Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 14

JamieBrown2011, you added a paragraph claiming that "the University of Southern California's Dean of Religious life offered an apology saying they had repeated outdated and misleading information about the Los Angeles ICOC church". However, the source establishes no such thing. The source is a letter published in the Daily Trojan, co-authored by the Dean of Religious Life, in which they criticise the newspaper, writing that an article it published "repeats outdated and misleading information about the Los Angeles Church of Christ". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The source makes these comments:

- the Daily Trojan repeats outdated and misleading information about the Los Angeles Church of Christ

- The article unfairly and incorrectly identified the Los Angeles Church of Christ as a problem group when in fact they have been a very positive influence in the lives of USC students in recent years.

- Since 2001, the Los Angeles Church of Christ has been a recognized student religious organization at USC and has conducted itself entirely within the bounds of USC’s Ethical Framework for Religious Life.

- John and Arlene Markowski have served since 2003 as Religious Directors (professional religious leaders assigned to USC), and have shown responsible, sensitive and caring leadership in their work with students. Furthermore, they have been exemplary colleagues in the broader context of religious life on campus.

- A fact-checking call to the Office of Religious Life would have alerted your reporter to the fact that her story was incorrect and would also have avoided the distress that has been caused to the leaders and members of this particular Christian group in consequence of the article.

This is all from the Dean of religious Life of USC, what would you like the wording to say? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The most it could be used to support is that the Dean of Religious Life criticised the Daily Trojan for "repeat[ing] outdated and misleading information about the Los Angeles Church of Christ". Suggesting that the Dean of Religious Life was apologising for their own actions is bordering on libelous, I would have thought. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I think you are trying to greatly minimise what is being stated in the article. Let's try again. Happy to drop the word "apology" and replace it with "unfairly and incorrectly" or "avoided the distress caused" something like that. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what the source is. It's a letter making accusations against the newspaper regarding their coverage of the ICOC. It's in no way an apology, because the people writing it are making those accusations, not the subject of them. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

All that aside, even if the source did say what they wanted it's a fucking student newspaper. While student newspapers can be reliable sources, not many of them are. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It would perhaps be justified to use this source if we were also using the article that the letter is a response to, but we're not. A letter to a newspaper is also very much a primary source, albeit we might give it a bit more weight given the authors were officials of the university. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Ps, the letter to the editor also states that it is about "Los Angeles Church of Christ" not the ICOC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The original article does refer to it as a branch of the ICOC though. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also reverted this attempted addition. The claim that the church "has conducted itself entirely within the bounds of USC's Ethical Framework for Religious Life" would need in-text attribution (also, why "entirely within", not just "within"?) and it's not clear from the letter that the authors speak on behalf of the USC as a whole in the way the wording of the addition suggested. Furthermore, the source is from 2007, so we shouldn't be using it to make claims in the present perfect tense. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is pretty clear it comes from the Dean of Religious life of USC. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know if they're expressing an official position or their own personal view. I note that you've restored the material without addressing my other concerns either. I suggest that you self-revert and try to reach consensus here before adding this material. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm a bit lost on this USC article inclusion. There is so much adding and reverting. What is the issue with its inclusion? I attempted to make a middle ground statement from it. What is the issue with including information from that newspaper? XZealous (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@XZealous, Jamie has been attempting to include in material based on what is esstentially a letter to the editor sent to a student newspaper by a university dean, which given the receipient appears to be nothing more than the personal opinion of the dean and not an official statement of the university. Jamie has tried to change up how he is covering the source a few times but it doesn't make the source any better or anymore relevant to the rest of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 04:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There are many opinions from deans and others expressed in the "University Campuses" section. How is this one different? XZealous (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that a letter to the editor sent to student university newspaper would generally be considered reliable? TarnishedPath^talk 05:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the opinions of deans and others are also used, I don't have an issue including the opinions of the Dean and Senior Associate Dean of Religious Life on USC. XZealous (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Lets look at the material Jamie attempted to include last at Special:Diff/1259871025 (since it is the last iteration of them trying to weave the dean's letter into the article):

