Talk:Institute in Basic Life Principles

message: Why merge?  Because the institute IS Gothard and Gothard IS the institute. Harvestdancer 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the AfD discussion [] for a discussion of whether to merge or delete one of the articles.--Gandalf2000 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Articles for Deletion debate resulted in a "keep" (archived discussion can be found here). Not sure about merging though. Weien 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I say don't merge.  While the organization and the man are pretty much the same, they are separate subjects.
On the side, while I don't have references handy, I can certianly vouch for some of the "citation needed" parts, including former supporters completely abandoning christianity, using non-scriptural testimonials to support points, and seeming to have ever answer for a question (that's not to say they shouldn't be cited though - I'll see what I can do about digging up some of the old family literature).  I doubt I'll be able to cite much on former followers abandoning church alltogether, I doubt it's been written on.  
Jordanmills 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The merge and such 

message: This section has no sources cited for any of the claims made.  Since this section appears to be a criticism of Bill Gothard, one should note that the principles in WP:BLP in addition to the policy of WP:V should be adhered to in this section.  Claims made about living persons are held to a higher standard than other claims in Wikipedia (at least that is what Jimbo Wales has stated). Vivaldi (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but everything must be reliably sourced. For a start, that means no self-published sources like blogs or the Recovering Grace website. And there is simply very little to go on. A couple of encyclopedias have entries on Gothard, but not much in the way of criticism. The Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism references a book by Wilfred Bockelman (Gothard: The man and his ministry: an evaluation), but that is from 1976. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and Criticism 

message: This article needs to be cleaned up.  For one, there are way too many places where it says "IBLP/Gothard".  If IBLP is Gothard, then we just need to keep this article and make it a redirect to the Bill Gothard article.  No information would be lost.  The only reason we should keep this article and not redirect is if the article is changed so that it refers to IBLP actions instead of saying "IBLP/Gothard" everywhere.  Namely, if IBLP is an organization that has some significance outside of being a vehicle of Gothard.  This isn't like Pat Robertson and the 700 Club because the 700 Club article talks about many other things than just the actions of Robertson.  Vivaldi (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup template 

message: I just put up the POV flag.  Like the Bill Gothard article, this one is biased against IBLP.  I did make one change to the Medical Advice section.
JBFrenchhorn 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The two edits from the IP address starting with 66 on Sept. 2 were made by me.  I was not logged in.
This article and the Bill Gothard article need some big changes.  Please edit and discuss, but maybe not in that order. :)
Jeffrey JBFrenchhorn 07:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Article 

message: I came to this article because Advanced Training Institute had been 'Prod'ded.  The presetn article appears essentially to be a biography of Bill Gothard.  If the present article has any other substance, it could be kept, but duplicating his biography is not useful.  I know nothing about the subject.  Peterkingiron 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The Matthew Murray section needs to be cleaned up a bit and changed so that its connection with the topic can be more clearly seen.  I will remove if it is not changed within a few days.
JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew Murray 

message: I'm mostly interested in the IBLP and Gothard because of the City of Character program and the IACC.  I agree the article needs some balance.  I'm attempting to inject some references (I noticed the historical material that was noted as "unreferenced" was actually from the group's website and injected the references) and work out some of the related material.  Let me know if you have concrete suggestions on how I can help.  Reboot (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: This article contained links that used the old format or were outdated or no longer relevant. Others violated Wikipedia policy guidelines at []. I fixed these as best as I could and added other references to verify content. I would be open to any discussion on the changes.
Buildingabettertomorrow (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which policy did the Christianity Today article violate? StAnselm (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "External Links" section didn't appear to be an appropriate place for this link based on Wikipedia's guidelines for External Links: [] Buildingabettertomorrow (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed and fixed outdated and broken links 

message: This "institution" has held out it hands to the Russian-speaking children: http://ps.1september.ru/article.php?ID=200306626  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carn (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing in Russia 

message: This article glosses over the controversy over the controversy surrounding the Institute in Basic Life Principles and it's founder Bill Gothard. Please do not remove the NPOV tag until this issue is addressed. Lack of any mention that the institute is controversial gives the false impression that it is not, which is far from the truth. It and it's founder Gothard are not just controversial outside the Evangelical community but also within as evidenced by the following articles:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/march/35.77.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/marchweb-only/3-3-33.0.html
--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major NPOV issue with article 

message: This looks like the actual amended complaint in PDF, and it seems to check out as reliable (as far as I can tell). But it is posted on a Wordpress page. Would that disqualify it from being added as a reference? Or is the amended complaint already listed in this article? (Or is anyone opposed to the complaint being listed?)
https://spiritualsoundingboard.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/iblpamendedcomplaintrevd.pdf Grammarian3.14159265359 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct - we cannot have anything from a blog site. Also, it looks like massively undue weight for the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amended Complaint PDF? 

message: Is it really clear that IBLP is a cult, as stated in the first sentence of the page? They are certainly restrictive and have abused their authority, but the page as it stands does not give any reason to think that they are a cult. 205.201.21.118 (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a recent unconstructive edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult? 

message: It seems that a great deal of the information in the section on what this group purportedly believes is taken directly from one young woman's interview on LADBible. I came here after watching it via YouTube because I had never heard of what became Institute in Basic Life Principles being a cult or a church. Religious organization? Yes. But not a church. It was a seminar and attendees had their own home church. Most of what the young woman said stems from her father's interpretation of the philosophy rather than "rules" of this seminar. Not wearing green and no text on clothing are examples. The entire entry needs more balance. Trust this is useful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6E81:6160:0:0:0:CB09 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be mistaken, but I believe it's called a church simply because it's a religious non-profit, i.e., it's tax exempt and is bound by the same regulations and whatnot that other churches, synagogues, and religious non-profits are expected to follow. So, by formality and as far as the IRS is concerned, it's a church. That said, it definitely needs a wider variety of sources. It's hard to find good, reliable, unbiased sources on religious organizations as it is, and especially now that fewer people are looking for such sources, especially since the Duggar family (members of the IBLP) are more or less out of the spotlight for now. Warm Yellow Sunflower (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  LADBible? 

message: has recently readded a list of random ministries, lacking any prose or reliable sources, back into this article. This section needs reliable sources as well as actual text so that people can understand the items in the list. I think we should remove the list as unencyclopedic 166.205.97.123 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for pointing that out! After a second check I decided to reinstate your edit. Thanks for communicating with me. I cannot always tell in recent changes the purpose of an edit. Happy editing! Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other ministries section 

message: This section is based on primary sources, and is a mix of wp:synth and wp:OR Very Average Editor (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we delete the programs and teachings section