Talk:Victory (church)

message: This article was edited to make it more accurate and encyclopedic. Varsha Daswani 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there seems no one else discussing this here, I would suggest these are VCF people.
What is your source for saying that Victory Christian Fellowship was a "major part" of Maranatha?  These are weasel words and have therefore been removed from the entry.  
The history includes the connection of Victory Christian Fellowship and Maranatha, as well as Victory and Every Nation.  Other information on either of these two organizations does not belong in this entry. 
This entry was made more encyclopedic to reflect without bias what Victory Christian Fellowship is.Varsha Daswani 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically, the issue there is that we should never have a slogan in an article-especially unquoted, that makes it look like it's in "our voice" rather than "their voice". I'll quote it for now, but usually what should be done with slogans is to create an infobox on the side, with some basic information. I think there's a specific infobox layout for churches (I'm not sure, I always manage to misformat the damn things so I don't use them much), but if not, the corporate one would probably work too-"number of employees" can just be tweaked to "congregation size", etc. There'd be a specific spot under that for a slogan/mission statement. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion.  As a beginner in Wiki, I'll definitely look into that soon.Chickywiki 03:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: While the cited sources do speak of this "Marantha" group, I see no mention in either of a Victory Christian Fellowship. Reliable sources would be necessary which specifically speak to a link between the two groups, or the information cannot be included. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: And why do you keep deleting the fact that Murrell is also president of EN? It is very relevant. If anyone is vandalizing anything, it is you an EN flunky.Osakadan 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How enlightened and mature of you to resort to calling fellow contributors names, Osakadan. This is totally unnecessary and inappropriate. Pink collar girl 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To quote Wikipedia, this is "written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world."  Accusing someone and doubting their  intentions goes against Wikipedia's guideline to assume good faith.  Instead of focusing on why the change is being proposed, let's look at whether it is correct.  Otherwise, it is easy to turn it into a personal edit war, even though it will not help the Wikipedia entry.  Osakadan, it is best to remain civil so we can come up with a neutral, encyclopedic entry.Varsha Daswani 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This being said (and generally, it's unproductive to speculate on anyone's motives), I would appreciate if Varsha Daswani would provide a rationale for the revert made to the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the entry to the last agreed upon version as I understand this.  This version is neutral in point of view and does not go into much detail on Maranatha or Every Nation.  The reason there are separate pages for Maranatha and Every Nation are so that the information on these organizations can be provided there.  Victory Christian Fellowship exists independently of Every Nation, though it is a member of it.  I also have in my possession the Articles of Incorporation of Victory Christian Fellowship dated March 15, 1991, which shows that Victory Christian Fellowship has existed apart from Maranatha since that time.  This document was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission in Manila, Philippines.  Since I am new in Wikipedia, I would like to ask how I can go about making this document available as a source and whether this is allowed.  Please do enlighten me.  Thank you!Varsha Daswani 06:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Osakadan, please explain your revert.  Thanks.Varsha Daswani 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not honestly sure what the copyright law would be on such a document in the Philippines. In the US, federal documents are automatically in the public domain, but I'm not familiar with Philippine law. I also see no problem with including a short segment on Maranatha/EN and linking to their articles, though of course we should include the fact that they are controversial organizations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response.  I also agree that straightforward and concise explanations of VCF's connections with these other organizations will suffice.  Also, these documents issued in the Philippines are public domain as well.  How do you suggest I go about using this as a source?Varsha Daswani 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you're sure they're legal for you to copy and publicize, you could place scanned images of them on Commons, and perhaps linked to a transcript on Wikisource. However, since such a source would be primary, it would still have to be used with quite a bit of caution-a filing showing a formal disassociation would certainly not prevent informal de facto affiliation from being present, so it wouldn't "disprove", per se, a previously-established affiliation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary Name Calling

message: I have added the other organizations that Victory Christian Fellowship is a member of: the Philippine Missions Association and the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, aside from Every Nation Churches and Ministries.Varsha Daswani 09:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Member Associations

message: Fact 1 - Maranatha was the group that established VCF and as such deserves more than a one sentence description. 
Fact 2 - It is a fact recognized by mainstream press that Maranatha was conttroversial. It is also fact that VCF did not leave Maranatha as such but that this happened when Maranatha was dissolved.At no point did VCF disavow Maranatha teachings but stuck around until the end.
Fact 3 - Steve Murrell is both senior pastor of VCF and overall president of Every Nation. But you keep deleting this. And as a parent organization, the page deserves more than a one sentence reference to Every Nation.
Fact 4 -  A "prophet" of the parent organization is quoted giving the reason of their name change. This is very relevant to the VCF page. You removed this. Or are you denying that this was said? You should be proud if you believe it.Osakadan 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV entry I have reverted to clearly explains the connection between Maranatha and Victory, as well as Every Nation and Victory.  VCF is a member of Every Nation, but it is also a member of other ministries and works locally and internationally as part of the Church as a whole, not just with Every Nation.  That is why I have included the information with reliable and verifiable third party sources.  That is also why links help--they connect the VCF entry to all the other organizations it has links with, and so there is no need to go on and on about those other organizations on the VCF page.  If people want to read more about Every Nation, Maranatha, the Philippine Missions Association, or the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, they can go there directly.  And last, the change of name of Every Nation and the quotation by Jim Laffoon has no relevance to the VCF entry--there is no need to explain the change of name of Every Nation here.  This page is about Victory Christian Fellowship.Varsha Daswani 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well...while we probably don't need four or five paragraphs on it, we certainly should mention that Maranatha is a controversial organization, and perhaps provide a brief synopsis of why. Just saying "Oh, it was part of this for a bit, then that for a bit" seems a bit of a whitewash. I'll see what I can do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If there's disagreement over the term, how about we attribute the statement? There is also the problem that the statement might age and not be updated (what if VCF opens ten more churches tomorrow?) How about something to the effect of "As of March 2007, the organization's website states that it operates..." This would attribute the claim, and solve the issue of aging the information, but would also address the concern that "claims" can carry with it a negative or doubting connotation (which it does). Standard formal style is to use "states" or "says" for a straight attribution, and "claims" only in cases where the claim is actually, verifiably in dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with the suggestion but it does mean that the page will be peppered with a lot of repetitive use of 2 words. Thank you.Osakadan 08:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's kind of poor grammatically, that reads as though the website does the operating. How about "The organization's website states that as of 2007...are operated by Victory Christian Fellowship"? Also, some variation on attribution can be used there, while maintaining neutral terms. "According to", "X says", and so on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoa, one moment...we're not here to "make materials available" if they've not been published in a secondary source or otherwise verified. (The same does apply to using too much material from the organization itself, I do understand your concerns there.) As to the affiliations, that's a tricky one. In many cases, we don't comment on the previous affiliations of leaders of an organization, but we certainly might bring it up if a new CEO somewhere had previously been the head of accounting for :Enron. However, in that case, I would certainly imagine we could find plenty of secondary sources that bring it up as well. Have any secondary sources published anything about the affiliation? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are actually primary source materials referencing VCF/EN "quotes" and I believe allowed as such. Many are VCF/En materials. They choose to reference such materials for their own statements/claims. Others are artciles that I have previously referenced.Osakadan 09:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: Not to be rude but I am presuming you are a not a native speaker of English and do not understand the intricacies of the English language. While "claim" may be ladden with negative connotations in your mind, I suggest you find a good dictionary and study the true meaning. I then suggest that you the study wiki rule on self-published resources.
And are you ready to declare you interest as VCF staff yet?
Osakadan 07:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's disagreement over the term, how about we attribute the statement? There is also the problem that the statement might age and not be updated (what if VCF opens ten more churches tomorrow?) How about something to the effect of "As of March 2007, the organization's website states that it operates..." This would attribute the claim, and solve the issue of aging the information, but would also address the concern that "claims" can carry with it a negative or doubting connotation (which it does). Standard formal style is to use "states" or "says" for a straight attribution, and "claims" only in cases where the claim is actually, verifiably in dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with the suggestion but it does mean that the page will be peppered with a lot of repetitive use of 2 words. Thank you.Osakadan 08:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's kind of poor grammatically, that reads as though the website does the operating. How about "The organization's website states that as of 2007...are operated by Victory Christian Fellowship"? Also, some variation on attribution can be used there, while maintaining neutral terms. "According to", "X says", and so on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoa, one moment...we're not here to "make materials available" if they've not been published in a secondary source or otherwise verified. (The same does apply to using too much material from the organization itself, I do understand your concerns there.) As to the affiliations, that's a tricky one. In many cases, we don't comment on the previous affiliations of leaders of an organization, but we certainly might bring it up if a new CEO somewhere had previously been the head of accounting for :Enron. However, in that case, I would certainly imagine we could find plenty of secondary sources that bring it up as well. Have any secondary sources published anything about the affiliation? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are actually primary source materials referencing VCF/EN "quotes" and I believe allowed as such. Many are VCF/En materials. They choose to reference such materials for their own statements/claims. Others are artciles that I have previously referenced.Osakadan 09:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims as opposed to verifiable, non-verifiable, self published "facts".

message: Varsha Daswani, Iskongbayan, Chickywiki, Osakadan, Pink collar girl, please stop by the EN Talk Page. Seraphimblade will be mediating the EN article and made mention of the Victory Christian Fellowhip page.  Please indicate your comments or thoughts on this on the EN Talk Page. Thanks. Thelma BowlenTalk 06:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: The image :File:Every Nation.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Every Nation.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Victory Christian Fellowship. 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/20070607151508/http://www.victory.org.ph:80/content/view/17/87/ to http://www.victory.org.ph/content/view/17/87/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061223214306/http://www.cultsoncampus.com:80/maranatha.html to http://www.cultsoncampus.com/maranatha.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080618202212/http://www.everynation.org:80/en/top/about-us/faqs/q-i-have-read-accusations-that-every-nation-is-a-continuation-of-maranatha-is-this-true.html to http://www.everynation.org/en/top/about-us/faqs/q-i-have-read-accusations-that-every-nation-is-a-continuation-of-maranatha-is-this-true.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090220103320/http://www.victory.org.ph:80/about-us/what-we-believe.html to http://www.victory.org.ph/about-us/what-we-believe.html
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 00:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are there any reliable sources regarding this "church" being a cult/scam? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult/Scam?