Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 2 May 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Churches of Christ article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about International Churches of Christ. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about International Churches of Christ at the Reference desk.

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

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Is "racially integrated" worth mentioning in the article?

The first sentence in the lede emphasizes that ICOC congregations are "racially integrated". No doubt that is true, but is that worth mentioning? None of the references cited make a point about racial integration being a distinguishing feature of the organization. If we can remove it, then we can clean up the last "third-party source needed" tag. Nowa (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless a secondary source makes clear that this is an unusual or notable feature, it's not justified to include it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So that is a unique feature, most churches are very much divided into black churches or white churches or Asian. There was an article by the Barna research group that described this racial divide in many mainstream churches, which I can try and find. But it is a longstanding part of the page and according to WP:ABOUTSELF is usable. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to WP:ABOUTSELF. I did a little more digging and it looks like in 2020, in response to pandemic related racial tensions, the leadership of the US and Canadian ICOC churches initiated a program called "Social, Cultural, Unity and Diversity" (aka SCUAD). This is an ongoing effort providing multiple resources and programs to address racial issues. It has its own web site. I haven't found any secondary references (yet) that talk about this effort, but I don't think that precludes using primary sources per WP:ABOUTSELF for a modest mention in the article. Once that is done, it may inform whether or not "racially integrated" is the right phrase in the lede and whether or not a secondary source is needed. Nowa (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I found some RS related to racial integration and added a short section to the article. Nowa (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Are not a lot of churches racially integrated? A lot of the churches in Kentucky seem to be racially integrated meaning that they have Whites, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, and other races as members. My Uncle Howard was a member of a church in Hopkinsville that had all races. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The key issue is whether or not the racial integration policies and practices of ICOC and its member churches are notable. Based on reliable secondary sources, it apparently is. See the newly created section International_Churches_of_Christ#Racial_integration_in_ICOC_churches. Nowa (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is another secondary source: "The fact that ICOC congregations are typically multicultural has also gained the positive attention of national media in recent years. A considerable ministry of women to other women, as well as the involvement of instrumental music in worship, further distinguish the ICOC from mainline Churches of Christ." Encyclopedia of Stone Campbell Movement p1720 Editaddict (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is an acceptable source, I will put it in the article JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Could we have clarification on the page number for the quote? The book appears to have just over 800 pages, so I don't see how it could be on p. 1720. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Good question. The Kindle version of the book gives the page number as 1320. Sorry for the typo. How do we indicate its the digital version? Editaddict (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI I believe Kindle “pages” are calculated based on how a document is displayed on a device. Larger screens will have different pages than small screens. Nowa (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Doc Taxon, I now have a copy of the print version of the chapter, so I've added the relevant part of the quote to the article with the correct page numbers. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we remove {{Third-party|date=September 2023}}?

Several additional third party sources have been added since the {{Third-party|date=September 2023}} was added. Should we remove this tag now? Nowa (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I still see a lot of sources associated with the subject in the reference list. Many of these are now cited alongside independent sources (thanks for your efforts, Nowa) but I'd want to do a proper check through to find any instances where material is still cited to a non-independent source alone before I supported removal of the template. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of third party sources in the article? Really? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like there are still a majority of ICOC sources? I guess the ICOC sources would be the best sources on the ICOC? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:5502:6AC5:94B9:7EB1 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The key issue is whether or not there is content in the article that still needs a third party reference. If so, it should be tagged with {{third-party inline}}. We can then collectively look for appropriate references and create a better article. Nowa (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this Nowa. I believe there is enough focus now on identifying proper sourcing that the tag can be removed. Put me in the yes category. I also appreciate the view expressed earlier in this thread that those with an ICOC connection might make a meaningful contribution to editing the ICOC article. Meta Voyager (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nowa that this tag can be removed. Here is another third party source we can reference from the main publication of the Christian Churches of the Restoration Movement: https://christianstandard.com/2023/03/who-are-the-international-churches-of-christ/ Editaddict (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we still have any "unreliable sources"?

Any unreliable sources still left? If not, then we can remove {{Unreliable sources|date=September 2023}}. If so, then let's tag them, and either find a reliable replacement or remove them. Nowa (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are, yes. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ for context here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It looks like we need to review any content that is solely supported by "Into All Nations: A History of the International Churches of Christ" since it is essentially a self-published source. Nowa (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed all article content supported by "Into All Nations". All of it has one or more additional RS provided. Were there any other sources that might be considered unreliable that we should check out? Nowa (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The two instances of reference 45 in the current version don't have additional RSs. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A further issue might be that while most of the statements sourced to primary or unreliable sources now additionally have better sources, the way we've arrived at this version of the text is still being driven by what the primary or unreliable source says, so there's a risk that even though better sources are present, the POV of the original source is still determining what's being covered. If the text was rewritten based on what secondary sources highlight as notable or important, it might look different. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think it will look very different as we incorporate the material from the new RS. Nowa (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I support the idea of rewriting much of the text of the ICOC article and believe there is an opportunity to refresh the article with appropriate sourcing and good faith editing. I hope to have some suggestions to share on the Talk page soon. Meta Voyager (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the "About ICOC" citations could use some careful attention. Nowa (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless LarryThis link seems to not exist anymore. Was it moved, deleted, or did something else happen to it? I was going to review the issues of reliable sources on this page. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is still there in the archive. I just clicked the link myself and it works for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up Paragraph starting with "Prior to the Early 2000's"

It seems like this paragraph is insufficiently sourced. The paragraph jumps to conclusions that the source itself does not jump to. For instance, "and whether or not it is acceptable for ICOC members to have Christian Fellowship with non ICOC members (e.g., dating)" is not mentioned in the source article. There is, however, a mention of ICOC members dating outside the ICOC, but the source does not go into detail on this or the Church's historical and current stance of it. The source also does not mention a rule about ICOC members being able to or not being able to have "Christian Fellowship with non ICOC members." That sentence is not supported by the source, and should then be removed.

I also want to note that the paragraph above states "anyone, anywhere who follows God’s plan of salvation in the Bible and lives under the Lordship of Jesus, will be saved. Christians are saved by the grace of God, through their faith in Jesus Christ, at baptism." This is a direct quote taken from an article about ICOC beliefs. The following paragraph, which we are addressing here, has differing information about ICOC beliefs, specifically regarding baptism. For instance, "the ICOC taught that only baptisms within ICOC member churches were legitimate and hence only members of ICOC churches had had their sins forgiven and were saved" is not stated in the source article. This, at best, would be an assumption from the source, not information taken from the source itself.

I do see in the sourced article is a discussion on being "too judgmental about people in other Churches" in the past specifically regarding baptism. Perhaps there can be something written about this and how the ICOC has changed from this (noting the "About the ICOC" article), but it needs to be accurate based on sufficient sources, not assumed from sources. I suggest we remove this paragraph until it can be correctly and sufficiently sourced.

I will wait for further comment before making changes. XZealous (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these issues out. After rereading the "Baptismal Cognizance" article, I agree that "(e.g. dating)" should be removed and have already done so.

Here's what I now see as the correspondence between what the current paragraph says and what the Baptismal Cognizance article says.

I welcome further edits to bring the two more in line.Nowa (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary Sources for the “Beliefs” Section

@CordLessLarry has placed a tag on the page concerning using primary sources for the beliefs section. Is this justified? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The section is almost entirely based on sources affiliated with the ICOC. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@CordLessLarry, this is simply not true or accurate, there are at least three outside sources.

- The Christian Chronicle:

- Pepperdine University

- The Encylopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is an additional outside source that summarizes their views of the ICOC beliefs. https://christianstandard.com/2023/03/who-are-the-international-churches-of-christ/ Editaddict (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Douglas Allen Foster and Anthony L. Dunnavant, ed. (2004). The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Churches of Christ. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-3898-8. ISBN 0-8028-3898-7, ISBN 978-0-8028-3898-8 Cite error: The named reference "Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement: Baptism" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. Kip McKean, "Interview with Kip McKean," Archived 21 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine The Christian Chronicle, January 2004
3. (2010) "The International Churches of Christ Statement of Shared Beliefs," Leaven: Vol. 18: Iss. 2, Article 4.

An interview with the ICOC's former leader and a statement by it are clearly not independent of the ICOC. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry. This section is about the ICOC’s beliefs. It would then be appropriate for them to describe what their beliefs are. It is within policy (WP:SELFSOURCE) for an organization to write about themselves “especially in articles about themselves.” There would be no issue of neutrality here since what is stated in the sources is being presented in the belief section. I also note that you have not given a policy that this section breaks. You stated that it is not “independent of the ICOC.” Within this section, the source does not need to be independent of the ICOC. XZealous (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but we don't simply trust organisations or individuals to give honest and reliable accounts of their own beliefs, unmediated by secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to a specific WP policy that states that. It seems very unprofessional that you cannot simply state this is what an organization states it believes. And how can we know any other source is more trustworthy on what they believe? Editaddict (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:INDEPENDENT. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Policy

: Unless restricted by another policy,

1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
3. A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

According to WP, Primary sources may be used if stated factually. Cautions are against analysis, evaluation, interpretation, etc. So how is it not valid to factually quote an organization's listing of their beliefs? Editaddict (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we can't report the organisation's explanation of its own beliefs. The problem is the section being based almost exclusively on such sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"we don't simply trust organisations or individuals to give honest and reliable accounts of their own beliefs, unmediated by secondary sources." seems to be the definition of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, etc." that WP:RSPRIMARY warns against. Editaddict (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. WP:RSPRIMARY warns against engaging in that interpretation of primary sources in articles. The quote above is from my comment here on the talk page, where I'm explaining why we shouldn't rely solely on sources associated with an article subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If you have already analyzed, evaluated and interpreted that "we don't simply trust organisations or individuals to give honest and reliable accounts of their own beliefs, unmediated by secondary sources." haven't you already done what WP:RSPRIMARY is warning against in your editing philosophy that impacts how you approach primary sources on their own beliefs? Editaddict (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm just explaining why that policy exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If the interview were done by any other independent source wouldn't it count? Why discriminate against the Christian Chronicle? Editaddict (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's the fact that it's an interview that's the problem, not the publisher. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry. I referred back to the policies you stated. There is still no issue for the sources being used in the “Belief” section. Even with WP:RSPRIMARY (as you mentioned) states a primary source “ can be both reliable and useful in certain situations.” Using them with caution to avoid “original research.” The “Belief” section does not follow under “original research” because it is sourced, and only information from those sources are being used. Therefore, it becomes appropriate for the primary sources to be used here.

WP:BESTSOURCES (as you mentioned) aims to achieve the most authoritative source. When it comes to a section on beliefs, the organization stating beliefs is the most authoritative. An outside source cannot decide an organization's beliefs.

It seems we are forgetting the context of this section. WP:REPUTABLE even notes that proper sourcing “always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment.” You are claiming that it needs a tag only because it mainly uses primary sources (which, as noted above, there are a few secondary sources used in this section). However, in view of the context, that source is actually the most appropriate for this section. In a section about an organization's subjective beliefs, they become the authority on reporting such. How can an outside author determine an organization's beliefs better than the organization’s self reporting? This section only aims to report what the ICOC reports about their own beliefs, not an interpretation of them.

Noting that it is also within WP to self report in an appropriate way (WP:SELFSOURCE) as long as it follows the 5 guidelines given.

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
   1. The “Belief” section only claims to report beliefs on the ICOC, no exceptional claims.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
   1. The “Belief” section only includes belief statements abotu the ICOC, no other outside organization
   2. The only debatable point on this would be this sentence: “The ICOC like the Christian Church, in contrast to the CoC, consider permissible practices that the New Testament does not expressly forbid”
      1. Albeit this sentence is sourced from a book not affiliated with the ICOC as far as I can tell
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
   1. The “Belief” section only involves claims about ICOC beliefs, nothing else
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
   1. The “Belief” section is sourced from the ICOC itself, therefore giving it the best authenticity
5. The Misplaced Pages article is not based primarily on such sources.
   1. The “Belief” section is not the entire article, and as stated before this section is appropriate for WP:SELFSOURCE

WP:SELFSOURCE also states that the great majority of the article must use independent sources. The “Belief” section does not make up a “great majority” of the article. If there are still issues with sourcing from other sections, we can continue that discussion in the “Do we still have any ‘unreliable sources’?” section of the talk page. XZealous (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you argue the same for a political party (that the organisation itself is the best source)? It seems a very strange attitude that third-party sources aren't required for describing the beliefs of an article subject because it allows for all sorts of potential self-interested misrepresentation. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would argue it for any organization being able to state their own beliefs. As it happens, many organizations have a "statement of belief" on their own website. However, how the beliefs are played out in history, the agreeableness of them, and its current application are appropriate to use secondary sources for. I would argue that it is more likely that third-party sources would have "self-interested misrepresentation" of other people's beliefs. We should allow a person or organization to clearly state their own beliefs themselves. XZealous (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if you find it strange, it is within WP to allow the ICOC to report on their own beliefs in the "Belief" section. XZealous (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

To repeat myself (see above): I'm not suggesting that we can't report the organisation's explanation of its own beliefs. The problem is the section being based almost exclusively on such sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand your issue with the section. However, as explained above, it does not go against WP. XZealous (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that this tag was added without first making a discussion of it on the talk page. Being that this is an active talk page, it would be appropriate to address it here first. WP:WTRMT rule 4 states this as ground for removing the tag.

If it needs to be re-added, we should come to a consensus on the talk page first. "Responsible Tagging" includes editors "label the problem with the appropriate tag. As needed they then leave information clarifying what should be done on the talk page." Being this talk page is frequently used, it will be needed to discuss tags on the talk page.

Please refer to WP:RESPTAG, WP:TAGBOMB, and WP:MTR for guidelines on appropriate tagging. XZealous (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My honest reaction to the article is that it is longwinded and hard to read. Unless someone is directly researching the ICOC it contains way too much information. The article makes it sound like the ICOC is a very important organization when it is not. The article says the ICOC believes in the Bible, Jesus Christ, some sort of discipling system, and that they are the one true church. The ICOC may or may not be a cult because of their aggressive recruiting tactics and the leaders of the ICOC are being accused of child abuse. That's basically the gist of the article. The encyclopedia entry needs to be shortened a lot. Someone is putting too much work and/or care into advertising the ICOC through this wikipedia article. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:B424:F403:D668:72F (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input @User:2600:1700:4260:35D0:B424:F403:D668:72F. However, "this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Churches of Christ article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." as referred to by the top of this page. If you have suggestions on how to improve this page, feel free to start a new topic thread. Thanks. XZealous (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The IP above is explicitly saying what they think is wrong with the article and how they think it can be improved -- i.e. it's too long, reads like an advertisement, and it can be shortened to focus a few key concepts. At no point do they say anything about ICOC itself. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be rewritten and shortened. The outline of the article seems to be locked in the past, in part due to the current debate among editors about what is appropriate sourcing for information about the church. I believe a significant restructuring and shortening of the article is possible with a more generous view on the value of "about self" sourcing so that factual information from church sources could be considered for inclusion in the article and clearly identified as to the source. This approach would seem particularly appropriate for the "Beliefs" section of the article. In a significant rewrite of the article, the narrative sections that may be viewed as promotional or advertising could also be addressed through the Misplaced Pages editing process. In another section of the Talk page, I propose a more lenient approach to "about self" sourcing when appropriate. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion that this tag needs to be removed if there is no record of a discussion first occurring on the Talk Page as specified by the WP:WTRMT rule 4 Editaddict (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no such requirement for a discussion before that tag is placed but in any case, the discussion is now taking place. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why WP:WTRMT Rule 4 does not apply here. "When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);" Editaddict (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that page doesn't document a policy, so it's not really a rule, but clearly discussion has been initiated here and in any case, the wording of the template message doesn't request such a discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why we should take your word as a judgment when WP:WTRMT clearly states this is a How To Guide and gives Rules. Can one editor consider himself the sole authority? Editaddict (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for a second opinion on this. WP:TEAHOUSE would be a good place for you to ask as a novice editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In the discussion so far about the application of WP:ABOUTSELF in regard to the "Belief" paragraph, it seems to me that a consensus has been reached that the sources used in this paragraph are appropriate and within policy. I have reread this thread a number of times and 3 editors in this thread are fine with the sources, one is not.

I will wait for any further comment. Otherwise, by consensus of arguing policy, I will remove the tag WP:WTRMT (1)(5) XZealous (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus isn't judged solely by numbers, but I think you need to take into account the fact that at least some of the editors who wish to see the template removed have a clear conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we limit the article to the period up until the formal disbandment of "International Churches of Christ, Inc." in 2010?

With all of the discussion about primary sources and the recent commentary about the article being overly long relative to the subject's importance, I decided to take a deeper look into what exactly the legal structure of the ICOC is and how disciplestoday.org relates to that. What I found was:

• "International Churches of Christ, Inc." was formally disbanded in 2010. An attorney that represented them in the recent federal lawsuits stated in a court filing in 2023 "ICOC, Inc. dissolved in 2010. International Churches of Christ is now an unincorporated association of individuals." (see footnotes on page 3)
• The trademark "International Churches of Christ" was abandoned in February 2005. This means that anyone is now free to use the trademark "International Churches of Christ".
• disciplestoday.org has historically identified itself as the "official" publication of the ICOC, but there is nothing on their website now that indicates what legal entity they are and their whois is private. Hence disciplestoday.org is more akin to a self-published blog about the ICOC than an official publication of the ICOC.
• There has been almost no news coverage about the ICOC since 2010. On newspapers.com (available through wikilibrary), there were 469 US newspaper mentions of the ICOC from 1990 to 2010. From 2010 to the present there were 11. Of those 11, only one was news coverage about the ICOC itself (i.e., the Los Angeles Times coverage of the lawsuits). The other 10 were simply incidental mentions, such as an obituary suggestion of where to send donations to.

In light of all this, I would like to suggest that we state that ICOC, Inc. was formally disbanded in 2010 and the ICOC is now "an unincorporated association of individuals". We can cite their attorney's filing as a reliable primary source that doesn't need any interpretation. We should then limit the article to a description of the ICOC as it was up until 2010. This period is adequately covered by RS and hence is notable. In terms of what the ICOC is today, I suggest we stay strictly within what RS says since the ICOC no longer has a formal structure or an official voice. If/when subsequent RS becomes available discussing the current ICOC (e.g., beliefs, plans, organizational structure, membership etc.) then we can update the article accordingly.

