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]

Kip Mckean's official website is http://www.kipmckean.org/ ; http://www.kipmckean.com/ is a website owned by an ex member of the International Churches of Christ. http://www.kipmckean.com/ also has input from many ex members of the International Churches of Christ from around the world. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2010 (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]

In response to Jen Chambers I would like to say that I am also an ex member of the International Churches of Christ and consider Kip Mckean to be a cult leader. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2010 (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]

Kip Mckean is a controversial figure. Many former members of Kip Mckean's organization believe Kip Mckean to be a cult leader. As a former member of the International Churches of Christ I can tell you that people are kept in secret about Kip Mckean's life and past. Only his part in founding the International Churches of Christ is mentioned. It's hard to tell if anything that Kip Mckean says about his own life is true or false. Most members never get to meet Kip Mckean and only see him in pictures, videos, and books. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (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]

This is to Will Beback the poster of that link. I clicked on your link and it goes to the Los Angeles International Churches of Christ website but it does not go to any letter. I get an error message when I click your link. Qewr4231 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I add some links run by ex members of the ICC/ICOC and by unbiased groups that collect information on groups. This way the links present more of an unbiased stance. With only links going to Kip Mckean's church the article isn't being neutral; it's a pro-Kip Mckean stance. Wikipedia is for informational purposes only; not to get people to join an organization. Qewr4231 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is Wikipedia a link farm. I have stripped out all but his "official" website. – ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is Wikipedia pro Kip Mckean or anti Kip Mckean. Wikipedia is neutral. Kip Mckean's personal website includes a lot of propaganda and biased information. It is important for Wikipedia to portray all the facts; not just the facts that make Kip Mckean look good. Kip Mckean and his followers are an aggressive, get-in-your-face, angry bunch that are very competitive. Wikipedia's article on Kip Mckean needs to remain neutral. 99.165.93.117 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't make an article neutral by having equal numbers of links to sites with opposing views. WP:EL calls for a link to official sites, and other sites under a very limited set of criteria. Kevin (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Wikipedia page on Kip Mckean is biased. The Wikipedia page on Kip Mckean contains mostly pro Kip Mckean based information. The page is full of Kip Mckean's propaganda and Mckean's biased information. All facts pertaining to Kip Mckean's life should be on Kip Mckean's Wikipedia page; not just the facts that make Kip Mckean look good. This article needs to be neutral not pro Kip Mckean. ICOC official websites are nothing but ICOC propaganda. I agree with the above post in which is stated: "Kip Mckean and his followers are an aggressive, get-in-your-face, angry bunch that are very competitive." Qewr4231 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted information about Kip Mckean's daughter Olivia Mckean to the Kip Mckean page. I think this is impartial, relevant material about kip Mckean. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts Qewr4231 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but those facts need to be backed up by a reliable source. rickross.com is not reliable enough to cite facts about the actions and words of a third party. You will need to find a reputable news source for this information. Kevin (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rick A Ross Institure is a reliable source. All of the references on the Kip Mckean page go to International Churches of Christ websites:

1. ^ "Kip McKean.org » Biography of Kip McKean". http://www.kipmckean.org/. Retrieved 2008-09-02.
2. ^ tolc.org A Christian community falters - Loss of leader, governing body hurts group formed in Boston, by Farah Stockman, Boston Globe, 17 May 2003.
3. ^ Short history of the ICOC
4. ^ Smallest groups that current affiliated with Kip McKean and the "Portland movement"
5. ^ Kip McKean Starts The International Christian Churches
6. ^ "Portland Breaks with McKean. Extends the Hand of Fellowship to the ICOC". ICOC Hot News. http://www.icochotnews.com/?q=node/632. Retrieved 2008-08-29.

