This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Reformed Christianity / Charismatic 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. Christian music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Louisville Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 (Feb–June 2008) Archive 2 (Aug 2008–June 2009)

Any objections to removing the the Controversy and Criticism section entire and the other bit under history marked flagged? No rush. I will leave this up for comment a bit before I delete the content.- Sinneed 02:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With those 2 bits gone, is there any objection to removing the disputed article flag?- Sinneed 02:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Hyper3 (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Controversy and Criticism section ought to be deleted. Every group has isolated incidents that are often embellished and without further investigation or comments from other parties, we do not know the whole story. Removing this portion of the article would go a long way in making this a more neutral article. I have been involved with a SG church (not the one mentioned) for the past four years and have listened to a number of sermons from various other SG churches and have never heard the Ezzo's name mentioned. This is not to say that they never were...just that I've not heard it in the past four years of involvement with SGM. Also, though I have heard parenting seminars and teaching on appropriate discipline, I have never heard of anyone being forced to raise their children a certain way. --David Hankins (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should do it and mention agreement on the talk page. If anyone wants to object, they need to give reasons here for why their amendments are neutral well-sourced and due weight. These standards are required by wikipedia!! The sections referred to have many problems: original research and coat-racking being the least of them. Criticism sections are discouraged; turning the entry into an "attach page"... I could go on... Hyper3 (talk)08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From above

My proposal is to get rid of the section about online controversy entirely. Collapse Baker to a sentence on using excommunication to achieve social conformity. Add back in ELs for SGMsurvivors, SGMrefuge, I kissed dating goodbye... plus some other like spiritual tyranny and church discipline. Give these appropriate descriptions. And that's it.

I can't do part of this, as I feel the ELs don't belong at all (some of the content is pretty vile). But unless there is an objection, I am going with the "get rid of the section about online controversy entirely. Collapse Baker to a sentence on using excommunication to achieve social conformity." I may add that bit here 1st for comment.- Sinneed 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced a lot of mangled content with a simple statement that blogs and websites critical of SGM had been created, and preserved all the sources. I also filled in some fields and flagged a dead link using the wp:REFLINKS tool.- Sinneed 01:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I found why no one has made any improvement here, I can't find even a single wp:RS. So, unless someone starts an RfC (I find them tiresome and stunningly valueless - quite possibly because I don't know how to do one right or pick dumb topics - and won't do it) I don't see much hope. I am going to axe the big quotes of Baker.- Sinneed 01:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that is the best I can do with what is there. I killed a sentence and removed names due to wp:BLP fears... I won't kill them if restored but will pass it along for review to wp:BLP noticeboard, as I am just not knowledgeable enough to say if this is OK. There are still a lot of bits here that I think don't belong but I think the bad stuff is gone.- Sinneed 02:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinneed, thank you for your time and input here. I've largely been following the progress here, but have taken the stance of letting things develop without my input since things didn't seem to go well last I edited. In looking through the new "Preparation for Parenting" and "Excommunication" section, there were a few things I wanted to mention:

1) As the sources stand, I cannot find anything in them to substantiate the claim, "They reported that following PFP was a matter of mandatory doctrine for Covenant Fellowship members." Maybe I'm missing it in the articles themselves, but the strength of that sentence is not substantiated, at least by the sources.

2) I tracked down the appropriate Christian Research Journal articles and am trying to put the correct ones into place. I'm having some trouble on this, so could someone with a little better understanding of this take a look to be sure I got it right?

3) In the Excommunication section, given the sources referenced, it is inappropriate to credit Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) with replying to the Bakers when in the articles it is the pastoral staff of Covenant Fellowship Church (CFC) who respond.

4) Off of #3, as I stated before a few months ago, I am unclear exactly on how this single incident at CFC relates to SGM as a whole. I understand that the purpose of the example exists to display that CFC/SGM practices excommunication. But if that is the case, wouldn't it be better to simply say, "SGM practices excommunication in church discipline"? Certainly they aren't the first or last church body to do so. The sources sited give a more complicated story of events at CFC than a simple "We disagreed with the pastors, they kicked us out" story. Not to discredit the story at all, but I don't think the example really fits in the wiki article.

The Fairfax branch of thye Sovergn Grace Church has had five cases of children being sexually molisted. The staff refushed to coopoerate with the Fairfax County Police department in investigating one of the cases. Another of the cases involved a three year old childed being vaginal penitrated by a teenager that was babysitting during a group meeting.The Fairfax church earlier known as Fairfax Covent was listed for years as a cult by the cult awareness network for their extreme shepperding and abuse of members. The founder of this movement CJ Maheaney then paid a mediator $5,000 before the mediation which seems like a pay off to silence the complaining parents. Much of the fourty years worth of abuse by this church can be attributed to the lack of seminary training by the founders and 99% of all the staff. The group has extreame distain for seminary graduates because they end up challenging the teachings of this church due to the bibical contridictions in much of the churches teaching. See www.sgmsurvivor.com or google Sovergn grace a cult for more information about what is believed to be a dangerous Cult by many theologians.

Any thoughts on this stuff? FenderPriest (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am dubious. Cleaned up the format a bit, dropped some obvious OR, my not reverting does not show support, just a lack of immediate opposition. Please explain what is going on, hew to the sources, and please use edit summaries.- Sinneed 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why the section "Teachings on parenting" was added. Is it really relevant information as to what books SGM promotes on parenting? Unless there is an official citation of this opinion from SGM itself, this seems more like advertisement than anything else, not to mention irrelevant to the page given no context for the addition. Looking at various other church leaders/denomination pages, it seems to me that this is out of accord with the tenor of Wikipedia. I propose a removal. I'd also like to know if there is any time-line on the neutrality issues of the page, and when they will be resolved. Thanks, FenderPriest (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, which I'd like to talk about before making any action, is the list of blogs cited under "Church Discipline". I'm certainly not against blogs being linked, but upon a quick review of the blogs listed, at most a total of 4 seem appropriate to the page. SGM Uncensored and SGM Refuge are the two active blogs on the issue, with "I Kissed Dating Goodbye: Wisdom or Foolishness?" being more of an issue, as I read it, with Joshua Harris' book than with SGM itself, and "Under the Terebinth Tree" being more of a personal journal of an individual's life than a point by point dealing with SGM itself. (Not to mention that link 55 seems to be irrelevant or misplaced to this particular part of the article.) It seems to me that if the blogs are to be linked, the two active blogs should be left up with the others being removed. Merely mentioning SGM or having issues with particular churches doesn't warrant, in my opinion, a link on the page.

Another thing to evaluate on this section - which I hope will push towards a neutrality resolution - is the last line of the "Church Discipline" section: "Blogs and web pages critical of SGM have been created by former church members who have either undergone church discipline or who have been encouraged to find another church that would be more compatible with their theological views and practices." I think this would be more accurate to read, "There have been blogs critical on a number of fronts of SGM," then citing those blogs. Potentially the sentence doesn't need to be reduced that much, but as it is, the line reads as though all participants are former SGM church members and have either been dismissed under church discipline or theological disagreement. I think this is a false picture to present given that the bloggers range from former SGM pastors and members (who left for various reasons not exclusive to being under church discipline) to visitors of SGM churches. Regarding the subject, the term church discipline has remained undefined, leaving this aspect of the article rather weak and ambiguous.

Thoughts? FenderPriest (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone tried to soften some of the language, but leave all the sources in the article, on quick review. I don't disagree with your reasoning, either.- Sinneed 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An idea: restructure, with a section on "Practices and teachings" or such, with a subsection for church planting, church discipline, parenting, with abbreviated content from the parenting section. Just an idea though. - Sinneed 15:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no immediate concerns about such a structure. I'm still not sure about the parenting section since, so far as I can tell from official publications, there is no defined "This is how SGM does parenting" doctrine. Potentially I'm looking for a harder line on this than what is needed for such a section, though I'd prefer - and I think wiki would as well - that personal opinions regarding such issues not factor in (i.e. "They may not say that they teach X, but when I was in such and such a church, they certainly did.").

Out of curiosity, I wonder how Wiki's latest Resolution:Biographies of living people affects this article and the issue of blogs. For example, the latest blog post,"Show Me The Money". SGM Survivors. Retrieved 2010-02-24., though an interesting personal interpretation, does not seem to me the sort of link providing helpful information suitable to a wiki article. But that's just me. Any thoughts on this? As I've said before, I don't contest blogs critical of SGM being linked, but blogs that are the location for personal interpretations strike me as not being the sort of vision Wiki has for it's articles. Thoughts on this? Am I off?

Also, if there's no opposition to the edit, I will make those blog deletions I mentioned earlier, leaving the two main blogs as seems to be the agreement thus far. I've left the proposition up for several days and with only Sinneed's response to go off of, I'll be making the edit today if there's no further comment. Thanks. FenderPriest (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold a strong opinion about the proposed edit. The blogs, IMO, don't belong at all, even as ELs, but I feel some confidence that removing them will result in their being restored by those who do. Since there have been no objections, though, perhaps it won't happen. Either way (whether the edit stays in or not), I don't see any reason you should not proceed. Just one opinion. - Sinneed 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I agree on all points. I'll proceed with a complete removal later today of the blog links and the parenting section should there be no objections made by others. When this is done, should the neutrality warning be removed since it's been up for a year now?FenderPriest (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the neutrality tag should stay up to give those with opposing views who simply haven't spoken up more time to do so. After your edits, what if you review the article, then if you wish, create a new section "Propose to remove neutrality flag" (or whatever), and propose a date, say... Wednesday 3 March 2010 (or whenever)... for removal. Just ideas, I am no master at this (see my squabble with an admin I just stalked away from in a pout if you doubt me, bleh).- Sinneed 17:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped this, tentatively. I light-heartedly hope that if it is restored, the need will be explained here.- Sinneed 22:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the drop and think the article works well as it is.FenderPriest (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move ahead this week in making edits to the article. I feel that as it relates to the organization "Sovereign Grace Ministries" and the purpose of Wikipedia, the entire section, "Church Discipline" as it is right now needs to be deleted. The section as it is has little to no relation to Sovereign Grace Ministries as a whole, and represents an instance at one particular church many years ago. If church discipline is to be mentioned in the article, which I don't contest should someone want it, it should be stated in relation to what SGM teaches on the practice. Linking to a wikipedia article about excommunication does not, in my opinion, really say anything at all about what SGM teaches and practices.

As for the blogs, if some require them to be up, I would suggest the following being posted at an appropriate place within the article: "Aspects of Sovereign Grace Ministries has prompted some to blog through their concerns. ^[1]" But, as it is, I feel that they have no place on the wikipedia article, and agree with Sinneed's assessment.

Given the slow discussion on the issue, I'd like to make these edits in whatever fashion they play out to become, by this coming Friday, March 5. FenderPriest (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After having no reply thus far, I am going to make the edit. If someone feels it's not correct, then let's talk about it.FenderPriest (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to changing the following sentence in the "Church Planting" section from "Church planter Fred Herron described PDI/SGM church planting as "colonization", and wrote "...a pastor or leader from a mother church gathers a core group of people to plant a new church, however, instead of planting the church in a bedroom community, the entire team relocates to a totally different city"" to "Church planter Fred Herron described PDI/SGM church planting as, "...a pastor or leader from a mother church gathers a core group of people to plant a new church, however, instead of planting the church in a bedroom community, the entire team relocates to a totally different city""? The term "colonization" carries a lot of negative connotations in modern academic thought and adds baggage to an otherwise descriptive statement.

Thanks for considering this. Denbeck (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for the quote at all, and think a paraphrase would be better, and I certainly see nothing wrong with dropping the colonization. The emotional baggage is not an argument against inclusion, though.- Sinneed 19:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question regarding the following section, which includes two quotes by Larry Tomczak:

"He has described the parting of ways with Sovereign Grace Ministries as "an unbelievable nightmare" during which his family "were threatened in various ways if [they] did not cooperate with [PDI/SGM]... A letter was circulated in an attempt to discredit me and to distort the events surrounding my departure."[15]"

My question is whether this quotation discusses independently verifiable information, or if it borders on slander and libel? The statements regarding Tomczak's departure because of Sovereign Grace Ministries' move toward reformed theology are independently verifiable, and thus, should be kept. However, the statements that Tomczak and his family, "were threatened in various ways if [they] did not cooperate with [PDI/SGM]" and, "A letter was circulated in an attempt to discredit me and to distort the events surrounding my departure.[15]" refer to specific threats and a letter that, if produced, would independently verify the claims. Because neither recordings of the threats nor the letter itself have been mentioned, I would suggest that these claims be removed until such information becomes available.

I would welcome comments for or against this suggestion. Denbeck (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't cited to the letter. It is cited to the book. If it isn't *IN* the book then it is a problem for WP. If it *IS* in the book, you might consider taking your objections up with the publisher, author, etc., if you are so inclined. Idly, I am curious to know what group or individual might be libeled or slandered? But that has nothing to do with WP, and probably risks wp:talk.

So: is it in the book?- Sinneed 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations mentioned are IN the book authored by Larry Tomczak and the Charisma magazine article. As it is a book based on his life and opinions, I'm not sure how I could object to that publisher. However, this wikipedia article goes further by stating the quotations without providing a rebuttal. I would consider this slander because the quotes make claims about Sovereign Grace ministries by saying they did something that is not independently verifiable. I would suggest that either the quotations be removed, or, another solution could be that a rebuttal quote could be written, such as, "Sovereign Grace ministries denies these allegations and...." What do you think? Denbeck (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So: it is in the book. The book is published by a publisher who is responsible for the content. The book is authored by authors who are responsible for the content.

Contacting the author and publishers would be your lookout, if you are interested. Generally publishers have fixed addresses and large facilities, and are not terribly difficult to find... it is part of what makes them generally wp:reliable sources... there are consequences to them if they libel.

Rebuttal. Quote says a letter "was circulated" and family "were threatened". It doesn't say any specific person or group circulated or threatened. If there is a wp:RS that says these events did not happen, or that says the church denied any knowledge, or that the church condemned any such action or whatever, that would seem appropriate to me. Certainly I know of good WP guidance (wp:NPOV, wp:BALANCE) that might support their use.

"about Sovereign Grace ministries" - could you give the bit of the quote that does this? I don't see it. - Sinneed 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, of the 31 citations in the article:

• 8 are to SGM itself
• 8 are to Tomczak (one of its co-founders)
• 3 are to Mahaney (its other co-founder)
• Another is to a conference at which Mahaney was one of the main speakers

Such heavy reliance on self-description neither demonstrates notability, nor is congruent with WP:NPOV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should reflect founder/leader C.J. Mahaney's leave of absence. I will make the change this Friday unless there is objection.

I would suggest the following being posted at an appropriate place within the article: "In July of 2011, Mahaney announced that he would be taking a leave of absence as a team reviews charges brought against him of 'pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy.'" <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/longtime-minister-takes-leave-to-reexamine-soul-52127/ |title=C.J. Mahaney Takes Leave Over Charges of Pride, Hypocrisy |publisher=The Christian Post |date= |accessdate=2011-07-12}}</ref>" Saint-George (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (Please don't use ref-tags in talk -- they make it difficult to see what's being cited.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I saw that the ref tag was an issue, but I didn't know the nowiki trick. Now I know, and knowing's half the battle, G.I. Joe! Saint-George (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article includes the quotes by Larry about leaving SGM and the difficulty that was there, should we not also include the recent comments he has made on the reconciliation that has happened? I would make them myself, but I am a member of a Sovereign Grace church. Terevos (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third party source for this (given the already pervassive utilisation of primary sources)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A allows primary sources - "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." If we are saying that all the primary sources in this article must be removed, because they fail the test, then fair enough; but there is no wikipedia version of "enough's enough."Hyper3 (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS, which unlike WP:A is core policy, however envisions use of primary sources only in a heavily subordinate role: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." This article is based to a greater extent on primary sources, and only to a far lesser extent on secondary sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you take a close look at the references list, and see how many times CJ Mahaney or Larry Tomczak is listed as the author, or SGM/People of Destiny is listed as the publisher. Then ask yourself if this is a balanced article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the article, but you haven't answered my question. Either we do what we can in the given situation or we withdraw all edits that have a primary source. The one thing we can't do, is just draw an arbitrary line. Hyper3 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'What we can do' in this "given situation" is follow Wikipedia policy and restrict our coverage to issues given notice by third-party sources. That does not mean "we withdraw all edits that have a primary source" -- they can still be used, sparingly, to fill out details covered by third party sources. What we should be asking ourselves is, if no third-party source appears to be giving any WP:WEIGHT to the internal politics of this organisation, should we? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia policy is more permissive than you admit: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." See WP:PSTS. Hyper3 (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I have pointed out above, its use in this case is restricted by policy, the policy that requires that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, keen to use third party sources, I found the quote from Poewe "People of Destiny serves a Catholic constituency." It is clearly inaccurate, and I think it should be withdrawn. Is that OK? Hyper3 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "clearly inaccurate"? Karla Poewe appears to be a relevant expert, so would appear to be a WP:RS. More problematical is the irrelevant Vineyard material (presumably padding out the fact that Poewe appears to have nearly nothing to say about SGM itself). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all - I'm new to wikipedia, but hope this works. An obvious question: Why aren't the sgmrefuge and sgmsurvivors blogs there? They're written by ex-pastors and ex-members of SGM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanclare (talk • contribs) 07:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably because of WP:ELNO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been extensively discussed in the past. See the Archives for the relevant discussion on this subject.FenderPriest (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently at least some of these churches are in the process of joining the Southern Baptist Convention: [1] FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Wartburg Watch is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, there are some useful links in that article to WP:RS, e.g. http://www.sbc.net/ministersearch/results.asp?query=mahaney . Probably not enough yet to assert on a WP:BLP that Mahaney has joined the SBC, but it's worth watching. Norvoid (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sovereign Grace Churches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130818052753/http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Mark-Alderton-Get-to-Know-Sovereign-Grace-Church-(Aurora-CO).aspx to http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Mark-Alderton-Get-to-Know-Sovereign-Grace-Church-%28Aurora-CO%29.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110920164724/http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/A-letter-from-Larry-Tomczak-on-his-reconciliation-with-CJ-Mahaney.aspx to http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/A-letter-from-Larry-Tomczak-on-his-reconciliation-with-CJ-Mahaney.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130821152322/http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Updated-Statement-on-Reported-Lawsuit.aspx to http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Updated-Statement-on-Reported-Lawsuit.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious example is

A story in Washingtonian Magazine dated February 14, 2016, leaves out the fact that the Palmer family has repeatedly claimed they were told by church authorities not to report the abuse of their daughter. Consequently, the article also leaves out the information that documentation was submitted to the court, and witnesses came forward, showing that the Palmer allegations are likely false.

The reference is only to the Washingtonian Magazine article but no source is given (reliable or otherwise) that states the article omitted some info and therefore failed to draw a particular conclusion; my conclusion is that the editor is the one making the point and drawing the conclusion. Another example is

Pam Palmer, who organized the lawsuit and is also the mother of plaintiff Renee Palmer Gamby, was present, and testified, at the March 8, 2016 Maryland Senate Committee Hearing. Pam Palmer made no public statement regarding the veracity of the testimony of Ennis and Mayo.

Again a conclusion is drawn without supporting evidence that she was asked and refused (people testifying are usually limited on what they can say). I would suggest a rewrite of the scandal section with an intro paragraph summing up all the allegations (or groups of allegations) and indicating a map of how the rest of the section would proceed and then individual paragraphs detailing the history of each. As it is I can't seem to make heads or tails of it. I note also we are dealing with living people so should be exceptionally careful about what is in the article. --Erp (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put most of this in the edit summary already, but here it is again anyways. Either:

1. The article needs to be explicitly refocused around the alleged abuse being the primary thing the church is notable for
2. The abuse scandal should be split into its own article, or
3. The section on abuse should be greatly shortened.

Either way, the article as it is now cannot stand. It certainly feels like WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, made more urgent if the claims by Erp in the discussion above this one that the article contains extensive original research are true.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 96.244.70.21 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]