Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship/Archive 2

message: Please list future changes here first, so as discussion or contesting can take place here first.
#  Remove non referenced / Invalid source - Criticisms - 30 Days
#  Remove Dead Links - 30 Days (This gives time, should the websites re-emerge)
#  Improve the layout
#  Add some pictures of 
##  Pastor Mitchell 
##  A typical church service - pentecostal style
Thanks to all who don't vandalise and discuss first the changes to be made.
:CFM Kev 11:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it there in the first place and have put it back for obvious reasons - many people may think the two are related somehow. I don't see why it was necessary to remove this information. --One Salient Oversight 10:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to be made soon

message: ====Opening paragraph====
Is there a source for these claims about the fellowships origins?
===="Current church statistics"====
Is there an independent source for these statistics?  I'm not sure that the CFM itself classifies as independent in this regard.  Plus, the reference simply directs to the CFM main page, which contains no statistical information.
===="Church activity"====
"These events are used to win the unsaved to Christ."  This appears to be a non-neutral point of view (the Pentecostal view of salvation).  Perhaps "These events are used to evangelise to non-members."?
===="Church doctrine"====
"There are Biblical standards for ministry and the fellowship believes in teaching by discipleship."  As to whether the standards are "biblical" or not is debatable.  Either way, the claim expresses a particular point of view.  Perhaps: "There are specific standards for ministry and the fellowship believes in teaching by discipleship."?
"Much of the official Potters House doctrine stems from The Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, written by two Foursquare ministers, and published by L.I.F.E. Bible College, LA."  Can the author of this paragraph provide an actual link to this text?  Is this it?
"This book is the most comprehensive book on Pentecostal theology to date."  This expresses a particular viewpoint.  I'm sure there are people that disagree with the claim that it's the most comprehensive book on this subject.
===="Origins of the church name"====
"The Potters House is a church-planting New Testament Church." This states a particular view i.e. as to what constitutes a 'New Testament' church and to whether the Potters House fulfills these criteria.
===="Church conferences"====
Is there a source for these estimates?
===="Criticism of the church" and "External links"====
These need to be tidied up, esp. "Criticism of the church".  I'll focus on these after the aforementioned charges are completed.
GuyIncognito 12:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I intend to make the following changes, and would appreciate any suggestions:

message: These need to be tidied up, esp. "Criticism of the church".  I'll focus on these after the aforementioned charges are completed.
GuyIncognito 12:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism of the church" and "External links"

message: Sorry if I managed to wipe away some people's minor edits and links and whatnot. The problems was that I needed to revert the article back into what I saw was the best shape. Since then the article has become very biased towards TPH, and the stuff I wrote about critiquing the church - which was written in a very neutral way - was missing again.
This article seems to have become a battleground. It is NOT, however, a battle between those who love the church and those who hate it, but between those who promote the church and those who just want a truthful article. I have been to the anti-potter sites and there is no way that the reasonable critiques contained in this article can be compared to some of the rantings of these anti-potters - and I say this as neither a pro nor an anti.
And, of course, this article is just another example of how Wikipedia is just unable to police itself properly. The only time I ever got seriously threatened online was by some Potter's House contributor to this article - and he never apologised either.
--One Salient Oversight 11:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My reverting

message: Although not a member of this church, I belong to another Pentecostal denomination (Assemblies of God), and I consider that One Salient Oversight has written as neutral as possible an overview of the denomination.  Personally, I think the section on whether or not the church is a cult should stand.  
A word to User:CFMKEV: welcome to Wikipedia.  One thing that takes a while to understand (at least, it took ME a while to grasp it) is that QUOTING a viewpoint is not the same PROMOTING a point of view.  Our neutral point of view policy REQUIRES us to quote all points of view fairly - including criticisms.  Quoting the criticism does not mean that we AGREE or DISAGREE with it, merely that we ACKNOWLEDGE that it exists.  That's what our NPOV policy is about, and I think One Salient Oversight's version meets this criteria.  Removing the section, on the other hand, goes against the spirit of NPOV, in my opinion. (I'm rushing out to a new year dinner now, will come back later and say more)David Cannon 23:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I deleted the Kingsville link because thier home page is not showing. It may be showing on there server but not externaly. It is a shame because it was one of the better sites. I tried to search for other pages but to no avail.
Nick.
www.forumsau.com
The question about the church stats, I can't think of any other place to get this info, the numbers come from the pages themselves i.e. 
http://www2.christianfellowshipministry.com:6500/CFM/intllist.php
http://www2.christianfellowshipministry.com:6500/CFM/uslist.php etc.
I can't see why the fellowship cannot be the source. The info provided on the site is enough to varify the information, names adresses. etc. It is like trying to find an independant source for all the teachers who attend Brighton Grammer Boys School. I feel that they themselves would be best qualified to give that info, and that there wouldn't be any other way to aquire that type of satistical info from any external source. 
See also http://www.cfmau.com/ for Australian stats
Nick.
www.forumsau.com
:I think that it would be best to phrase it as a claim rather than as a statement of fact so as to remain neutral as to the truth of the content.  So, for example, we might say "The Church of England has x amount of members" and then refer to some independent third party source such as http://www.adherents.com/.  Whereas if we only had the Church of England's internal statistics, we would write "The Church of England claims to have x amount of members" and then site the source where they claim such a thing, such as their own website.  It's not that the Potters House is assumed to have made the statistics up, it's just that all the information is stated as a set of conclusions with no evidence as to how they were arrived at.  They may have used to some unusual or unorthodox form of accounting for example.  We just don't know, so it's best to make the statement in the form of a claim, and leave it at that.
:GuyIncognito 08:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I'll note the changes I've made to the page and why I've made them and if anyone disagrees, please at the very least note here why you disagree and why you altered anything.
===Introduction===
I've slightly rearranged the introduction.  The word planted has been substituted with established.  "Planted" is a peculiar word and should be substituted for a more broadly used one.
===Current church statistics===
I've deleted the links because they do not substantiate the claims being made.  There is no mention of church attentances etc on the sites listed, as far as I can tell.  Put a link to a website that shows the exact statistics that you are quoting.  People need to be able to verify the specific information you quote.
===Church doctrine===
Ive changed the sentences to indicate that a claim is being made rather than a fact stated.  I've deleted the thing about the book being the best because that is a statement of opinion not fact.  If you have a website where someone says its the best book then say "Mr X believes that this is the best book on the subject" and then reference it.
===Church conferences===
These figures need to be backed up with specific verifiable data.  Where did they come from?
===Church culture===
Terms like "testify" and "delivered" have particular religious connotations.  Try to phrase things in a secular way.  I've done this to this subsection of the text.
===Criticism of the church and External Links===
The criticisms of the church section is in need of revision. I'll re-write it at some further point and place it here for comment before posting it. At the moment it just isn't up to standard. The external links section also needs to be made more professional. Things like "Shows the Slam the Door group as a fraud", "Slam the Door group used mutiple usernames" and "Examining the so called Potters House "Cult Buster" himself" come across as opinions rather than neutral descriptions. This kind of thing taints the whole article. Come up with a neutral description. Something like "Evidence for claim that Slam the Door website was engaging in fraudulent behaviour" or better yet, delete it completely..  
===Overall===
The article still has a lot of work to do.  It needs to be clear and consise.  At the moment it comes across as part-Potters House apologetic and part-rushed school homework assignment.  The peculiarly religious terminology, such as 'saved', 'planted', 'outreach', 'testify', 'testimony' etc need to be removed and replaced with neutral terms.  As it stands, even with the latest edits, it's still sub-standard.
GuyIncognito 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck Guyicognito. Just make sure that your name and address are not available on the internet since some of these guys will publish it if you make the article too "anti-Potters house" (also known as npov). I'm serious. It happened to me here. --One Salient Oversight 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Detailed changes

message: The article still has a lot of work to do.  It needs to be clear and consise.  At the moment it comes across as part-Potters House apologetic and part-rushed school homework assignment.  The peculiarly religious terminology, such as 'saved', 'planted', 'outreach', 'testify', 'testimony' etc need to be removed and replaced with neutral terms.  As it stands, even with the latest edits, it's still sub-standard.
GuyIncognito 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck Guyicognito. Just make sure that your name and address are not available on the internet since some of these guys will publish it if you make the article too "anti-Potters house" (also known as npov). I'm serious. It happened to me here. --One Salient Oversight 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall

message: You said
"I've deleted the links because they do not substantiate the claims being made.  There is no mention of church attentances etc on the sites listed, as far as I can tell.  Put a link to a website that shows the exact statistics that you are quoting.  People need to be able to verify the specific information you quote."
It is hard to get this statistical information. Basically I put up some links that go to the church directory. At the top of the directory pages they have a number. Basically there is no particular site that has the info written here verbatim, but it is self explanitory. If you count the pastor in the directory you will come up with the numbers. I this is still not good enough perhaps I will make a site with this statistical info on it and link to that, if that is cool with you.
:That's a good idea.  Put the statistics on a website of some kind and then link to the website as a reference.
:GuyIncognito 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck Guyicognito. Just make sure that your name and address are not available on the internet since some of these guys will publish it if you make the article too "anti-Potters house" (also known as npov). I'm serious. It happened to me here. --One Salient Oversight 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to detailed changes

message: I've added a link for disciples.  You can check the link to see if this definition of disciple conforms with what the Potters House understanding.
I've added a 'piped' link for inerrancy.
I've added a link for doctrine.
GuyIncognito 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A few little changes

message: I am going to go ahead and alter this because some links are dead (e.g. the 'Slam the Door' site has been down a while), some are wrong (e.g. the CFM site reference is wrong - it's www not www2 - or at least it is now), some are redundant because they have been referenced in the 'criticisms' section (e.g. the puppeteering controversy) and some are irrelevant or superfluous (e.g. its unnecessary to have so many CFM links when a prudent reader can find all this readily available on the CFM main site - if you disagree just imagine how long the links section of some of the larger churches, such as the Anglicans, would be if we followed this methodology consistently across articles!).
I've altered this without consulting here for two reasons: one is that there isn't much frequent interaction here - it would take months of back and forth to alter it - plus people can alter it back if they feel strongly about it, and secondly the section is hardly a major one on the article.
--GuyIncognito 04:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links section

message: This link was filtered as spam, therefore it has been deleted.
Well, our very own Wikipedia has made it to Rick Ross's site. Does he really see Wikipedia as being cultic?Jlujan69 01:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could it be?? 

message: How come most of the new links are critical of the Potter's House. Most of these articles are back yard jobs. Like you stated above, Rick Ross has an anti Wikipedia forum! How can a guy like this be seen as credible? How come when I want to put one critical link on Rick Ross' page on Wikipedia, it gets instantly deleted and I get told that it is not going to be on that page by wiki staff, but on this page here, there are many new links that are anti Potter’s House of which have much less credible material on them than the anti Rick Ross page I linked to?
Is GuyIncognito really one of the anti Poter's House few? Can I get some info on who you really are, because the references you have linked to are very negative and numerous, compared say to the AOG (asseblies of God) wiki page. I think that there is bias here!
Nick.
www.forumsau.com
:Nick I'm not 'anti-Potter's House' at all.  Please don't jump to conclusions like that about me and I will not jump to conclusions about you.  You are perfectly entitled to say that you perceive bias in the article, and I want to work with you to make sure that everyone can be satisfied.
:Rather than give you my life history, Ill tell you my views.  I have one friend in the Potters House and he has grown magnificently and loves the organisation to death.  He is a better person in many ways because of his involvement.  I also have another friend that is bitter and angry at his involvement and feels that they did him wrong.  I think that the Potters House do make many claims that I disagree with but I also think that the 'anti' PH people are hardly that credible either.  I don't trust Rick Ross and I think that many of the claims that the 'Slam the Door' and 'Cracked Pots' people make are exaggerated.
:I personally was going to delete all the 'anti' websites from the external links section (because they are already mentioned in the 'criticisms' section) but it says in the raw code that if anyone does that it could be classified as vandalism and they could be banned so I didn't.
:As for the criticisms section, I think I've done a reasonable job of presenting both sides.  The point is merely to show that claims have been made, not that the claims are true or false.  That applies to the Potter's House as well as its critics.  I simply stated that these guys have made these allegations.  I also stated that the Potters House has made replies.  That's it.  I think I gave both sides equal consideration.
:To adopt a neutral stance means that you don't 'defend' one side or the other.  The additions made by Jlujan69 are clearly attempts to negate the claims being made my the other side.  They will have to be seriously modified or removed.  They essentially say that the cult claims are false and that fraud was found.  Unless a court has ruled on these matters then they constitute non-neutral claims.  I think the term cult is thrown around too easily, but the fact is that a group of people believe that the PH has cultic attributes.  I may not agree with them but I am not going to structure my summary in such a way that I essentially say "X made a set of claims... ...and they are wrong for these reasons".
:I am not sure why the AOG article doesn't have any criticisms section.  Perhaps you should flag it as non-neutral?  There are people that disagree with it so I don't know why it doesn't have any.  As for not being allowed to add links to Rick Ross's article, I find that curious because the Rick Ross article on wikipedia is very harsh against him.  Most people reading it will probably conclude he is a nut.  Maybe the site you intended to link to was libelous or something?  I know that the website that claims he is a homosexual is going a bit far - who cares if he is or isn't?  I still linked to it here as you can tell, even though I disagree with him.
:Well write back and tell me what you think.  I am sure that some satisfactory compromise can be achieved.  Please tell me what exact sentences you think are biased and why.
:Thank you.
:GuyIncognito 08:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Links