Those websites that I listed here are from the Kip Mckean page. These links are not neutral; they are all biased towards Kip Mckean and therefor the facts are questionable. If whoever wrote the page on Kip Mckean is allowed to use International Churches of Christ websites; which are definitely NOT reputable news sources; then the Rick A Ross institute is just fine as a source. The Rick A Ross institute is a far more reputable news source than the International Churches of Christ owned websites. Qewr4231 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to also mention kip's family. Kip's daughter left her father's church and is married and living in Belgium. Kip's Daughter and Kip do not keep in contact with one another. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Kip McKean article needs a controversy subsection. He was forced to resign from the Parent church ICOC, and many published articles accusing his Church 'City of Angels' as a cult. Leaving this out is not doing justice. College Watch (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more needs to be mentioned about Kip Mckean post ICOC. The ICOC has been splintered into two separate movements: One that continues what Kip Mckean started but repackaged in a new way and one that Kip Mckean currently leads. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

think it's important to also mention kip's family. Kip's daughter left her father's church and is married and living in Belgium. Kip's Daughter and Kip do not keep in contact with one another. I had put this fact in the main article but someone erased it saying that the source was questionable because the source came from an International Churches of Christ website. If this is the case then all ICOC websites are unreliable and should not be allowed to be used as sources. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is no one famous and having an entry for him violates about half a dozen of the wikipedia policies of what constitutes notable people. Plus, it is strongly biased in favor of him so obviously written by his cult followers. This is ludicrous. This page should be deleted or at the least expanded to include some true information about him. There are many sources that independently of each other, state that he is a deranged cult leader who has been exploiting peoples' weaknesses and shortcomings for his own personal gain and shameless ego. Last I looked his kids go/went to high end private schools while he is preaching the word of god and charity to his followers so they keep pouring more money into his pockets. You want to put such a worthless individual on the page, at least be true about him. CarrieBee (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no Thomas Wayne McKean, which is also the name of the father of the subject of this article, appears in the index of the published Thomas McKean genealogies, I decided to research the claim. I do not know how to cite and include the materials that disprove Kip McKean's claim, but I will write what I can here so that, I hope, someone better familiar with Wikipedia can cite them correctly in the article.

Kip's McKean's paternal ancestry: 1. Thomas Wayne McKean II (aka Kip) born 1953 Adams County, Indiana 2. Thomas Wayne McKean (U.S. Navy Read Admiral and physician) born 1928 Adams County, Indiana 3. Gorman F. McKean (physician) born 28 Aug. 1904, died 8 Jan. 1988 Longwood Florida (wife Elmira Staley) 4. Thomas Jeremiah McKean (physician) born April 1873, died 15 Sep. 1947 (wife Clara Yake) 5. John W. McKean born 17 Feb. 1843 in, died 21 Oct. 1928 (wife Lydia Stalter) 6. Thomas (Gerard or Jeremiah) McKean (physician) (wife Mary Hendricks) 7. Thomas Gerard McKean (minister, immigrant from Ireland)

Below are the sources which I hope someone who is Wikipedia savvy will cite and add to the article to refute McKean's claim. So far, I have only cited a so-so web page that lists the descendants of the Declaration Signer Thomas McKean.

Literary source, page 202, describes the family of Thomas McKean of Dublin, Ireland through a descendant of his who came to the United States, Thomas Gerard McKean (number 7 above) http://books.google.com/books?id=6TU2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=thomas+mckean+%22mary+hendricks%22&source=bl&ots=186LuUYG3Z&sig=rgrKXyqMgV0yKWDOJLTq6I0YlRE&hl=en&ei=WK29TKmbPJT0tgPev63IDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=thomas%20mckean%20%22mary%20hendricks%22&f=false

Well-cited Rootweb source follows the descent of John W. (number 5) above, from Thomas (number 6), the additional citations on this page are important because they refer to the indexes of actual records held by the state archives http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=mpearce&id=I21870

Published death notice of Thomas Jeremiah McKean (number 4) in JAMA Volume 135, Number 13 (published 29 Nov. 1947) giving date of death, location, medical school information http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/135/13/863.pdf

More information of Dr. Thomas J. McKean (number 4) http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/22/10/1121.pdf And same http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1529439/pdf/amjphnation00995-0111.pdf

Gorman McKean's mother-in-law's obituary (Mrs. George Staley) shows his wife was Elmira Staley and may be matched with the Rootsweb http://www.kinexxions.com/obits/obits-s3.htm

The following US Federal Censuses: 1920 Federal Census Series: T625 Roll: 420 Page: 30 (Hartford, Adams County, Indiana) Thomas J. (number 4) with wife Clara and son Gorman 1910 Federal Census Series: T624 Roll: 338 Page: 29 (Hartford, Adams County, Indiana) same as above, but with father John W. (number 3) too etc. these are traced back like so, as well