How do other editors feel about this? Nowa (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the IP editor that the article length should reflect the subject's importance (importance to who?), except in as far as its "importance" is likely to be reflected in the availability of reliable sources, which does partly influence how detailed an article can be. I also disagree that we should limit coverage to pre-2010; it's not as if the church has ceased to exist. Of course, a lack of reliable sources on the period since 2010 is going to reduce what we can say about that time. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. I wasn't saying that the article was overly long, only that the comment about it being overly long motivated me to take a deeper dive into what exactly the ICOC was. I also agree that the ICOC continues to exist and on this, I stand corrected. I didn't realize that an Unincorporated association was a legal entity. The current Misplaced Pages article about unincorporated associations focuses on UK law, so I may spend some time adding information about the US. Help in this endeavor would be appreciated. Regarding post 2010 RS, I did overlook the Christian Chronicle article from 2012 that is already cited. I think the Christian Chronicle article is a good example of they type of RS we need to keep the article up-to-date. Nowa (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Although note that the the Christian Chronicle was discussed recently at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#The Christian Chronicle on the International Churches of Christ and while there weren't many comments, those that were made suggested that it shouldn't be considered reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with that assessment. There was confusion amongst the commentators even understanding the distinction between the Church of Christ and the International Church of Christ, some thinking it was the same organisation. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We could perhaps do with getting wider input, either through another RSN thread or perhaps an RfC here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we may need that on a number of topics which seem to have ground to a halt.

- Should untried court cases confined to one state in California be included on a page describing a church in over 150 nations? WP:UNDUE

- Is the churches official website a reliable source for stating the churches beliefs? WP:ABOUTSELF

- When criticisms of the church are being published EG:”it is a cult” do we also provide other perspectives that have been published in Reliable Sources, or do we suppress other viewpoints? WP:NPOV JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to initiate an RfC at any point. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion here and on the Christian Chronicle reliability would benefit greatly if the commenters would familiarize themselves with the Restoration Movement and the recognized groups and publications. The WP page on Restoration Movement is very helpful in addition to the pages on the Christian Churches (Churches of Christ), Churches of Christ and the International Churches of Christ. Restoration Movement. In addition the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement is extensive and detailed.

Also the Christian Chronicle long history of winning awards for journalism should be noted. https://christianchronicle.org/christian-chronicle-staff-wins-15-awards-in-oklahoma-society-of-professional-journalists-contest/ Editaddict (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The ICOC is a restoration movement? What are they trying to restore? Restore what? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:98FA:4FF1:C7BD:BCE7 (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The original church as described in the New Testament. See Restoration Movement. Nowa (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Such an important consideration. Whether the page continues past 2010, is placed on pause until a consensus can be reached on the addition of new information about the church or wholly abandoned is an editorial decision that will require consensus. But, it provides context for the current debate about sourcing that shows up in nearly every entry on this Talk page. It is correct that the church continues to exist past 2010, but as a less structured, voluntary collaboration of cooperating churches. The current arrangements for voluntary collaboration, decision-making on areas of common interest and beliefs among congregations are represented by a Cooperation Agreement document and updated governance guidelines are described in great detail in the following link on the Disciples Today website: https://disciplestoday.org/leadership-roles-and-responsibilities/. However, all of the information contained in these sources that could be used to rewrite or update the ICOC article are being held hostage by the current stalemate on interpretations of Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sources, including “about self” sourcing. In my view, the inclusion of this information should not be delayed until some external author chooses years later to write up these same facts relying on these same sources and publishes them. Instead, I propose that “about self” sourcing be permitted where appropriate and clearly identified in the article that that's what it is.  A review of Misplaced Pages articles for other denominations reveal that this practice is common. For example, the Catholic Church article relies heavily on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other publications related to the Catholic Church. Meta Voyager (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the cooperation agreement and the sharing of your concerns about the article being held hostage to the the possible coverage of ICOC by RS. As I indicated in my response to Cordless Larry, I didn't realize that an Unincorporated association was a type of legal entity. One of the things I've learned so far is that unincorporated associations are often governed by an agreement amongst their members. The link to the cooperation agreement, therefore, is helpful. The cooperation link had a link to the service teams. The service teams show that "Disciples Today" is, in fact, the official publication of the ICOC. So I withdraw my description of it as a "self-published" blog. Nowa (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I do not agree because they are not based in fact.

- International Churches of Christ, Inc. was formally disbanded in 2003. The attorney's quote is wrong in his court filing. Christian Chronicle 2012

- In 2009 a "Plan for United Cooperation" was formed and distributed for churches to create a cooperation basis of relationship instead of a corporate basis. Most all the churches agreed to this. The Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ that also came from the Stone/Campbell movement are also organized without a formal structure. This is not unusual in the religious arena. See Pepperdine University "The ICOC: a Historical Overview" and Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement,

- The Leadership Tab of Disciples Today has a thorough description of how they are organized and how their leadership functions according to their cooperation agreement including "About Us", "ICOC Leadership", "ICOC Churches", "Leadership News"

- Disciples Today still identifies themselves as "the communications channel of the International Churches of Christ." They are an official non-profit, are supported by most of the ICOC churches and are recognized by them. They also maintain the official list of churches and regions in the fellowship and a contact list.

- If news coverage was a criteria for every Wiki page, how many of those pages would not exist? Meanwhile, the ICOC page already contains several links to outside sources who comment on the ICOC. Christian Chronicle 2016, 2012, 2005 The Harvard Crimson 2014 Pepperdine University 2010 Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, p 719

- To say that a functioning association of 750 churches in 150 countries does not exist is not honest especially when its history is documented and they have a clear, transparent organization. Editaddict (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"The attorney's quote is wrong in his court filing" is a good illustration of why we shouldn't be relying on primary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. Allow me to address them one by one:

• The link you gave was to a 2005 Christian Chronicle article. I didn't see anything in that related to dissolution of the corporation. I also checked the 2012 Christian Chronicle article and didn't see anything there either. I did however, check the California Secretary of State web site and they posted the dissolution notice from 2010. You can see a copy here.
• Thanks for the link to the Plan for United Cooperation and mentioning that "this" (i.e., an unincorporated association) is not unusual. As I indicated in my response to Cordless Larry, I'll be looking into unincorporated associations in more detail.
• Thanks also for pointing out the leadership tab of Disciples Today. As I indicated in my response to Meta Voyager, I now see that Disciples Today is the official voice of the ICOC.
• Regarding Disciples Today being an "official nonprofit", I haven't been able to verify that. There is no mention of them being a 501(c)3 on their web site and they are not listed in the IRS database of nonprofits.
• Regarding my statement that the ICOC "does not exist", as indicated above, I see I was mistaken from the standpoint of it being a legal entity and withdraw my comment.

Nowa (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nowa. Sorry, I was incorrect on the official dissolution date of the ICOC corporation in 2010. I was referring to the dissolution of the organization in 2003. Disciples Today is probably listed as Kingdom News Network for the IRS as that was the predecessor name. They started DBA Disciples Today in 2004. Editaddict (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, Kingdom News Network is in the IRS database as a nonprofit that serves the International Churches of Christ. Roger Lamb is the ex CEO. Nowa (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

Misplaced Pages articles about religious organizations often contain a “beliefs” section that describes the beliefs and practices of the organization and its members. Is About Self sourcing on the organization’s beliefs or practices acceptable as Reliable Sourcing when the information is derived directly from the religious organization or published by an employee or member of the organization irrespective of whether secondary sourcing is available? This RfC assumes that all other Misplaced Pages editing policies are observed. ~~~~ Meta Voyager (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• No, we should rely on independent, secondary sources as much as possible for this. Some non-independent sourcing might be acceptable here, but per WP:ABOUTSELF, only when the claims concerned are uncontroversial - and given how much controversy surrounds the ICOC and its practices, I'd suggest that not much is uncontroversial here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• If it was a staightforward uncontroversial enclyclopedic summary of their beliefs, IMO yes. But for what I see in the article, no because it is not those things. It is prose wordsmith-ed with all of their objectives in mind. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW by "uncontroversial" I meant as a statement of their beliefs. For example, it is uncontroversial that the flat earth society professes that the earth is flat, even if the belief is controversial.North8000 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@North8000I agree with you about making this section a "straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs". Could you point out what you find as "prose wordsmith-ed?" That should help out with making this section more fitting. XZealous (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

My 14:31, 17 April 2024 post below is a first attempt at reflecting on that. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• For most major religions, this should be fine, but I can think of several high control organisations where what is outwardly claimed about the religion's beliefs doesn't neccesarily match all that well with what is claimed internally, and where external sources might be necessary to get a good perspective, think scientology.--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Noting that the ICOC is not a prominent enough organization to generate many secondary sources on their beliefs, do you think it is necessary to have these sources as well?

  Also, would an outside perspective of beliefs fit within the "Beliefs" section, or would that garner a whole other section on outside views on the ICOC? There has to be some discrepancy between an internal statement and an outside source's experience of the application of those statements.

  Maybe you can put here on the talk page if you find a big discrepancy between the internal and external statements of belief? XZealous (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the organisation isn't prominent enough to generate coverage when there's an entire scholarly book about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Very much agree with what North8000 has said, for uncontroversial statements it should be fine. However for controversial groups whose believes and practices may not match what they profess publicly such statements may go against points 1 (unduly self-serving) and 4 (reasonable doubt) of WP:ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  It might be helpful to this RFC to explain what is deemed as "controversial" in the beliefs section? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the challenges in editing this article has been that there is very little recent RS published about the ICOC since the early 2000s. This is when its founder resigned/was ousted and they underwent a major reorganization. That reorganization included a very public (although not very specific) renunciation by its leadership of the organization being "too judgmental". So the dilemma, as I see it, is if the article's beliefs section relies primarily on RS, it will be out-of-date, since most RS was generated at a time when the ICOC was more controversial than it is today. If, on the other hand, we want to make the beliefs section current, then there is very little RS available and we have to rely on primary sources with all of the difficulties associated with that. Any thoughts on how to resolve this dilemma? Are there other precedents where the issue of article currency vs the availability of RS was addressed? Nowa (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Great point @Nowa, there are some articles written at the Christian Chronicle about those changes and also at Disciples Today. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the Christian Chronicle a newsletter/newspaper/news source published by the ICOC? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:98FA:4FF1:C7BD:BCE7 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments received thus far. The origin of this RfC is to improve the article by making thoughtful edits that conform to Misplaced Pages policies. As further context, for the past 8 months this article has been closely monitored and my attempts to edit have been tightly controlled by the suggestion that I have a conflict of interest as a lay member of the church. I have directly expressed my disagreement on this position with the responsible administrator but have chosen in good faith to confine my suggested edits to the Talk page and use the tools afforded by Misplaced Pages policy to reach consensus. There is a Statement of Shared Beliefs contained within a self-published Plan For United Cooperation dated March 11, 2006 that is a representation of the belief system of several hundred church congregations who have chosen to participate. In my view, it is non-controversial and similar to other statements of faith appearing in articles for other religious organizations (e.g., Catechism of the Catholic Church). My hope is that this RfC will provide consensus on the appropriateness of making a change of this type (i.e., About Self sourcing) to the article’s belief section. It appears the consensus so far is represented by North8000’s opinion that “a straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs” is permitted. If this consensus holds, the issue of whether the Statement of Shared Beliefs is controversial will have an appropriate airing on the Talk page, prior to posting. Meta Voyager (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That selective quote from North8000's comment makes it sound like they approve of the current state of the section, which I don't believe is the case from reading the full comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think @Meta Voyager is trying to point out that the consensus is that if the section were to be "a straightforward uncontroversial encyclopedic summary of their beliefs", then the sources should be fine.

It seems like there would be agreement to use these sources if the Belief section were to be simplified in its writing to avoid being "wordsmith-ed." XZealous (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not taken the deep dive to learn enough to say too much. But to make just a quick reading of the quoted portion, it is not very informative for such a large amount words. 95% of it is a just statement of the of the core points of all of the "Primacy of the Bible" churches and organizations with perhaps billions of members. The other 5% is "every member's participation in the Great Commission to Seek and save what was lost" which, by using undefined internal jargon for it's core statement, does not inform the reader at all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Expanding on my last point, whenever somebody uses undefined jargon which they control the definition of to "explain" something, e.g. "every member's participation in the Great Commission to Seek and save what was lost" I consider it to be problematic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The other "95%" is covered in the other text in that section. I might boldly zap that whole quote section just to try to help here and request that if anybody disagrees to please revert me. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these clarifications on the sections that have been "wordsmithed." My view, as stated elsewhere on the Talk page, is that there are many sections of the article that would benefit from being rewritten and one of the intentions of this RfC is to better understand how to do so consistent with WP editing policies.. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just in case my use of the word "wordsmithing" might have been an overreach, I didn't mean it in a negative or manipulative sense. Just that the wording is crafted to serve all of the objectives and constraints of the writers in whatever context they wrote it. Which is different that trying to give a third party enclyclopedic description. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article, but the RFC question makes me wonder whether editors are remembering that Misplaced Pages:Secondary does not mean independent.

On the general subject, though, I'm surprised that this question is being asked. Anyone with even a small amount of experience should already know that an encyclopedia article about a religious organization will always outline the organization's beliefs (WP:BALASP policy) and that editors should use the WP:BESTSOURCES available to them. Therefore, if the best sources about the org's religious beliefs are from the org, then use them. And if the best sources are not from the org, then use those. This is not rocket science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the further clarification on the use of secondary sourcing that is not independent. I agree with this assessment and your acknowledgement that the best available source on a religious organization's beliefs is often times the organization itself. Meta Voyager (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

On the wording of the RfC, if it was me posting it, I'd have asked about the suitability of non-independent sources for the beliefs section of this specific article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @WhatamIdoing it makes perfect sense what you are saying, especially the point on secondary sources not always being independent or the best. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

We do generally discourage editors from interpreting the Bible or other religious texts themselves (Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Religion). A primary source like the organization's website is a safer choice for editors than a primary source like the Bible itself. So primary sources aren't bad, and may sometimes even be best, but they're not always preferred, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, your input is clear and very helpful 👍 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Since it might be unclear (including what I said about the quote) I agree with what WhatamIdoing said. And they did not respond for the particulars here, they just said that there is no reason to preclude such a source, and that it often may be the best source. What's there now (after I took the quote out) IMO has the appearance of OK, with the caveat that I'm not deep in / knowledgeable enough on the topic/sources to evaluate more deeply than that. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

When I do a simple google search the search will return hundreds of articles that call this organization a cult. How can I trust that what the ICOC says happens and believes is really what is happening in the ICOC? Maybe the ICOC is lying? 2600:1700:4260:35D0:98FA:4FF1:C7BD:BCE7 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• No (Summoned by bot) we should prefer secondary WP:RS, with a strong preference for academic sources from subject matter experts. WP:ABOUTSELF should only be utilised when there are gaps and then care should be taken to not present the information from ABOUTSELF sources as fact, only as self-attributed claims. TarnishedPath 05:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you here about the importance of secondary WP:RS The belief section should use WP:ABOUTSELF for the self attributed claims of its own beliefs. I am not sure that WP:ABOUTSELF "should only be utilised when there are gaps." That statement is not within the policy confine of WP:ABOUTSELF. Noting that this section is a statement of ICOC beliefs as stated by the ICOC themselves, it falls within all guidelines to use WP:ABOUTSELF for this section.

  There is also a great discussion of this on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#RfC concerning WP:ABOUTSELF XZealous (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• This RfC has received open comment and discussion for more than 10 days and appears to have achieved a majority view on acceptable uses of About Self sourcing on the beliefs section of a religious organization's article under certain circumstances. To avoid COI concerns and in light of the backlog on Misplaced Pages Closure requests, I request that @WhatamIdoing, as an editor uninvolved with the article, consider writing a brief closing summary of the discussion on this RfC (ideally with a determination of consensus), after which I intend to formally end the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meta Voyager (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  An editor who has contributed to the discussion is involved, so shouldn't be the one to close it and summarise the consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Objection noted. Since closing summaries are not required, I’ll proceed with ending the discussion. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes. In case my thanking of disinterested editors for their input hasn't made my position clear. I am supportive of using WP:ABOUTSELF as a reliable source, as was mentioned by @Horse Eyes Back on the Reliable Sources Board over here Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, there are really two questions, and this discussion has really been about #1:

1. Prohibit vs. do not prohibit using self as a source
2. Decide that what's there is what will be in the article.

IMO folks have mostly decided "do not prohibit" on #1, but that should not be interpreted as "locking in" what is currently in there. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Improving Discipling section

I found a few more RS and am in the process of improving the Discipling section. First step is fixing refs and cleaning up. I removed the quote from Kip McKean since its from an interview in 2004 when he was no longer a spokesperson for the ICOC. The original citation for that quote was to an unrelated Time article. I found the correct source and fixed the reference before removing the quote in case anyone disagrees with the quote removal.

On a related note, there appears to be a number of reference errors in the article. It wouldn't hurt to clean those up. Nowa (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added the Yi dissertation as RS. This has a lot of information about beliefs. Nowa (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this! The "Those who left the ICOC were to be shunned" sentence is based off an interview of Ms. Yun Kim. Is it appropriate to take her statement and solidify it as a practice in the Discipling section? If you want to keep it, I think it should at least be clarified that it is a quote from one person, not representative as a solid practice.

Noting that the interview represents Ms. Yun Kim's either experience or perspective should be noted in the article. WP:BIASED and WP:INTEXT should be noted if you want to keep the statement in the article.

Let me know what you think, thanks! XZealous (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

These are good points. The Jenkins reference "Awesome Families"(2005) has a lot more information about the practice of discipling under McKean. I am in the process of reviewing Jenkins now in order to update the article. In the meantime, I'll put in an additional reference about "shunning". Nowa (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nowa for all your work on this, but I think you have overused Yi as a source and currently have 2/3rd of the discipling section attributed entirely to her. Over 300 words, and nothing from the church itself on the practice. WP:BALANCE JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume you mean "Jenkins 2005" instead of "Yi". Since Jenkins is a published PhD dissertation largely focused on the practice of discipling in the ICOC as it existed under McKean, I think it's current weight as a source for this section is reasonable. As far as there being "nothing from the church itself", if you can propose a reference that we should consider, then it would certainly be worth looking at. Nowa (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This is how it should be - academic sources are to be preferred over primary, non-independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've seen the citation after "shunned." I was more noting that it should be clarified that this was an interview of an individual. The sentence makes it seems as if it was a actualized belief of the ICOC. It should be noted, maybe by WP:INTEXT, that this was taken from an interview which represents a person's perspective of the ICOC. XZealous (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The citation for "shunned" is to Jenkins 2005, page 55, not the individual interview in Yi. Jenkins' assertion was based on multiple interviews with members. Having said that, I have no problem with an INTEXT reference to Jenkins. Nowa (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we still need "The ICOC: 2020 plans" section?

