Talk:Mars Hill Church

message: This page originally said Mars Hill was "one of the largest churches" in the Seattle area, and I changed it to say the largest, and then it was changed to say second largest with Overlake being the largest.  I remember about a year ago when Mars Hill became officially larger than Overlake, which is why I made the change, so I'm wondering whether or not the Overlake change was factual.  Can we have some numbers?  Or, we can just leave it as it is.  I'm not trying to get into church wars of who's the biggest; just trying to make an informative article.  Squidge37 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually like to see numbers that say it is the largest OR second largest.  I'll add a citation needed tag. Isoxyl 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, given that is says "one of the largest" now, I'll leave it at that.  But should a change be made to revert to largest, second largest, a  tag will be necessary, unless someone is providing a reference. (Other than "Matt Driscoll told me so! =) ) Isoxyl 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt Driscoll? Squidge37 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - Mark.  I was just being silly though. :P  Isoxyl 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest church? 

message: The page originally said "teaching pastor" and it was changed to "preaching pastor".   Squidge37 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior pastor / teaching pastor 

message: I added the cleanup tag (after doing a bit of cleanup myself), as the article read a little too informally and a little too much like an ad for MHC.  It's a little better now, but could still use some improvement. raekwon 13:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with raekwon and have cleaned up the informal language and cut content that sounded like advertising. Staceyburz 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: I added History and Structure information. Additionally, I merged Acts 29 and Resurgence articles.--EZEK118 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up, stat updates, mergers and added History & Structure. 

message: I don't get it.  Mars Hill might be one of the largest churches in Seattle, but its also one of the most controversial.  How is there no controversy section on this entry?  Are all the editors of this entry members of Mars Hill?
abdul muhib
:Agreed.  I'd take a crack at writing a controversy section, but I'd be afraid it wouldn't meet NPOV criteria, as my dislike for Mars Hill is pretty potent.  Although there's already quite a bit of NPOV language (not to mention a complete lack of references) in this and Mark Driscoll's article.  Tdogg241 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should definitely be a section on controversy because I know many people, myself included, who have many problems with Driscoll's doctrine. I tried making a views/controversy section but, even though it just stated their was a controversy and did not call one side right or wrong, it was deleted. Que? 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: is someone insinuating that Mars Hill is a Cult? 12.197.241.166 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: == Misc Comment 

message: So when I was looking around for some references for the history section, I discovered that the entire thing was lifted from the Mars Hill web site.  This is a violation of copyright law and Wikipedia policy (I have left a comment above the history section, as a reminder of policy).
Secondly, there appears to be a conflict of interest here.  I just noticed that one editor known as  has been editing the page, apparently updating as the web site updates (as mentioned before).  I also see other editors entering snide comments about the church and the leadership, which does not conform to WP:NPOV.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you cannot use this site to publish your opinion, or promote your church.  This page is to remain neutral.  Please read WP:COI and see if you should be editing this page, if you cannot remain neutral, I ask that you please edit something else.
Finally, this page needs a lot more references to reliable sources, both primary and secondary.  If you add information, please cite it with the proper citation template.  If you do not do this, and the information is not obvious or is questionable, the information will be pulled.  I have tagged the other numerous problems with this article, and until it can be demonstrated that these problems are taken care of, do not remove the tags.  Thank you.  --Kraftlos (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-written the entire history section in an attempt to make it more neutral.  I have added more references and grouped similar references by ref names.  The Wordpress blog that was referenced in the history section was not a reliable source and I removed it as a reference.  There are still several claims in the beginning of the last paragraph which were not sourced and were supported by neither the Stranger article nor the times article.  I will remove them unless they can be substantiated. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the article 

message: Look here if you wanna help with the article!--MortenKristensen (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: An attempt to reorganize and rewrite the article is posted here.  Please comment on this talk page indicating your vote as either Support or Oppose (Support or Oppose), and leave a reason. Remember to sign your post.  Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this re-write.  --Kraftlos (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: The rewrite of the article is now "live."  Thanks for all the help from Kraftlos and MortenKristensen.  Maybe it is time to reassess?  Take care.  Geaugagrrl  ☎    05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: # The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as  is not required, but the use of  tags is encouraged. - Almost 40 references, with roughly 1/3 from reliable independent sources.
# The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. - Article contains all the key elements that should be present in an article like this, including hist.  Uses NPOV and covers relevant controversies.
# The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. - Uses the same structure as other articles in :Category:Megachurches.
# The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. - I don't see any glaring stylistic errors, however we should do a quick run through the relevant manuals of style.
# The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.  - Infobox and image are used on the page, perhaps another photo could be included, but it's not required.
# The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.  I think this might be the one we need to work on.  While it is fairly neutral, I think we need to be careful to make sure that this is a "just-the-facts" article, one last copyedit might be helpful.
I think we're close, let's get it done~!  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What should be done to improve this article to B-class? I couldn't find churches in :Category:Megachurches to compare to (maybe except City Harvest Church). Anyone who has some ideas?--MortenKristensen (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was saying that if you compare it any of the churches on that list, about 8 in 10 use the same structure.  Wikiproject Christianity doesn't do a really good job of covering churches and as far as I can tell, very few (if any) of them are higher than a C-class; so its hard to find a comparason. I'll do a run-thru on the article to see if anything else is missing and get back to you in a bit.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that it meets all the b-class criteria, however we have lots of short paragraphs and sections that really should be combined.  Specifically the controversy section looks a little sparse.  Other then that, I'm prepare to rate this B-Class.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassess as B-Class?

message: Mars Hill has fairly unique music.  For example, last time I was there, they had a New Wave band called Mint that did a mix of their own songs and some hymns.  I know the times has mentioned the music in some of their coverage, do you think we have enough info out there about the music to write about it?  I have a little conflict of interest because I know one of the lead musicians there, so I don't really want to head up the creation of the section.  But I can if everyone's ok with that.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have sources, you can write. And if you have the possibility it would be nice with a picture outside and inside:-)--MortenKristensen (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can probably arrange for pictures.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: I'm starting to think that this controversy section is taking on a strong POV.  This is not supposed to be a "con" section to balance the other "pro" sections, the whole article needs to be a factual account from a neutral point of view.  Unlike last time I think this section is well-sourced, so I would propose the following changes:
*Take out sub-sections and write it as several cohesive paragraphs.  It doesn't make sense to have 2-sentence sections.
*Convert some quotes to prose as is common with most of Wikipedia.
*Add in a few more sources (more controversy) and perhaps response to criticism if available.
Opinions?  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry this response is a little late.  Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, you can't use yourself as a source of information.  One of the core content policies on Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, unless a piece of information comes from a reliable source, it can't be used in a Wikipedia article.  Also, since you did indicate that you were directly involved in the controversy, I wouldn't edit this article.  If you have something you would like to have added to the article that can be attributed to a reliable source, then it can be discussed here.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I've tagged the Controversy section. There's a number of things entered that I don't think rise to the level of a "controversy." Like for example the fluffy baby bunny rabbit comment along with others. Basileias (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem w/ that site (joyfulexiles) is that it is self-published, and not a verifiable source.  While we can WP:AGF wikipedia editors, we cannot AGF for self-published materials.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I have tagged this article with a POV notice. After reading the many talk sections discussing its neutrality (some on sections, others on the article itself), it seems appropriate to note that the neutrality of the whole article is at least disputed.
Zach Beauvais (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Been almost a year, but I am going to start going through some of the issues. I will be removing any flamboyant or controversial claims about the group if there is not a source. Already I found one claim that appeared sourced, but then you examined the actual sources, they did not back the claim. Basileias (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I am considering moving the Controversy material to the "Structure and organization" section since much of the material has to do with that topic. Thoughts? Basileias (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I think I am done with the easy clean-up. I would like to remove the "neutrality" tag. Does anyone feel there is other parts that have neutrality issues? Thank you. Basileias (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've done a great job cleaning this article up.  I'd support its removal.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The article itself states that there are campuses in both Olympia, WA as well as Albuquerque, NM while one could make an argument that Olympia is "in the city" of Seattle, Albuquerque is clearly not.
I suggest the new into read:
:...Services are offered at multiple locations in the city and surrounding area as well as a church plan in Albuquerque, NM; the church podcasts content of weekend services, as well as conferences on the Internet[4] with more than 100,000 downloads every week....
::This can be easily referenced from http://albuquerque.marshillchurch.org/location-and-services/
I would further recommend that we include in the intro that Mars Hill is planning to open more church plant locations. If you have any comments please post or feel free to contact me. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of the introduction needs correction 

message: Recently information on a Jefferson Bethke was added to the article. I removed it because it is more to do with Bethke than the Church. It also seems somewhat of an advertisement for some video. If this is going to be added, there should be some discussion here justifying how it helps the article overall. Basileias (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jefferson Bethke

message: I have reverted to restore a section in the controversy section describing the church as having a lot in common with a cult.  I figure this is controversial, so I thought it would be good to start a discussion here.  I tend to think it is a fairly substantive criticism, thus worth including.  I worry only that there's insufficient detail in this article to explain why the Stranger reached that conclusion.  Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say to leave it with the section intact, as is.  The article is linked, so if the reader desires more information, they can go to the article in The Stranger.  It is only one source, as well, so it probably needs no additional exposition (which also avoids potential issues with WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE).  If I were to make a change to the section to add any additional detail, it would also need to alter the word "cult", which tends to be a loaded word often indicative of WP:POV issues.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stranger report, cult 

message: The inclusion of Mary Lambert's response to a Mars Hill teaching should not be included as a criticism of Mars Hill. Mars Hill's stance on homosexuality is not unique to them; rather it is widespread among Christian churches. How one person reacts to a teaching, especially a non-unique teaching, regardless of the impact of that reaction, should not be cause for criticism of Mars Hill. Furthermore, the inclusion of this statement seems like a biased argument against Mars Hill, not simply a statement of fact. While it is a statement of fact, it is not a relevant criticism of Mars Hill specifically, nor of anti-homosexuality in general. This comment should be removed and perhaps moved to Mary Lambert's or Macklemore's wikipedia page. 98.161.20.220 (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Mars Hill Church which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*https://www.change.org/petitions/evangelical-council-for-financial-accountability-mars-hill-church-tell-us-how-much-global-fund-money-was-spent-on-international-outreach/
*:Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Mars Hill Church]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mars Hill 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/20081013140523/http://www.marshillchurch.org:80/media/? to http://www.marshillchurch.org/media
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015160752/http://lakecity.marshillchurch.org/about/ to http://lakecity.marshillchurch.org/about/
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 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mars Hill 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/20110124124318/http://churchexecutive.com/archives/mark-driscoll-senior-pastor-mars-hill-church-seattle-wa to http://churchexecutive.com/archives/mark-driscoll-senior-pastor-mars-hill-church-seattle-wa
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141019041114/http://marshill.com/files/2013/12/18/MHC_Annual_Report_2013_o_web.pdf to http://marshill.com/files/2013/12/18/MHC_Annual_Report_2013_o_web.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131016041138/http://www.harambeechurch2.org:80/aboutHarambee.php to http://www.harambeechurch2.org/aboutHarambee.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100619120144/http://leadnet.org/archives/netfax/64.pdf to http://www.leadnet.org/archives/netfax/64.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080819022926/http://www.marshillchurch.org:80/about/history to http://www.marshillchurch.org/about/history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426070654/http://www.marketwatch.com:80/news/story/Zondervan-Acquires-Online-Community-Building/story.aspx?guid=%7B57A05E7B-FDDA-4C24-B774-2C8AC5A9A82E%7D to http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Zondervan-Acquires-Online-Community-Building/story.aspx?guid={57A05E7B-FDDA-4C24-B774-2C8AC5A9A82E}
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140628093351/http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/a-note-on-some-transitions/ to http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/a-note-on-some-transitions/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140810083820/http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/a-message-from-the-board-of-acts-29-concerning-mark-driscoll-and-mars-hill-church/ to http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/a-message-from-the-board-of-acts-29-concerning-mark-driscoll-and-mars-hill-church/
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 05:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 23:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Removed the "Mars Hill Closure" section as it is incorrectly titled - the church is still very much active - and have put the inclosed information here. Feel free to leave it out or move it into a more appropriate section of the article.
The church reported in September 2014 that attendance and giving had significantly declined since the beginning of the year due to public controversies. Executive pastor Sutton Turner resigned in September, citing financial issues and personal attacks.
MisterShiney ✉ 23:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed Mars Hill Closure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mars Hill 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/articles/2008/07/14/news/local_news/news03.txt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marketwatch.com:80/news/story/Zondervan-Acquires-Online-Community-Building/story.aspx?guid={57A05E7B-FDDA-4C24-B774-2C8AC5A9A82E}
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113120455/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/localnews/2004020898_webmarshill18m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004020898_webmarshill18m.html
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) 08:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mars Hill 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marshillchurch.org/media
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Zondervan-Acquires-Online-Community-Building/story.aspx?guid=%7B57A05E7B-FDDA-4C24-B774-2C8AC5A9A82E%7D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021113451/http://www.thechurchguide.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Top-Churches-in-America.pdf to http://www.thechurchguide.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Top-Churches-in-America.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004020898_webmarshill18m.html
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) 00:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mars Hill 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/20140908065459/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024485113_marshillxml.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024485113_marshillxml.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018055500/http://matthewpaulturner.com/2012/01/24/jesus-needs-new-prmark-driscolls-church-discipline-contract-looking-for-true-repentance-at-mars-hill-church-sign-on-the-dotted-line/ to http://matthewpaulturner.com/2012/01/24/jesus-needs-new-prmark-driscolls-church-discipline-contract-looking-for-true-repentance-at-mars-hill-church-sign-on-the-dotted-line/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017131722/http://theresurgence.com/ to http://www.theresurgence.com/
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) 23:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified