Christianity C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Does anyone know if this is an official website of McKean? The work is all unsigned and it's hard to tell if it is McKean or someone else writing it. -Willmcw 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume that it is him, I would look for the Portland Church of Christ's website, he is currently the leader there.

What is the source for these assertions?

• Most in the ICOC no longer consider...
• ...the church in Los Angeles does not view...

Can we get some specific links to support these? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't find sources for these assertions then they should be removed. -Willmcw 06:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The persons who added content before were not McKean. The significant amount of content that I have added recently is from McKean's perspective and is much more Biographical.CdHess 15:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten this article to make it conform to the idea of a simple biography. Topics such as the controversial nature of Kip's teachings, controversy surrounding ICOC practices, and of recent events within the ICOC seem best suited to remain at the article on the ICOC.

I am the webmaster for kipmckean.com. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to comment. The website is NOT run or associated with Kip Mckean or the Portland Church. I was a member of Kip's church for 14 years. Through my involvement and my success in leaving the organization, I am now convinced that the church I was involved with is a cult. I run the kipmckean website in order to allow people who are trying to get information about Kip to have access to all information about him. I also spend quite a bit of time analyzing his sermons and quotes and comparing them to his teachings of the past. He currently claims he is teaching a new message. I can show that he's not changed at all. I am compelled to educate people about Kip and the ICOC. If you have further comment, let me know. Jenchambers 16:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a prominent link to the ICOC article as it is difficult to understand the creator without first understanding that which he created. In this case they are irrevocably intertwined and those interested should read both articles. -DCM- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.13.10 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no interest in getting dragged into the multiple controversies that appear to swirl around this subject. Just let me say that this new version does indeed appear to conform much more closely to WP:NPOV, as well as to general Wikipedia standards for biography. I appreciate your taking the initiative. Pleather 17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how you have the right to remove a biography which was painstakenly written by people who know McKean and interviewed him. When Mr. McKean saw this on Wikipedia, he was determined to influence his biography. He is still living. The utter removal of this detailed bio without discussion is vandalism. The individual who removed it has the right to their opinion, but we are talking about someone's public representation in a very public place. Good Work? I do not understand how this is good work. Good work would be to take the detailed material and rework it, not destroy it entirely. This article is still a stub. Jeremy Ciaramella 23:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (Please sign your posts, Jeffery! Thank you.) Pleather 18:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My name is Jeremy. Jeremy Ciaramella 23:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to remove that text since it violates copyright, and we are not allowed to have copyrighted text without the correct permissions (you can read about it on Wikipedia:Copyright. This is definitely not vandalism (read WP:VAND for more info). Simply stating that you have the right to reproduce it here is not enough (everyone can say that). The work is not lost, because you can still get it on the site is was originally published, and from the history of the article on wikipedia (like here[1]). If you or anyone else are willing to put it back in a thoroughly rewritten form, or if you can make sure that you get the permission (following Wikipedia standards) to publish the previous version, then there is no problem. For the moment though, the text is a violation of Wikipedia policies. For the record, check out WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Autobiography, to make certain that even the rewritten text is acceptable according to all Wikipedia policies. People writing or influencing their own biography is usually a bad idea, and all texts on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, verifiable, external sources (external to Wikipedia, but also external (i.e. neutral) to the subject of the article). Fram 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to take note of the following passage from WP:AUTO: "Note that anything you submit can be edited by others. Several autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors. In some cases the article is kept even if the original author requests otherwise. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic." Trying to be helpful here. --Pleather 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've contacted permissions@wikipedia.org. I did read Wikipedia:Copyright and made the email request. I strongly disagree with your perspective on someone's biography being uninfluenced by them while they are living, or if it's Wikipedia's POV so be it. Mr. McKean was not the original author, but has labored to contribute significant facts to us (contributors to this article) regarding his life. We expected the material to be edited - not totally tossed out. We thought the community would refine the document here, as oppposed to throw our entire document out as unusable. There are many usable facts and elements to this persons life that make the bio much more interesting than the sparse material that is there now. Your note from WP:AUTO says "edited" - a swathing delete of over 95% of it seems a contradiction, and is sorely disappointing. As far as copyvio - I still don't get your point there. The source of the bio facts were Mr. McKean. How is our work a copyvio? We owned the source material ourselves that we drew from, as well as did our own interviewing with Mr. McKean. Who do you think owns the copyright to this material? It is not KipMcKean.com. That site has taken our content and republished it against our wishes and in a context contrary to our beliefs. Jeremy Ciaramella 23:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, technically you aren't allowed to post anything that comes from original research. Thus, your owning of the source material you drew from, and your own interviewing of Mr. McKean, while an example of diligent work and commendable scholarship, is absoutely not appropriate as a foundation for contributions to this article. --Apostlemep12 15:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostlemep12 - where do the current facts come from in this article now? His children, his birthday, his family...did someone take someone else's word for it then? I see one of these facts referenced to an external source - no others about his early life and upbringing, his resignation and so on. They mention "family matters" and so on his resignation - that's not referenced. Also stating that Mr. Mckean is a "contraversial member of the Church of Christ" is a misnomer. Also - the three "neutral" links are not neutral at all, they are directly contradict his beliefs and what he stands for as an individual...these errors are not helpful in giving an accurate representation of Mr. Mckean. It is entirely appropriate to list these links however, it is the heading that they are put under.Jeremy Ciaramella 07:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link [2] to an open letter by the Los Angeles ICOC makes various statements about the subject's relation to the church which seem significant enough to include here. Could someone more familiar with the matter add something to cover the dispute? -Will Beback 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]