"Since 2001, the Los Angeles Church of Christ has been a recognized student religious organization at USC and has conducted itself entirely within the bounds of USC’s Ethical Framework for Religious Life<. USC noted that John and Arlene Markowski, the ICOC leaders of the USC campus group, have shown "responsible, sensitive and caring leadership in their work with students." (empahsis mine)

This material that Jamie attempted to add is making a claim on behalf of USC, even if we do allow the dean's letter for evidence of their own opinion, it does not support statements made on behalf of the university itself. TarnishedPath^talk 06:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Im happy to make the attribution to the specific deans. I see this is also done for the Boston Univserity Dean. Are you ok with that change? XZealous (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, happy to have it attributed to the Dean of Religious Life at USC. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The issues are noted in my comment of 18:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) above. These could be fixed through the addition of attribution and dates, but the bigger issue is that none of this really makes sense unless contextualised through addition of coverage of the original article that the letter is a response to. We could add something summarising what the article said, but in my view a student newspaper publishing something nasty about a religious organisation isn't really notable unless it attracted secondary coverage (and I don't think a letter published in the same newspaper really counts as that). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

How about "Since 2001, the Los Angeles Church of Christ has been a recognized student religious organization at USC. According to the Dean of Religious life (fill in name), they have conducted themselves entirely within the bounds of USC’s Ethical Framework for Religious Life. The Dean also noted that John and Arlene Markowski, the ICOC leaders of the USC campus group, have shown "responsible, sensitive and caring leadership in their work with students." XZealous (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That still leaves out the context of why this statement was being made (i.e. the claims in the original article), and the source can only support the LA church being recognised up until it was published, which was in 2007. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the previous article is needed for context. It seems to me that the proposed above flows well on its own. What context do you see would be helpful to add? XZealous (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The relevant context is the criticisms of the church made by the article that the letter was a response to. It makes no sense to include the defence of the church offered in the letter without explaining what the letter was attempting to refute. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The material being in the article doesn't make sense unless context is provided and as stated by Larry it doesn't make sense to include material about criticisms from a student newspaper. TarnishedPath^talk 00:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This version doesn't really work either. We still don't have secondary coverage and the paragraph starts by discussing a lecture, but then switches to "She went further to explain the original article in the USC Newspaper", when the original article hasn't been mentioned until that point. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is the text using both the original article and the follow on one published a week later:

- In 2007, the University of Southern California (USC) Sociology department presented a lecture entitled “Sects in the City: Protecting Your Children from Cults” and identified the Los Angeles Church of Christ (LACC) as a potential problem group. One week later the Dean of Religious life at USC, Susan Laemmle said "Since 2001, the Los Angeles Church of Christ has been a recognized student religious organization at USC and has conducted itself entirely within the bounds of USC’s Ethical Framework for Religious Life. John and Arlene Markowski have served since 2003 as Religious Directors (professional religious leaders assigned to USC), and have shown responsible, sensitive and caring leadership in their work with students. Furthermore, they have been exemplary colleagues in the broader context of religious life on campus." She went further to explain the original article in the USC Newspaper had "unfairly and incorrectly identified the Los Angeles Church of Christ as a problem group when in fact they have been a very positive influence in the lives of USC students in recent years."^{[1] [2]}

- What text would you like to add to clarify? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it the lecture or the newspaper article that characterised the church as a "problem group"? Because the first part of your paragraph suggests it was the lecture, but the latter part (where Laemmle is criticising the newspaper) suggests that the newspaper must also have characterised the church as such. I'd be happy to check the original article myself, but I don't think this is worth the time finessing if we don't have secondary coverage to demonstrate that this incident is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the original source and it's unclear whether the LA church was cited in the lecture or if the newspaper is using its own example. The relevant text is "Although a discussion about cults on college campuses might seem sensationalist to some, groups on and around USC's campus — including the LaRouche movement and the Los Angeles Church of Christ — have been accused of cult activity in the past". We'd probably need to quote that as context for Laemmle's criticism of the article, if this was to be included. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

A student newspaper covering a university lecture and you want to use that in the article? Please tell me you realise how this sort of stuff isn't encyclopaedic. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath could you explain further why you don't think this is a source that should be used? XZealous (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION says that opinion pieces are reliable for the opinions of the authors but not for statements of fact. So if we were to cover the dean's letter to the editor it's only useful for a statement about their opinion. Now covering their opinion out of context makes no sense but including what they were expressing their opinion about doesn't make sense either because they were expressing their opinion about the opinion of some student journalist whose opinions have zero WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm aware that the content is the opinion of the Deans. That was expressed clearly in the writing. @JamieBrown2011's last edit included the context from the previous article.

To your last point. I'm not sure how the opinions of religious Dean of a university has "zero weight" about a religious organization on that university. Could you clarify that? XZealous (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write that 'opinions of religious Dean of a university has "zero weight" about a religious organization'. I wrote that the opinions of student journalists have "zero weight" so why would we cover them and without covering them the dean's response makes zero sense. TarnishedPath^talk 14:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for misrepresenting you. I disagree that the dean's opinion of the religious group makes zero sense without the student's remarks. However, that context was provided by Jamie's last edit.

As far as I have read on the source rules, using this as a source in the way it has been used is fine. I'm happy to take this to a Reliable Sources board if needed. XZealous (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Jamie's suggestion got the context wrong, suggesting that the letter was a response to a lecture that the original article was reporting on, when it was actually a response to the student journalist's characterisation of the LA church. Anyway, if you want to use these sources, I'd back that suggestion to ask about them on the RSN. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Like Larry I'd back raising it at RSN. If you do so, please ensure you leave a comment here that you have done so with a link. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Trojan Reliable Source XZealous (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_459#Daily_Trojan_Reliable_Source Is this what you were trying linking to? Nowa (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

When they linked to it back in December that was the correct address. The discussion has since found its way to the archives as indicated by the link you've provided. TarnishedPath^talk 23:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Much of the article relies on sources from the 1990s and early 2000s, particularly around the controversies of that time. While these are historically important, the International Churches of Christ is still active today, and the article does not reflect its more recent developments, activities, or global presence. The heavy use of older sources also risks presenting an inaccurate picture of the ICOC's current state. I propose adding the update tag until more recent, reliable sources can be incorporated. XZealous (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@XZealous Your argument might hold weight if those recent, reliable secondary sources exist now. If we have to wait for them to come along, at some point in the future, an update isn't required at present. TarnishedPath^talk 14:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The tag was to indicate to other readers and editors that the article is sourced heavily from old sources. Either this tag needs to be up, or the article needs to reflect this properly. I will work on this in time, and having the tag there until it is worked on is appropriate. XZealous (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not the way it works. If you're going to add the tag that it is outdated on the basis of not having recent, reliable secondary sources, then you need need to precent those sources. TarnishedPath^talk 00:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

"Some Wikipedia editors object to the practice of "tagging" instead of fixing, but there is value in pointing out an article's problems" and "Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag."

I am allowed to add a tag for an issue the article has, and it should be taken to the talk page to discuss further. Once consensus is reached and the problem is fixed, then the tag can be removed.

"If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed by any editor without a conflict of interest. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building."

You mustn't just revert tags you personally disagree with. Let's please engage here before we start removing tags on the page. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I am allowed to add a tag for an issue the article has

You've not demonstrated that there is any issue. You have not demonstrated that the article is out of date. You ask for editors to update the article but without articulating exactly which sources the article is missing. That is a perverse position. More to the point, there are sources in the article from the 2020s.

Both myself and Larry have asked a few times now. Exactly which reliable secondary sources are missing from the article which would be used to update content with? TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The article currently devotes significant space to controversies and criticisms of the ICOC, with relatively little coverage of its teachings, practices, or more neutral aspects of its history. While criticism is certainly part of the picture, Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy requires that articles reflect the balance of coverage found in reliable sources. At the moment, the article seems weighted heavily toward one side of the discussion, especially since most of the cited sources come from a narrow timeframe. Until more balanced sourcing is added, I suggest placing the undue weight tag at the top of the article. XZealous (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@XZealous we've had this discussion and there has been consensus against it. TarnishedPath^talk 14:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you send a link to the previous discussion on this?

Thanks! XZealous (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you provide sources that you don't think are currently reflected in the article? NPOV requires balanced coverage of significant views published by reliable sources, not balance between published criticism and other aspects that might not be reflected in sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@XZealous, I'm fairly certain that you've been involved in those discussions and I have faith in your ability to search archives. Additionly I concur heavily with Larry's comment above. TarnishedPath^talk 00:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Since you made a claim to those discussions @Tarnished, I do believe you need to provide them. I personally don’t recall ever seeing that on this page. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, a while ago @Valereee asked you a question on your talk page. Were you planning on ever answering that question? TarnishedPath^talk 06:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

In the multiple COI boards you guys dragged me into I clearly explained my status. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

On those COI boards it hadn't come to light that you have taken photos of ICOC services from at least 5 different cities around the world, with some of those photos being taken from a vantage point in front of the congregation. You haven't explained how you have come to have travelled around the world taking photos of ICOC services from vantage points that indicate that you may be involved in conducting the services themselves. TarnishedPath^talk 08:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You are so predictable. Every time you try attack the messenger. I did not co-ordinate any of those church services. I did take 1 or 2 of those pictures and others I requested. As I have stated many times I am a long standing member of the church and I have been blessed to travel and visit some of our congregations in different cities. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

When you uploaded all those photos to commons, you made statements that you took them; that they were your own work. I'd suggest that you need to request deletion for any of the images which you did not take; i.e., those which you do not own the copyright for. TarnishedPath^talk 06:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you please advise which of those photos you did not take, because they will need to be removed from this article; as they are copyright violations. TarnishedPath^talk 07:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Ps, if you wish to speak in favour of the stance that XZealous has put forward, given what Larry has stated about the requirements of NPOV, perhaps you can enlighten us to exactly which secondary reliable sources are not currently reflected in the article? TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Tagging policy is quite clear “ Rather than reverting or edit warring over the placement of a tag, use dispute resolutionprocedures. 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 notmean 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. “

Tarnished, you have already reverted the Tags twice in a 24 hour period, which I would remind you is bordering on Edit Warring and I would recommend you don’t continue down that path JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Per Template:POV:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

Despite both yourself and XZealous being asked to provide reliable secondary sources which demonstrate a NPOV issue, you have failed to do so. TarnishedPath^talk 06:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath is states "in the absence of such a discussion." There is, right now, a discussion on this tag. You cannot remove it while editors are discussing this. I am also not "drive-by tagging." I have been involved on this article space for a while now. My intention is not to add a tag and leave. I laid out my concern in here in the talk page, and we need to discuss and come to consensus before any editor can remove the tag.

I also have not had time to respond to you or Larry in detail. XZealous (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You've selectively read what I quoted above. Namely you have missed that where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

You haven't made clear exactly what the NPOV violation is and so the tag should be removed immediately. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have placed the NPOV tag in order to push your content dispute. I'm going to start a NPOV discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 07:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Rather than focusing on the process of tagging, perhaps you could just list some sources that aren't reflected in the article? You must be aware of some to have placed the tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. I would have thought this would have been a prelinary step prior to tagging an article with unclear rationale for doing so. TarnishedPath^talk 07:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand the call for specific sources, and I agree we should work on adding them. But I don’t think the lack of many newer secondary sources should mean the article remains so heavily weighted toward criticisms from 20+ years ago. That runs the risk of misrepresenting the subject today.

Wikipedia’s NPOV and UNDUE policies aren’t only about adding sources, but also about making sure articles don’t give a distorted impression by devoting disproportionate space to a single time period or perspective. To draw an analogy, we wouldn’t write an article about Germany today that focuses almost entirely on the events of 80 years ago, without acknowledging how leadership, membership, and practices have changed.

The tag is useful precisely because it signals this concern while editors work together to improve balance. Removing the tag before we’ve had the chance to examine this properly gives the impression that the concern is being dismissed, rather than discussed. Barnabas436 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Larry described exactly the requirements of WP:NPOV above when he wrote: NPOV requires balanced coverage of significant views published by reliable sources, not balance between published criticism and other aspects that might not be reflected in sources. Regarding your claim that the article is heavily weighted toward criticisms from 20+ years ago, I addressed this statement above when I wrote there are sources in the article from the 2020s. Those sources reflect much of the criticism of ICOC found in the article.

So again, if you are going to continue this claim that the article is violating NPOV, where are the reliable secondary sources which demonstrate that we are NOT representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources"? TarnishedPath^talk 00:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, I see what you’re saying, but NPOV isn’t just about whether there are sources or not—it’s also about how the article reflects the overall balance of coverage. Right now, the argument still gives a lot of space to the older controversies, while offering very little on how the movement functions today or how it’s changed till nowadays.

Even if some newer references are included, they seem to repeat the same critical themes rather than give a fuller picture of the movement’s current state. That’s really the concern here—it’s not about erasing criticism, but about making sure the coverage isn’t frozen in an earlier period.

The undue weight tag simply flags that issue while editors work through it, which is exactly what it’s meant for. Keeping it up during this discussion seems fair and consistent with policy. Barnabas436 (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

"it’s also about how the article reflects the overall balance of coverage".

That is determined by what the sources state. If you have no sources which demonstrate that a significant viewpoint is not being covered in this article then no argument you can put forward will demonstrate that there is a NPOV issue. TarnishedPath^talk 08:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is necessary to state specific sources you think should be used in the article and currently are not. And since discussion has already started and is ongoing, there is no further need for the maintenance tags; their purpose is to spur discussion and that's obviously been already achieved. So, what specific sources do you think are not currently reflected in the article, and should be? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Quotes from Referenced Sources Not Represented Neutrally

1. David V. Barrett’s The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, ‘Cults’ and Alternative Religions (2001) The article cites Barrett extensively for 1990s criticisms from the anti-cult movement, including hostility, discipling humiliation, and love bombing attracting vulnerable people. However, it omits Barrett’s more balanced observations on the ICOC’s appeal and growth, which provide context for why people joined despite criticisms.
   • Overlooked positive: Barrett notes high membership turnover but balances it with the ICOC’s “far more ex-members than current members,” implying resilience and appeal to new recruits, which is downplayed in favor of distress narratives.
2. Flavil Yeakley’s Study on the Boston Church of Christ (1985, as cited in The Discipling Dilemma) The article highlights Yeakley’s MBTI study to suggest unhealthy personality convergence due to group dynamics, framing it negatively as evidence of control. It includes his caveat but emphasizes the “group norm” influence as problematic, without noting his overall view that the church’s growth was tied to positive communal commitment.
   • Overlooked quote: “The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way.” This is partially included but not emphasized; the article focuses on convergence as implicitly negative, ignoring Yeakley’s conclusion that no proven harm occurred to individuals. 11
   • Balanced context omitted: Yeakley, a Churches of Christ professor, praised the Boston Movement’s evangelistic zeal, stating in related writings: “The Boston Church of Christ is one of the most evangelistic groups I have ever studied,” highlighting success in outreach that offsets the personality concerns.
3. Kathleen E. Jenkins’s Awesome Families: The Promise of Healing Relationships in the International Churches of Christ (2005) The article uses Jenkins to note criticisms of the ICOC’s structure (e.g., “greatly criticized by anti-cult organizations”) and discipling as forcing interactions, but it underrepresents her ethnography’s focus on positive outcomes, such as family healing and cross-racial bonds. The book portrays the ICOC as a source of “awesome families” through its practices.
   • Overlooked quote: “Members credit the church for helping them develop so-called ‘awesome families’—successful marriages and satisfying relationships with children.” This positive member perspective on family restoration is absent, while the article prioritizes critiques of the same discipling system. 32
   • Another overlooked positive: “These intimate racially and ethnically diverse discipling networks provided members with social resources such as childcare, teen counseling, tutoring, employment opportunities, domestic help, and other kinds of assistance in day-to-day living.” The article mentions racial integration but frames it as “forced,” minimizing the voluntary benefits Jenkins describes.
4. Joseph E. Lee’s Study on Racial Integration (as cited in the article) The article briefly notes Lee’s positive view on discipling lowering racial barriers but buries it amid heavy criticism of discipling as humiliating and controlling, creating an imbalance.
   • Overlooked quote: “The strict discipling program helped lead to a lowering of barriers between races and classes. He found this to be a general characteristic of organizations (e.g., martial arts schools) with strong formal beliefs and discipline.” This is partially included but not given weight; the article focuses on negatives like “public scorn” without balancing with how discipline fostered unity. 22

Additional Sources Not Shown in the Article

These sources provide positive or balanced views on the ICOC’s growth, reforms, racial integration, and community impact, which could address the article’s focus on negatives. They come from academic studies, news, and official responses, representing underrepresented perspectives.

1. Andy Fleming’s “Let Each One Be Careful How He Builds: A Study of the Statistical Narrative of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) – Initial Growth Phase” (Academic Paper) This study analyzes the ICOC’s rapid expansion positively, focusing on evangelistic success rather than controversies.
   • Highlighted quote: “The ICOC’s initial growth phase demonstrates a model of statistical narrative where commitment and discipling led to unprecedented expansion, evangelizing entire regions within a generation.” This counters the article’s emphasis on decline post-2002 by highlighting sustainable growth factors. 42
2. Christian Chronicle Article: “Revisiting the Boston Movement: ICOC Growing Again After Crisis” (2003, Updated) This reports on post-McKean reforms and renewed growth, including apologies and decentralization, providing a positive trajectory not covered.
   • Highlighted quote: “The ICOC has attempted to address the following concerns: a top-down hierarchy, discipling techniques, and sectarianism… Membership had grown again to 97,800 members in 610 churches across 148 countries.” This shows recovery and positive changes, balancing the article’s focus on lawsuits and past criticisms. 53
3. GotQuestions.org: “What is the International Church of Christ (ICOC), and What Do They Believe?” (2013) While noting past issues, it acknowledges reforms and positives like community focus.
   • Highlighted quote: “The International Churches of Christ has issued an apology for some of its past actions and has made some changes to its leadership structure and discipleship approach.” This highlights redemption and evolution, omitted from the article’s historical narrative. 53
4. Christian Standard: “Who Are the International Churches of Christ?” (2023) This discusses shared Restoration Movement roots and collaborative shifts, positively framing integration.
   • Highlighted quote: “Many from… the International Churches of Christ are moving to work with those of us within Christian Churches/Churches of Christ… RENEW.org Network was launched as a renewal movement.” This shows ecumenical progress and positive evolution post-crisis. 58

These overlooked elements suggest the article could better achieve NPOV by incorporating positives for balance, especially in sections on history, discipling, and university responses. Additional sources like these provide a distribution of viewpoints, including from academics and insiders, to represent all significant views. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I've only skimmed over what you've written so far, but can you explain how an organisation having "far more ex-members than current members" would reflect positively on it? At best I would think it would reflect neutrally and at worst negatively. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's the longer context for that quote: "As in many other NRMs there is a high turnover of members, many leaving after a few months because they find the discipline of life in the movement too demanding or oppressive. There are probably far more ex-members of ICOC than current members. Again like many other NRMs, ICOC tries to discourage people from leaving. The fact that many members live in communal homes, and have been encouraged to break off contact with non-member friends, can make it difficult to leave, simply because the member has to find somewhere else to live. Once they have left, the Church often visits or phones members for weeks, encouraging them to come back. This can include 'love-bombing', but can also include the implicit or explicit warning that the member could lose his salvation by leaving the Church". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't think of how anyone would view that positively. TarnishedPath^talk 22:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Nick Blevins (a church consultant) and Bob Franquiz (a pastor), who describe it as a general “national average” for annual attrition due to factors like relocation, backsliding, or conflict.

•  In a 2023 ChurchTrac analysis, Blevins notes that “a church should expect to lose about 10%-15% of its members year over year,”

So after 7-8 years every church would have more ex-members than members, it is simply the reality of the church world. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That may be so, but unless we have a source that makes that point in relation to the ICOC, this would be original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The Fleming paper is self-published, so should only be used with a lot of care. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way" is only partially included, that's not true - that whole sentence (and the sentence that follows it) is quoted in full in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The Harrington Christian Standard source isn't independent of what it's describing, e.g. "At RENEW.org, we seek to provide clarity in our postmodern time by articulating the best of Restoration Movement theology focused on disciple-making". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's been a while since I was more thoroughly involved here. The organization went through some major changes. All of the (dated) sources that concern was expressed about are between 20 and 40 years old. Any use of such old sources should make it clear that they are taking about the organization as it was as of that time; otherwise such use would imply that it is about the current organization which would be misleading. IMO material which says or implies that it is about the current organization should be newer sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I addressed the age of sources above. TarnishedPath^talk 21:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

So @North8000, an editor @XZealous placed a Tag on this page noting a concern on the Page according to WP Policy “

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 notmean 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. “

He began this thread to discuss his concerns and the tag was immediately reverted a few times by Tarnished and Cordless. This flies in the face of Wikipolicy of not removing the tag until the dispute is resolved. Any thoughts?

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The point was that XZealous failed to explain their concern by pointing to omitted sources (still hasn't). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that the tag wasn't only removed by me and TarnishedPath, but also by Seraphimblade. As I noted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Talk:International Churches of Christ#Undue Weight Tag, this topic was originally discussed in September/October 2024 without a convincing rationale about missing sources being offered. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that the instructions at {{POV}} state that the tag should be removed, when amongst other things, "There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved". Given the lack of anyone chiming in at the NPOV/N discussion. agreeing that there is any sort of NPOV issue, I read consensus that the issue is resolved, because it never existed. TarnishedPath^talk 08:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I went back to the previous discussion on these tags and there actually was no consensus. The discussion just died out. I decided to add the tags back, so we can continue discussing this until consensus is actually reached. XZealous (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've posted a link to the NPOV discussion. Regarding you re-adding the template, because you didn't get your way last time, that is not the purpose of the template. TarnishedPath^talk 04:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for not being that engaged in this discussion. My concern was that most of the sources are older. There is no inherent problem in this, but the ICOC has seemed to change since then. I believe it would be beneficial to note this, and organize the article in a manner that reflects it. It seems like @North8000 is understanding what I am pointing too. XZealous (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

As has been explained before, the fact that most of the article's sources are older is a reflection of the existence of sources in the first place. There appear to be fewer independent, reliable sources about the church from recent years. If you know of any that aren't used at present, please identify them here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not say there are omitted sources that are not being used. XZealous (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

(Response) It's not my dance to spend a lot of time discussing tags. I'd rather spend it on improving the article. You did a lot of thorough work above to provide info/examples on your concerns. If you will forgive my brevity and "shooting from the hip" for brevity, the first group of sources are ancient sources discussing the previous ICOC. The second group is more current sources discussing a different organization the current ICOC. IMO there was a lot to criticize about the the previous ICOC, and IMHO your arguments advocating for more positive coverage of the previous ICOC to me look a bit weak. But IMO the failure throughout the article to identify the time period of content about the previous ICOC (and thus implying that it it about he current ICOC) is a significant problem and I advocate adding time context information to that material. IMO the second half of your posts indicates lack of coverage (in that respect) regarding a different organization, the current ICOC. IMO this looks like good material that should be in the article, again, with time context. IMO these look like straightforward informative changes. If others think the same but there is resistance to allowing them, then IMO some mechanism to deal with this (RFC or tag) would be in order. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you those are very helpful thoughts. Would you be able to propose some additions to the article from the new sources listed above? I know whatever I propose will be immediately objected to/deleted or removed by the usual two. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try to help here but I'd have to start by looking more deeply into what's in the article and in the sources. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @North8000. I agree with your assessment that changes need to be made to the article to accurately reflect the timing of criticisms to a Church group that has changed. I think there is also an interesting dynamic going that should be thought of more. Here is what I mean. Some content in the article will come from an interview or conversation with a member or ex member. That opinion is then expressed in the article as reflecting the ICOC as a whole. How is that intellectually honest?

For example - "ex members were to be shunned." That comes from Jenkins discussions with a few members and ex members. So how is it right to use that to express the ICOC as whole? Her paper actually reads "To fail on any of these points, members and former members noted, meant the possibility of serious social sanctions: being “marked” and kicked out of the community, shunned."

This means that this was an experience of the members and ex members she spoke to noting the possibility. I don't then think the wiki article can spread this as if it were an ICOC policy. I think we need to be very careful with painting with a broad brush here.

I appreciate your desire to look into the article and help clarify some of these things! XZealous (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

If you feel that Jenkins is not reliable for the usage I invite you to take it to WP:RS. Otherwise this comes accross as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TarnishedPath^talk 04:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say or indicate that Jenkins in not a reliable source. If you would like, please respond to the arguments I make, not ones I don't make. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I just read the whole article. IMHO it is overall pretty well done. Informative, enclyclopedic and not particularly biased. But I do think that some areas need work regarding (probably unintentional) bias:

• Regarding the lawsuit, in the body it is biased by omission. Particularly with it discusses accusations extending into "new" period of the church, without detail or explanation. This is further compounded by it being just a civil lawsuit by 2 people. For the same and other reasons, I don't think it should be in the lead. A very large article with a large amount of material, and an entire 1 of the 4 paragraphs in the lead is about accusations by 2 individuals in a civil lawsuit.
• The "love bombing" section is biased by it's omission of date information. Need info about when the allegations were made and when the alleged behavior occurred
• The description of banning from universities in 2020 also is a case of bias-by-what-is-implied-by-omission. It needs info on what the given reason for the banning was.

One observation is that a disproportionately large amount of material is about it's controversial era which pretty much ended 23 years ago. This is somewhat inevitable....there was more of the things that sources tend to write about back then. But it would be good to try try to include more newer information.

I'd be happy to try to work on these but haven't had many wikiminutes lately. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Recently, I've been going through different sections as I have time and doing a bit of copy editing. There have been suggestions in the past that the article is badly structured but I've seen a lot worse. I've gotten worse promoted to GA. Regarding your points above, I have no in principal objection to points two and three. On point one, perhaps the material can be expanded in the body but it does strike me as being something which ICOC has been most known for in recent history and therefore I don't agree that it should be removed from the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 22:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any particular concern about it being in the lead, (I was just giving my thoughts) but just to discuss, the lead should be a summary of what is in the article and right now that is a very tiny part of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed 👍 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. It is, in now way, a part of a summary of the ICOC history. Those instances of lawsuits - which as indicated are civil lawsuits by 2 people - can be expanded upon in its appropriate section. XZealous (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I have 100% infallible/irrefutable proof that the Kip Mckean cults allow child abuse. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:A493:F447:9645:9B3 (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this anon user above is Ed, aka the perma-banned WP:SOCKPUPPET offender known as Qewr4231 who will forever attempt to influence this page. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI I think user is harassing me. ~2025-42695-74 (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is this way. TarnishedPath^talk 03:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

He'll just have yet another anon account blocked if he does anything just like all the other times. We have all seen the paper trail on this guy and User:Cyphoidbomb has seen it 10x more. I'm sure he'll be on FB complaining about it next. It's a terribly irony since he's obsessed with editing this page yet being away from the church for like 2 decades. If his definition of harassment is calling him out for still posting here even after being perma-banned, I can only laugh. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams28 He'll just have yet another anon account blocked if he does anything just like all the other times. That's what I was hoping for. Iove a good boomerang. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted)

(Redacted), you've been here for like 2 decades but still have no idea what the form and function of an encyclopedia is. The people who are here to edit to build an academic, NEUTRAL, good faith, and cited work from reasonably reputable sources don't need your help. You've consistently been cited as not following the WP:PILLARS to press your agenda. The current Icoc members and neutral editors don't see an academic need to add in some in depth section covering the abhorrent behavior of a man 20+ years removed from employment. This odd hyper-focus is why you are perma-banned and hiding behind the anon-wall despite everyone still being able to see your location when you post. If you are this passionate about this man, go write a blog for free on Google, but leave academic activities to the qualified. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The ICC is a Kip Mckean movement that broke off from the ICOC. ~2025-42695-74 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Insightful observations. Now to do something about it! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000 — appreciate your assessment and feedback. I agree with your points, especially about the bias-by-omission and the disproportionate focus on material from over two decades ago.

Your observation about the lead giving an entire paragraph to a lawsuit involving just two individuals really underlines why some of us have felt the article needed an undue weight tag. It’s not about erasing criticism, but about making sure the coverage reflects the overall picture fairly and proportionally.

I think your suggestions for adding context (dates, explanations, and reasons for actions like the university bans) would go a long way toward addressing the neutrality issues. I’d be glad to help find some of those newer sources whenever you have time to look at it again. Barnabas436 (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

How many universities is the ICOC banned from? Should the article list those universities? ~2025-42695-74 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)