Talk:Mosaic (church)

message: this page has been modeled after several other non-profit subjects.  What exactly is this site advertising?
I agree. This article covers a multi-decade history of a non-profit organization in Los Angeles.
There are conflicting stories about Mosaic (Church) migration from Church on Brady. The history section needs citations to back up the claims. --JohnAdams1984 (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Don't  mind the wording of the messages. They're standard forms. But it will surely be nominated for deletion once again, unless you provide third-party sources, printed or web, but not from a blog. Has there been any newspaper or TV or religious magazine coverage?  This is now the most important factor for new articles here. If you can show that, all religious denominations are considered encyclopedia worthy, & the article can & will be defended. I regret I've not the time to help more personally.DGG 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: rescued for the moment

message: it is very poorly written, poorly sourced, and linking to blogs of original research is inappropriate--71.156.166.51 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs a complete rewrite 

message: deleted two external links that linked to blogs that are not written by a recognized authority
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links
Links normally to be avoided
Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority--71.156.166.51 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted external links in violation of wiki policy 

message: Mosaic is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.  See www.SBC.org and do a search for "mosaic".  The church on 1539 E. Howard is the church in question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.58 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mosaic is southern baptist 

message: Okay, so I don't edit Wikipedia frequently, but there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting Mosaic has practiced cult-like activity, and evidently there are a bunch of Wikipedia editors trying to come up with every argument possible to suppress these many testimonies from not only personal blogs, but a blog called MosaicOfPainContinues.blogspot.com, and two other blogs, one of which is by a published Christian author-ministry and the other which is a long-established Christian ministry.
These are credible sources by a consensus of wide-reaching popular opinion that deserves some credit or mention.  And every time you have a cult, like Mormonism, you have these pushbacks to getting information out there that the audience needs to know.  Cults actually hire and organize teams of editors.  When the so-called Church of Later-Day Saints did this, Wikipedia made an editorial judgement to halt this manipulation by the cult.  And I think that's what needs to happen here.
I'd really appreciate it if a third party could assess the various claims Web-wide that Mosaic is a cult, on the grounds that it defies scripture or orthodox Christianity, and has a large chorus of the general public crying out that they have been hurt or at least emotionally abused by Mosaic.
This would be my formal request for third-party intervention in what is turning into a war of disruptive vandalism deletion.  The fact is people who were trying to add information about Mosaic's cult accusations were not "disrupting" Wikipedia.  It's real, it's on the internet in both published Christian sources which have been included in the article and then deleted, and also in independent sources representing a variety of real people.  And whoever is suppressing this information needs to stop, in the opinion of this editor. 4.16.24.107 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are simply not allowed as sources on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SPS. StAnselm (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Thank you for posting here. However, you have clearly misunderstood WP policy on self-published sources, especially as they relate to BLPs. I agree that Segment Mag could in some ways be used as a source, but to repeat a third-hand remark like this one is surely a violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP. It seems to have an anti-Mosaic POV that you are pushing. Moreover, your reference to people "vandalising" the page by removing your additions doesn't help matters. StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Because the direct quote was a second-hand report that someone thought the church was a cult. As for BLP policy, it applies to all articles that impinge on living people, bot just biographies. StAnselm (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Those are not reliable sources, so they cannot be included for this content. This would still be true even if this wasn't a BLP issue, which it is. If actually reliable sources comment on this... vague accusation (which is unlikely if those three blogs are anything to go by) then this could be considered, but it would have to be much, much more carefully handled. The quote is a cherry-picked to make a point, which is unacceptable, and is far too weak for the claims you are trying to insert. . Those aren't reliable sources so leave it out. Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosaic Cult Information Suppression: Third Party Mediation Called For 

message: Mosaic has been in the same building for a few years now.  Is it still a "multi-site" organization?
And before answering- is this article about the other mosaics beyond the Hollywood Blvd building, like Mosaic San Diego?  Does it only include the Mosaics commissioned by this one organization on Hollywood Blvd. in LA?  Or does it include any guy who starts an organization called Mosaic- including some potentially legit churches- which has been done.  What's the scope of this article?  One organization, or the Mosaic "denomination," or emerging church ?
205.154.244.58 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-Site Church/cult? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mosaic (church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100205105937/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_re/us_rel_super_bowl_ad_megachurch to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_re/us_rel_super_bowl_ad_megachurch
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mosaic (church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216223330/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22546 to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22546
*Added  tag to http://www.mosaic.org/about-hollywood
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: What is exactly the difference between a nondenominational multi-site church and a denomination?
Could the Roman Catholic Church be described as a non-denominational (no one giving orders to its head pastor!) multi-multi-multi-multi-site church? ;)
This kind of labeling, or self-labeling, is itself problematic since "nondenominational" involves the concept of "not being part of an organization", while "multi-site" is related to the concept of "being an organization". -- 79.16.246.139 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "non-denominational multi-site" 

message: When I came to the article a few days ago the layout was a problem. An unsourced beliefs section was first. That was followed by a campuses section, each campus had its own section, but that section was barely a sentence long and :MOS:LAYOUT is the guideline. The former format creates unnecessary depth (four levels) and they're terribly short section. Having on section for all the campuses is reasonable. I'm not sure what the short sections in the cultural topics is for, but they too are one or two sentences and can be in one section, but I don't even think they're necessary. Finally, the history was after all of the promotional content. I have placed history first, because that's what most people are coming to an encyclopedia to read about. The rest can be found on the church's own website. I place the unsourced beliefs section next, but that's a doctrinal statement and doesn't belong here at all, unless it's for analysis, which is absent. One short section for each of of the campuses and cultural topics are next. The music sections are essentially unchanged. Also  do not belong in the article as they are unnecessary.
Please explain 1) your layout concerns without continuing the edit war, and if you have an association with the church, could you please declare it? You've edited very little else on Wikipedia so I suspect a potential conflict of interest. For my part, I had never heard of the church until you added a link to an article I watch and so I came to see what this new band was about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the author of the current content in the beliefs section, so I cannot speak to it being unsourced.  The order and layout were primarily based on alphabetization and relevancy.  I would disagree in that most people come to an encyclopedia looking to learn more about the topic, not just the history of it.  I truly do think that the page becomes unreadable/impossible to follow when you remove all the headings.  However, perhaps there's a way to reduce the number of headings instead of removing all of them?  As for the conflict of interest claim, I started looking into Mosaic a few years ago.  I try to keep up with churches who have a creative approach.  Mosaic has always struck me as the leader of that, and when I first began editing the page 4 years ago, there was hardly any content about Mosaic, which is why I focused on editing it vs editing other pages. TechGuy213 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the different versions, I agree that the many tiny sections are unnecessary and make the table of contents needlessly long and cluttered. The campuses can be included as a bullet point list in a single section. Ltwin (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about the order of the sections? History, first or toward the end? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in most of these articles the history section is first. The belief section at this point is not good at all. There is no meaningful substance to it. It's all mission statement language. Also, the history section could be paired down due to lack of sources. We have quotations with citation needed tags. Ltwin (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout order