Talk:Overlake Christian Church

message: This article has serious problems, including a complete lack of sources, an inappropriate tone, and possible WP:BLP issues. I am going to start cutting things out in an hour and a half or so, unless there are serious objections. Natalie 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section name for formatting purposes 

message: That's my opinion.  Looks like too many people are letting their feelings get in the way of what should be an unbiased article about the church.
Monkeyfriends133 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say we could stub it - cut it down to 1 paragraph or two. Most of this is completely unsalvageable. Natalie 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the entry all together and let it start fresh at a later date. 

message: I have stubbed this article due to its lack of citations, it's inappropriate tone, and the recent editorializing. Natalie 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: Why this part of the article is being deleted? These are the facts..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.169.68 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope -- you would need a strong positive consensus for such an addition, as far as I can tell.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex Scandal

message: This article is very POV and it has WP:WEIGHT issues. I know that some of the editors have a deep connection with this Church, but that should not warrant writing it like this. Please expand it from what I have per WP:STYLE and WP:V. The current formatting of references is very poor...--Novus Orator  05:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I have to agree with user MathSci, who reverted your previous stubbing of this article. I have no attachment to this article or any connection/history with its subject, but I'm just not getting why you want to convert it to a stub. Is it that you want to see the earlier stuff about the church's trouble with their longtime minister's sexual deviance or how they dealt with that? ( Very badly, imo. I accessed the full text of the Christianity Today article, and the "elders" who managed that mess were shockingly unjust and ... well, I could think of other words to use about their actions, but I won't. But their behavior was really shameful, imo. ) Anyway, I'm sorry, but I just don't see that it's appropriate to stub it, so I, too, have reverted that. If you'd like to make a case here for working with the original text to make it more neutral in tone I'd have no problem with that, but I just don't see that starting from scratch is called for.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No way..I want the article to tell it as it was, but it needs to do so with reliable sourcing and independent analysis, so it isn't potentially libelious or biased. I merely turned it into a stub to form a good "foundation" to work off of. Please fix and increase the article by adding in good sources...--Novus Orator  07:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to say I think Terra Novus has a good point. As it stands, the article is a mix of indulgent promotion and scandal, none of which is sourced. The Moorehead scandal is notable, but does need clear sourcing and mustn't be given undue weight. Stuff like the books looks undue in the lede. However - Terra Novus take note - I do not support restubbing as it would be out of line with WP:BRD, and there's nothing libellous.  Someone re-write the lede, and we should create sections. With the material thus organised, we can focus on sourcing and weight. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Vsevolod. The "scandal" part was at one point cited to a "Christianity Today" article, I see from the article's history. I don't have any strong feelings about including that, although I don't think it needs to be emphasized as a "badge of shame" either. That article was very critical of the church's management (or whatever the right word would be, council of elders, or whatever), but it was awhile ago too. I'll let others decide about whether that ref should be reintroduced; I think it probably should be since the events are notable, but I have no strong opinion about it, as I said. As for the favorable tone, I agree it could be made more matter-of-fact, but I don't really consider churches in general as especially controversial, and thus don't personally object to a mostly favorable tone in articles about them. I haven't looked at articles about other individual churches, though, and I know very little about the history of this one, only what I've learned in the past few days. So perhaps others will find fault with that predilection, but I don't see how it greatly damages the encylopedia to allow a moderately pleasant tone about non-controversial organizations. But I admit that "non-controversial" is very much in the eye of the beholder (and agree that the pastor-scandal thing needs a cite), so I won't argue the point if others disagree. I would hate to see this article become a battleground between current supporters and former attendees, however. I infer from previous comments on this talk page, and from looking at article history during that period, that it was just that, at one time, and imo the encyclopedia wouldn't be well-served by allowing that to happen again. Just my opinion, though, and no one ever stopped in its tracks a religiously-fueled battle over pride and hurt feelings by expressing an opinion, AFAIK. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Terra Novus, I feel some mild concern about your comment, "I want the article to tell it as it was". I presume when you say "it" that you're referring to the internal strife and political battles that I've seen documented in earlier versions of this article? If so, I have to ask you (sorry, truly) whether you might have personal interest in this fight? Do not respond, please, with anything that could be in the least personally identifying, but I notice that you've edited some other articles have caused me to ask myself whether you might have been a former attendee of the church. Don't disclose even that, if you just don't want to, but it occurs to me that you might need to be especially careful about NPOV and COI rules if you were. I know that religious politics can generate tremendous bitterness (I think of the troubles in Northern Ireland, the whole history of the middle ages, the current hatred between Shia and Sunni factions of Islam, etc, etc) but ... excuse me for phrasing this so, but wouldn't Jesus just want people to try to forgive and let it go? I'm not religious, but from what I've read I suspect that would probably be his recommendation if he were to show up on this article's talk page. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are totally correct. My comment was callous sounding, and I merely meant that the truth should be told, but with a lot of grace..:-)--Novus Orator  06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your very gracious reply. As long as we stick to reliable, published sources, as you suggest, and eschew the (no doubt true) facts that individual attendees might also be aware of, I'm sure we'll do just fine. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Quality

message: Automatic archiving needs to be set up for this page. Until then, please refrain from deleting other users comments. Doing so gives casual readers of this page the impression that there has been no controversy over this article, which couldn't be further from the truth. I've just restored the most-recent selective deletion made to the page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see this comment - Its a historic issue from 12 years  ago for which there were no charges or confirmation in any way - supported by a single local archived report and wikipedia as per WP:BLP policy and WP:Do no harm should not become the primary vehicle for such contentious detail. If you dispute this statement then perhaps a thread at the BLPN would be a good idea, please do not replace it wothout support there or here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your comment immediately above, already. I'll have more to say about the long-term edit war over this article (eventually), but not in this section, which is only about the procedural issue concerning talk page use, as far as I'm concerned. The only point I wish to make, here, is that it's not your prerogative to delete other users comments. Please don't do it again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a duplicated comment from the same user and under a title with blp issues - sex crimes or something - I will archive anything worthwhile but imo that was not worthy of archiving. As for what you cal the long term edit war, the place to take this content is the BLPN and see what support it has, the article is nice and clean and tidy now and I support that. Actually there is a notability issue as well but that might be helped if anyone want to add independent citations. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: ( Comment: it was this talk-page deletion, which I reverted, that prompted me to create this present section.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you ( Off2riorob ) just created an Archive page for this talk page, in the middle of our previous discussion. You're aware, I trust, that everthing to do with archiving a page has to be settled up front and by consensus? In other words, although I'm not criticizing or doubting you meant well, it'd be a problem if any editor were to unilaterally begin any form of archiving at all before we have that discussion. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When this discussion is over I am going to archive the stale and old discussion, as is normal for talkpages. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd advise you to do no such thing. Performing a unilateral archive against consensus would be a really bad idea. If you choose to go ahead I will revert that, and if you do it again you'll leave me no choice but to take it to ANI where I expect you'd find little sympathy for that action, or for your broader actions concerning this article. You've already taken this to one board, no one needs any more drama over this; please don't make it necessary.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please refrain from deleting other users objections 

message: My emphasis is on a balanced article. If there are two paragraphs on the 30 year history of Overlake or any other institution, it doesn't make sense in this case that half the text cover a single ugly moment. This article is about Overlake, not Bob Moorehead. If someone thinks there is enough notoriety (which I doubt) to create a Bob Moorehead article, that would be an appropriate spot to detail the books he's written, his career, his controversies,etc. Look at the description of Bill Clinton from his own article: "Later he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate.[12][13]" That's one sentence. Nice neutral language "scandal involving" captures the moment without dwelling on the unneeded particulars. If that showed up in my child's text book about Presidents I would think that was appropriate. If they had a picture of the spot on Lewinski's dress, I would say that was way out of line and tabloid like.  I think "He resigned in 1998 amid allegations of sexual impropriety" is the proper balance, weight, and impartial tone related to the complete article to achieve a sense of neutrality. --WikiReader527 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence is far from the only coverage of the scandal on Wikipedia, or even in the Clinton bio. There are 28 articles related to the scandal. :Category:Lewinsky scandal. Obviously, the scandals related to OCC are not nearly so important, but neither is OCC. The question is how much of the notability of OCC is connected to those events. The way we determine that is by assessing the prominence in independent sources. So if 78 sources talk about other OCC events, and 22 talk about these events, then a rough rule of thumb is that we should devote something like 22% of the article to them. It's never exact, but the point being we use outside sources as our guide. Please read WP:DUE and let me know if you have any questions about it.   Will Beback  talk   00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  I've already read the section and stand by my points.  If the scandal is important enough, someone should be creating a new article about the scandal.  Your analsis of weight is greatly flawed.  Using outside sources as the guide like your example would create a completely distorted view of the institution.  Look up Duke University.  There is no mention of the huge scandal related to the lacrosse team and the female who accused them of sexual impropriety, etc.  Why not?  There are thousands of independent sources related to that scandal.  Yet, it's not even mentioned.  I'm sure that is because stuff like that is more appropriate on it's own page Duke lacrosse case.  The Duke University article is clean, detailed, and very helpful for learning all about Duke.  It serves it's purpose.  I agree with your point, if OCC is not very important, then the scandal is even less so.  Two paragraphs of history should not include all that detail on the scandal.  Please show me a good wikipedia article that is an example of the weight and balance you are proposing. --WikiReader527 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Duke was founded in 1838, and has a long history. If there were not standalone article on the Lacrosse scandal then a longer treatment would be appropriate. Just before it was split off, the scandal material was over 1000 words long, of about 1/6 of the article. The fact that there's no need for standalone articles on the various scandals at OCC does not mean they are insignificant in OCC history. If you can show that other events have received equal or great attention then they should get equal or great space in the article.   Will Beback  talk   01:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Rather than reducing the minimal coverage of the scandals, it'd be better to expand the coverage of other events.   Will Beback  talk   02:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know of any strictly analogous cases, e.g. where a different person, starting essentially "from scratch", built a ministry (or other kind of organization) into a behemoth, and then fell from grace after being caught violating the very principles he built that organization upon and frequently articulated in public? Any instance for which we have an article only about the organization but not about its longtime figurehead would be especially helpful, I believe. "Helpful" for the purpose of comparing how much weight is given in the organization's article to the man's downfall and its affect on that organization, I mean.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a tall order. Here are some other ministries with scandals: The PTL Club, Living Enrichment Center, Greater Ministries International, Hyles–Anderson College, New Life Church (Colorado Springs, Colorado).   Will Beback  talk   00:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  On weight, balance, and neutral point of view