It seems to me that the plans of the ICOC for 2020 is not particularly notable (i.e., not covered by any RS) and out-of-date. Do we still need it? Nowa (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this section is poor. At the very least, it could do with updating, but given the lack of secondary sources about it, it might not merit inclusion in the first place. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So we have a "second" from one editor. If one or two other editors concur, I'll take that as consensus and delete the section. Nowa (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to deleting the section but believe that the entire article suffers from there being few updates about current beliefs and practices. As you've observed in your research there is an ongoing effort at reform in the church that is not able to be recognized by the way the article is currently being administered. I posted the RfC on About Self sourcing in an effort to develop an acceptable process for including more recent events that have limited independent sourcing. I will be posting some suggestions on the Talk page about proposed changes to the Beliefs and Practices section that I hope will be helpful. Thank you for your ongoing efforts to improve the article. Meta Voyager (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Sounds like we have consensus to remove the 2020 plans section. I will go ahead and do so. Nowa (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to "Beliefs and practices of the ICOC" section

Based upon the findings of the recent RfC on About Self sourcing and the challenge of finding relevant, independent sourcing since 2010 as reported by @Nowa elsewhere on the Talk page, I propose that the following introduction and Statement of Shared Beliefs (Abridged) from the ICOC's "Plan for United Cooperation" be added to the Beliefs and practices of the ICOC section of the ICOC article on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BESTSOURCES and that redundant paragraphs in the section be deleted:

On or about March 11, 2006, a document entitled “A Plan for United Cooperation” was released in multiple languages for consideration by churches around the world who collectively identified as the International Churches of Christ. https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-translations/. On August 5, 2009, the “Cooperation Plan” was acknowledged when the International Churches of Christ reorganized into regional families of churches.  https://disciplestoday.org/plan-for-united-cooperation-summary/. The Plan for United Cooperation contained a Statement of Shared Beliefs by churches participating in the International Churches of Christ that is presented below in abridged form.

STATEMENT OF SHARED BELIEFS (Abridged)

“May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” John 17:23 NIV

The following longstanding biblical doctrines and cooperative ideals have already guided us well on our journey thus far. These statements begin with the highest historical Christian essentials and move toward our common aspirations to be well-connected in Christ.

GOD: Father, Son and Holy Spirit We believe in and we surrender our lives to the one God who made the heavens and earth and who breathed life into humanity. We worship and praise the Father who spoke the world into existence. We worship and praise Jesus, the Son, who died upon the cross to redeem us from sin. We worship and praise the Holy Spirit who is the seal of our salvation.

1. Our eternal purpose is to know God and to glorify him as God, and let our life shine so others will see God.

2. The cornerstone of our faith is our belief in Jesus Christ.

3. The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is sharp, powerful, effective, challenging, exposing, and encouraging when it is revered, studied, preached, taught, and obeyed because it is from our Creator and therefore relevant for all generations.

GOSPEL: the work of God The culminating event of the Christian faith occurred between the time of the Passover and Pentecost at the end of the Gospels through early Acts. The death, burial and resurrection of the perfect Lamb of God are the substance of our faith. What the first twenty chapters of Exodus are to the Jews (as God rescued and brought them to Sinai to hear the law) is very much what the events in Jerusalem were for disciples. Many were eyewitnesses to events of the atonement, the risen Jesus as “both Lord and Christ”, and heard the promise that was for everyone, even “those who are far off”.

4. Our salvation totally depends on the work of God, prompted by his own mercy and grace, not our good deeds. That work redeems those who hear, believe and obey the Gospel message through baptism into Christ through their faith in God’s power and continue to remain faithful unto death.

5. Our earthly mission involves every member’s participation in the Great Commission to “Seek and save what was lost,” in bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to all parts of the world.

6. Our motivation to love God, love each other and love the lost is prompted by God’s love for us, demonstrated in its greatest form by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on a cross for our behalf.

The INDIVIDUAL Response: the surrender of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus, we surrender our lives to his Lordship. We rejoice in our adoption as God’s children, and each accepts the call to be holy and follow the example of Jesus.

7. Our conversion begins with belief in Jesus as God’s Son, and in his death and resurrection from the dead.

8. Our personal discipleship to Christ begins with our total commitment to the Father, who is over all and through all and in all.

9. Our holiness in daily living is a command from God.

THE CHURCH COMMUNITY: sharing in fellowship and strengthening  As members of the body, we are bonded by our immersion in water that united us with Christ’s death and brought with it the promise of absolute forgiveness, the Holy Spirit and a new life; our hope of heaven and the gift of eternal life; the church body and our devotion to being members of the family of God—a community that helps its members grow to be like Jesus.

10. Our membership in each congregation constitutes baptized disciples, men and women who have pledged to live their lives as saints of God in the holiness he requires.

11. Our community worship includes our devotion to God’s Word, prayer, fellowship, and the Lord’s Supper as a weekly sharing in the presence of Christ as a sacred event—breaking the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine together.

12. We believe in the church supporting women as they serve a vital ministry role in evangelizing, baptizing, teaching, counseling, and training other women. In addition, we recognize the value and significant influence that all sisters can have in the lives of the brothers.

13. The decision-making responsibilities of established congregations belong to the individual congregation.

14. Our communication within the church and outside of our brotherhood should always be genuine, respectful and never deliberately antagonistic.

15. Mature conflict resolution is a priority to our churches and may sometimes require help from outside our own congregation. We agree to obey the scriptures that insist on godly conflict resolution, renouncing gossip and slander. Meta Voyager (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This is far too detailed and too large an amount of text from a non-independent source to include in the article. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to summarise what reliable sources say about a topic, not reproduce large chunks of content from those sources (and especially not from non-independent sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have similar concerns as User:Cordless_Larry about this draft beliefs section:

• I agree that it's too long.
• To me, it reads like WP:Promotion.
• It's written in the first person (e.g., "We believe...") Misplaced Pages should be written in the third person (e.g., "Member churches of the ICOC believe....")

Regarding where to find additional RS, I see from the ICOC web site that they have an international network of regional communications directors. Are these communications directors getting any local coverage for the ICOC? If so, that might be a source of RS on notable beliefs. Nowa (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

~80% of that is the "Motherhood and apple pie" stuff that is in common with all "primacy of the bible" religions/belief sects. (I hope that the "Motherhood..." euphemism is de-codable outside of the US :-) ) So making 80% of it "motherhood and apple pie" stuff is sort of self-promotional and also not very informative, which is what we're here to do. To be informative, we need shorten that part and cover the items that are unique or somewhat unique to this group. The current section has some of that in it. One way to think of it: "How are their beliefs different than a common "Bible Church". North8000 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the proposed text and posting these messages with helpful comments. The proposed text is lifted word-for-word from a longer version from the source document and was offered in an abridged format in recognition of the need for something briefer. No WP:Promotion was intended. I find that North8000's 80% Motherhood comment offers another approach to presenting the information and I will turn to editing down the information for further consideration. I believe the RS comments offered by Cordless Larry and Nowa are at the core of this editing challenge as the current beliefs and practices of the churches that identify as ICOC do not now attract the same degree of external coverage as was the case during a prior, more controversial era of the church. Most of the citations relied upon in the article as RS are reporting on events that predate the 2010 reorganization that is reflected in Nowa's research and the Plan for United Cooperation, so, in my view, some tolerance for About Self sourcing will be needed to update current beliefs and practices. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The Churches of Christ article has a comprehensive Beliefs section as well as a section describing the separation of the International Churches of Christ. At the time of separation, a distinguishing belief of the ICOC was that they taught that they were the One true church and only baptisms by the ICOC were legitimate. With the departure of McKean and the ICOC reorganization in 2003, however, they modified this belief to acknowledge that baptisms outside of the ICOC could be legitimate. Are there now any other distinguishing beliefs of the ICOC relative to the COC? Are these distinguishing beliefs pointed out in any references (RS or primary)? Can we somehow capture these in the article without straying into OR or SYNTH? Nowa (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We're in danger of confusing different types of source in all of this discussion. Primary sources and non-independent sources aren't necessarily the same thing, and likewise, sources can be primary and reliable! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. By "primary" I meant "non-independent". Nowa (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up references in Beliefs section

With the renewed attention to the Beliefs section, I thought I would take a look and see if the current references need clean up. Indeed they do. For now, I'll put in "citation needed" tags if a former citation is no longer valid. Hopefully we can get valid citations. Otherwise unsourced material should probably be removed. Nowa (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Women lead other women"

I don't believe the source cited fully supports the text "Women lead other women, but not allowed to hold certain pastoral positions" (it's also ungrammatical). The source quotes one former member as stating "As a leader, I was given women that I had to 'disciple'", but that's not really proof that that's the general picture (it might be that some women leaders "disciple" men, for all the quote tells us). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There's probably a better way to say it. There's also a timeliness issue. Under McKean, only women could disciple women and only men could disciple men. It's not clear if the discipling system still exits anymore, so it may be a moot point. Also "certain pastoral positions" is vague. I wouldn't mind taking the whole "women" sentence out. Nowa (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)XZealous 9:26, 2 May 2024

Discussion

This should be addressed, but discussed with caution and care noting the subject matter and the inclusion of living persons (WP:BLP)

Noting WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:BALASP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RECENT, is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached?

The people named in these court cases are “low-profile individuals (WP:LPI) in which "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.” (WP:BLPCRIME)

Not that it is always a bad idea, but it should also be discussed if the paragraph on the court cases is “actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time.” (WP:RECENT).

Note that these are 4 cases in the state of California. This brings up WP:BALASP in consideration of its significance in relation to the ICOC as a whole.

In order to be careful with low profile living individuals, I propose that it will only be appropriate to include information on these cases if/once a conviction is reached. It will then become clear what, if anything, will be appropriate for this ICOC article.

Due to the sensitive and controversial nature of this specific paragraph, I look forward to careful, constructive, and respectful input. XZealous (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This might be my lack of understanding of US law, but I didn't think lawsuits resulted in convictions? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You may be right. I took the quote the from WP:BLPCRIME page. There may, however, be a more legally correct term. XZealous (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. A civil case can potentially result in a finding of liability, not a conviction, and the standard used is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Seraphimblade 12:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! XZealous (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot), if the court case has sufficient sourcing then it should be covered in the article. However if the individuals have a low profile, I'd steer away from naming them at all in the article. TarnishedPath 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment XZealous, an RfC should only take place after a matter has already been discussed to a reasonable extent, and that discussion has reached an impasse and failed to achieve consensus. If such discussion has taken place, I sure can't find it, so could you include a pointer to it so that those commenting on the RfC can also read through it and see what points were raised there? If that hasn't happened yet, then this RfC is premature, and needs to be closed in favor of just trying a regular discussion first. Seraphimblade 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  There have been ongoing attempts by editors with COIs to have material perceived as critical of the ICOC removed from the article, of which this appears to be the latest attempt. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry I would advise to follow WP:GF. If you have doubts about my behavior/editing here you can "substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence." My goal is not and has not been to remove "material perceived as critical of the ICOC." I have tried my best to suggest edits according to and citing policies.

  I have noted that you put me on the COI notice board for removing the tag on the belief section. However, the previous RfC (posted after my removal of the tag) has concluded my action to be appropriate. Feel free to discuss any further concerns about my behavior/editing on my talk page.

  I will also WP:DFG in listening to and understand that you also are aiming to improve this article by discussing and following policy. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, which RfC has confirmed that you were correct to remove the third-party sources tag? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  "This RfC has received open comment and discussion for more than 10 days and appears to have achieved a majority view on acceptable uses of About Self sourcing on the beliefs section of a religious organization's article under certain circumstances." XZealous (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're citing Meta Voyager's assessment of their own RfC as demonstrating consensus for removal of a template that the RfC wasn't even about! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry yes, agreed that's some odd reasoning. TarnishedPath 13:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  That was a completely inappropriate close, and I've reversed it. Meta Voyager, editors involved in a discussion cannot decide to "end" that discussion. In the case of something like an RfC, you may ask (for example at requests for closure) that an uninvolved editor close and summarize the discussion once it has run long enough; in the case of an RfC that's 30 days, not 10. Please ensure not to do anything like that again. Seraphimblade 17:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I take issue with your characterization of my actions as "a completely inappropriate close." According to WP:RfC, keeping the discussion open for 30 days after which it will be ended by removal by Legobot is one option. Seeking a Misplaced Pages:Closure request is another option, but I found the requests for uninvolved editors to be currently backlogged and, frankly, discouraged. A third option is to manually end the discussion if one of the reasons to end RfCs applies. I chose to manually end the discussion without a closing summary based upon my belief that the discussion had run its course, an "undoubtedly clear" consensus written by either an uninvolved or involved editor was unlikely and one editor suggested that a closing summary by an involved editor was inappropriate. I announced my intention to manually end the discussion and did so a few hours later. I also note that WP:RfC provides for a RfC discussion to be extended which is what you have appeared to have done, so I have no objection. Do you still see it the same way? Meta Voyager (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, since I've been (Summoned by bot), I might as well give my input, premature RfC or not. Yes, it's absolutely appropriate to have a section on an on-going lawsuit with non-public figures, just as long as their names aren't given. Lawsuits can take years, and are extremely important to the affected organizations/people. Omitting them just because they're delicate subjects that need to be treated with care would be negligent. Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Since there was already discussion on this topic in the above section entitled WP:RECENT, the point was made that there are 5 court cases all confined to the State of California. The ICOC is a church in over 150 nations of the world, with the majority of churches outside the US. Therefore the policy of WP:UNDUE would apply. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment