3 I removed it from the lead once an RS has stated that they were dismissed. Prior conversation was had about removing it from the lead (and altogether for that matter) once an RS came out noting they were dismissed. It has not been put back in since.

"The lede has recently changed to remove the lawsuit material, which I was agreeable with once a reliable secondary source was presented which confirmed the lawsuit had been dismissed. The article can I think do with some reworking as parts outside the lead are repetitive. However that's not what I started this discussion to get clarity about. I started this because I want to know what the community thinks. Does a COI, however weak, exist and if so should the connected editor notices be maintained? TarnishedPath^talk 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)" HERE is where that came from.Reply

Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 12 also has discussions on this.

This is what I remember about conversations on the lawsuits in the lead XZealous (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

One person writing that does not overrule consensus if a bunch of other editors decide differently. TarnishedPath^talk 21:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree @TarnishedPath. Not sure where you are going with this? XZealous (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understood it to mean that just because TarnishedPath agreed to the removal, doesn't mean that contributors to the RfC can't come to a different view. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also that It's possible for any editor to change my mind as consequence of suggestions by other editors. TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood. I will follow consensus, but I think that if we want to specifically discuss the lawsuits, we should do so on a separate talk page topic. XZealous (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

WhatamIdoing That is actually a very good idea. Consenus was reached to remove the dismissed lawsuits. (I guess many of the new editors drawn into this RFC where unaware of that). JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A previous agreement (especially one amongst a small number of editors) doesn't bind a subsequent RfC though. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if anyone has paid close attention to the belief section recently, particularly the first two sub-sections of it. A lot of it is only supported by references to the bible and ICOC websites. This is straight up original research. I propose that first two sub-sections be given an extreme trim in the not too distant future if reliable secondary sources are not provided to support the material. TarnishedPath^talk 12:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"In the hypothetical situation described in the RfC statement, there is a rough consensus that editors should prefer independent, reliable sources in describing the beliefs of a religious organization per WP:BESTSOURCE. However, nobody suggested outright banning the use of about self sourcing, and several editors pointed out that such sourcing can be used, for example, to substantiate non-controversial doctrinal points. Application of these principles to this article's belief section is outside the scope of this RfC; that is left to further discussion and the normal course of editing."

Just reposting the closer's comments on a previous RfC related to this topic. XZealous (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

While the website is an about-self source about the ICOC, the bible certainly isn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree @Cordless Larry XZealous (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seconding Larry here. There are large sections of text that go well beyond WP:ABOUTSELF and utilise the bible as support for prose. That's textbook original research. Further WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing should only be used to support the most uncontroversial of content, e.g. who the leader was at a certain date etc. TarnishedPath^talk 15:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not original research when those scriptures are quoted on the churches websites as the reasons for their beliefs in certain areas. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Quoting a whole bunch of scripture to support content about beliefs of the church and not providing secondary sources as support for that isn't original research? Please continue to tell us why it isn't. TarnishedPath^talk 12:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don’t need to tell you why it isn’t, Wikipedia policies clearly do:

“Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information

about themselves

, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.”

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Refer to point 1. Additionally, the bible is not a self-published source of ICoC. TarnishedPath^talk 06:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The material used from the ICOC website is not unduly self-serving or an exceptional claim. Also, I don't think anyone is arguing that the bible is a self-published source of the ICOC.. XZealous (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm having a hard time seeing how this is original research. The source used is the ICOC's website that describes what they believe. The question is not about original research or not, it is about the extent to which we can use WP:ABOUTSELF. It looks to me, with following the 5 guidelines from the policy, that it is within bounds to use the ICOC source for what they say their beliefs are. XZealous (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly.

It is also a common practice across Wikipedia to have churches beliefs section supported by the bible verses they use for those beliefs..(eg the 1.6million member Churches of Christ#Beliefs) JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are multiple problems with that section, including the fact that it includes external links to the bible in the article text, which is a violation of WP:NOELBODY. More fundamentally, the bible can't support a claim about what a church believes, so there's no reason to cite it in this situation. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a good argument. Having a bunch of bible verses and stating that is what is believed without reference to reliable sources is textbook original research. TarnishedPath^talk 08:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bible verse were stated from the source. XZealous (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

First I think we should be clear about which section we are discussing. I believe that it's the "Beliefs" subsection, and not including it's "OTC" sub-sub section. And not the entire "Beliefs and practices of the ICOC" section. (?) If we're talking about that narrower section, it includes a lot of vague internal-speak which doesn't do a good job of informing. If we could find something better (and a better source) that would be great but I'd hate to remove an item which is central to coverage of the topic. Also I don't see any cites to the bible in that section.....could someone clarify? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is about the "Beliefs" subsection. I think the issue is with, as far as I know, very little or no sources that clearly state the Beliefs of the ICOC (outside of themselves). The source used is a page from an ICOC website. The question is to what extent can this source be used under WP:ABOUTSELF. I think there is also confusion about the Bible being used as a source. On the ICOC source they mention certain scriptures for a reason of their own beliefs. Those scriptures were previously cited in the article as well (not as sources for the information, but as links so readers could go straight to the scripture if they so wanted). Might be worth reading a previous version of that paragraph to see it laid out.

Would love to hear your thoughts on a suggested rewording. From what I gather from previous conversations of this section, there is a general consensus that it could be restructured. @Meta Voyager has laid out a suggestion or two (probably somewhere in the archives as well). XZealous (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would need to read some of the sources to propose something. (I might restart that list of sources that I was trying to build which got archived). But I think that the gist of that section is:

• Main beliefs are the same as all of the other "primacy of the bible" religions
• Except that maybe baptism is also required (the wording is vague internalish wording on this and so is unclear)
• The "Christ came to unite the world" stuff. I don't know whether or not this is a central belief or just something that a Wiki editor picked up from their materials.
• The vague "in contrast to the CoC, consider permissible practices that the New Testament does not expressly forbid" stuff is probably referring to a meaningful fact, but really doesn't say/explain it.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m just seeing this discussion. In June, 2024, I proposed additional language to the Beliefs section of the ICOC article. After a back-and-forth on the talk page with several editors regarding the format of my edit and a request for additional sourcing, I posted the following in August 2024 before getting sidelined for a while. Feel free to use this proposed edit, if you find it appropriate.

Please insert the following title and paragraph immediately following the initial 3 paragraphs at the beginning of the Beliefs subsection of the “Beliefs and practices of the ICOC” section of the ICOC article and immediately prior to the 3 paragraphs entitled “One True Church (OTC) doctrine”:

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (2006)

On March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” that included a Statement of Shared Beliefs (the “Plan”) was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches who collectively identified worldwide as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. The Plan drafted by ICOC leaders was part of an effort to clarify the nature and mission of the ICOC and to develop new ways for participating churches to work together.  https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=leaven page 4. On August 5, 2009, the Plan was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. A brief summary of the Plan’s Statement of Shared Beliefs includes a recognition of the identity of God as the Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit and recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. A belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the message of the Gospel and the responsibility of each Christian to share the Gospel and God’s love to a lost world are key tenets of the church. The church’s beliefs focus on the church community through sharing in fellowship, community worship and weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Individual responses by church members include the conversion experience through immersion in water baptism, personal discipleship to Jesus Christ and living by a standard of holiness according to the Bible. Other stated beliefs are that decision-making responsibilities of established congregations reside within the individual congregation rather than through an over-arching governance structure, a recognition of the vital role of women in church ministry, the importance of communications within and outside the ICOC being genuine and respectful and the recognition of mature conflict resolution as a priority among congregations. Meta Voyager (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see two "better source needed" indications in the lead. I looked at the WP:NOTRS (which in the reasoning for adding). It states "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." (WP:NOTRS)

The source is only used for a claim about itself, and therefore perfectly follows this rule. For that reason, the "better source needed" tag should be removed. Thoughts?

Thanks! XZealous (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you're confusing {{questionable source}} with {{better source}}. TarnishedPath^talk 16:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"better source needed" is the phrasing used next to the source in the article. WP:NOTRS leads to a section named "Questionable sources." XZealous (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The claim about itself doesn't seem like the kind of low value claim that we normally allow to be self sourced... The first sentence in particular feels promotional and the second sentence shouldn't be the second sentence (number of claimed followers should be in the second or third paragraph). Together the first and second sentences feel extremely promotional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain further on how you see the first sentence as "promotional?" It seems to me a neutral and factual statement about this group of Churches. XZealous (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ Anyone invested; Can we archive some of this chatter? I ask because THIS page which is heavily archived already is 59 pages long on Word so plausibly 200+ on mobile (non-dt mode) which is a bit difficult to navigate. If someone who was invested in this content could archive this down to the 2-3 sections people are actively discussing that should promote more dialog. Just food for thought from someone who frankly doesn't even think this page belongs on Wiki. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We could archivie the "Moving forward after the ANI and COIN discussions" and "Removal of UNSW content" sections if there is no disagreement. TarnishedPath^talk 23:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it would not be appropriate to archive unresolved ongoing discussions. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only reason they're ongoing is because of your desires to drag out the conversations. Conversations have moved on. TarnishedPath^talk 07:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have recently had time to look into the University Campus section. I have read through the sources used and find that they are not accurately being represented in the article. I aimed to rewrite the sections considering both sides that the article presents. However, edits were reversed. I am opening up a section here so we can discuss how we can better represent the sources used in this section. XZealous (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You appear to be trying with these edits to give equal weight to criticisms of the ICOC and the ICOC's response, but that doesn't reflect the balance within the sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not trying to give equal weight to criticisms and response. Some paragraphs have very little to no response from the ICOC, even when responses are laid out in the source. I'm not interested in trying to get them to be equal, but I do find that the sources are not being represented well.

I hope we can discuss here how to fix this. XZealous (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Taking the paragraph starting "In 1994, the New York Times reported that Campus Advance...", what do you think isn't being represented from the source at present? There's already coverage of the organisation's response, and I'd say that the coverage of the criticism is actually quite brief relative to what's in the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That paragraph itself seems fine. The one underneath starting with "In 1996 the dean of Boston University's Marsh Chapel" does not have any comment responding to the criticism, and their is coverage in the source about the Church's response.

Overall, the whole "University Campus" section seems choppy and not formatted well. I've been wrestling with how to approach a section like that. The ICOC seems to have hundreds of groups on campuses around the world, and the section as it is now seems to only reflect a small section of ICOC presence of campuses from a specific time period. XZealous (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can I suggest that we add a brief summary of the Mr Armstrong quote from the Chronicle source to the Boston University paragraph? That seems to be the most "official" response that's included in the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since there were no objections, I've made this addition. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that trying to strike an equal balance between other sources and ICOC sources doesn't meet policy per WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPath^talk 13:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am glad that we are all three in agreement on this @TarnishedPath XZealous (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that this problem and others would be solved by clarifying the time frame of such statements / accusations and the time fram they were referring to. And using only sources that are clear on that. IMO the current statement in the lead is problematic regarding that. The statement quoted a Guardian article which was largely about a lawsuit which was about events from a long time ago. The (Guardian) article used as a source for "attributes of a cult" quoted an expert which was talking about the "long ago" events but used current tense wording (written by the Guardian editor) which is self conflicting. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In other discussions above I haven't seen anyhone object to including timeframes regarding statements. However, I don't think we can go too far and state that it's all diferent now when there is not much of a depth of reliable sources to that effect. TarnishedPath^talk 05:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree, but I don't think that it's even on the table for us to be coming up with such characterizations. I think that it's a useful understanding (and a reality) for the talk page that they have changed significantly if only to remind us that it's essential to supply a time frame for critical statements from sources, and to use sources including that context. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@North8000 I agree. Well spotted. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply