Talk:Churches That Abuse

message: One of the section captions reads: "Emphasis on experience over". I assume there must be a following word or phrase, but have no idea what the author intended.72.193.217.111 18:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Should have been "Emphasis on experience" Xanthius 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight error 

message: :Image:Churches That Abuse Cover.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Churches That Abuse Cover.PNG

message: Section was added by BKarcher, a University Bible Fellowship leader, which may constitute a conflict of interest. Also, the critiques by Tucker are in reference to the follow-up "Recovering from Churches that Abuse", not "Churches that Abuse". Easternroot (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I do have a declared COI for UBF. However that COI does not prevent me from editing entirely, per WP:CONFLICT. If readers of UBF deserve to know about its controversies, then readers of this article deserve to know about the controversy surrounding the book. Also, the quotes in reference are related to "Chuches that Abuse", per Tucker's statement: "...I was asked by his editor at Zondervan to write an endorsement for his book, Churches That Abuse..." Bkarcher (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, you have no qualms about editing (even major edits such as adding a Controversies section to an article about a book which is largely uncontroversial) in spite of a declared COI, but one would hope that you'd adhere to guidelines and stick to the Talk pages with your COI-influenced views. Easternroot (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This book and its followup are very controversial. This has been well documented here.  Hopefully now you know how it feels for a COI-burdened editor to add controversy to something you care deeply about. And I hope the readers here realize that you also are a COI-burdened editor who (until recently) had no qualms about major edits to the UBF page. Bkarcher (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's hardly worth my time to bandy words with you. "The book" is in no way connected to JPUSA, unlike its followup, as any rational third party will realize. And I don't "care deeply" about it. After becoming informed of the COI issue, and then declaring COI in relation to UBF, I've made zero edits, compared to your dozens. Puhleeze. Easternroot (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with BKarcher's presumption that a separate section titled "controversies" be inserted in the article. In all fairness, this section is only an opinion on countering the mentioning of a group in Enroth's study by trying to undercut Enroth himself. Unfortunately, this method of discredit is not at all something new under the sun in christianity today. There are links in the page where positive reviews of the book are given by degreed specialists. The content of the "controversies" section is right in line with what the external links section provides - reviews of the book (or even the methods of Dr. Enroth). I propose that the source (not sourceS btw) that is being used to create the "controversies" section be moved to External Links as an external link. Pc800 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pc800, you are correct in that I was attempting to counter the mention of UBF in the book. I think it is grossly unfair to lump UBF in with the other groups. UBF does have problems to deal with. However, readers deserve to know that not everyone agreed with Enroth (i.e. Tucker and others). Perhaps a separate section is not warranted. But I insist the controversy links be included somehow, as they are related to this book. Also, I have seen some of Enroth's interviews and some of his work has been a valuable contribution to the Christian community. I am thankful for how God has used Enroth to help the people he did. I just think more research should have been done in the case of UBF. Bkarcher (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cornerstone is not a reliable source, however. It is a quarterly magazine published by Jesus People USA, a group criticized in the Churches That Abuse book. See []. Xanthius (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. I don't recall JPUSA being mentioned in Churches That Abuse. I think it was mentioned in the follow up book. Bkarcher (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct, JPUSA was not mentioned until the sequel Recovering From Churches That Abuse. However, this Cornerstone Magazine article, which is itself not a reliable source, was written as a response to the second book's criticism of JPUSA. Xanthius (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I see that the article as a whole is in response to the sequel. However, Tucker's comments, at least the second paragraph quoted here, are specifically in reference to the first book, when she was asked "to write an endorsement for his book, Churches That Abuse." Bkarcher (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: Just wondering, why is Jesus People USA mentioned in the list of groups in this book? I find no mention of JPUSA, and only one sentence that might possibly refer to JPUSA on page 10. Bkarcher (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: JPUSA?

message: The main point of this section has been integrated by adding one sentence in the article. I removed the section. Bkarcher (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies - Update 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Churches That Abuse. 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/20070222204041/http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_churchesthatabuse2.htm to http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_churchesthatabuse2.htm
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) 13:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified