Talk:Independent Baptist

message: The result was merge into Independent Baptist
*Support The Independent Fundamental Baptist article is poorly written, and would benefit from being part of this article. As written there is little difference between the two. Independent Baptist seems to be the better maintained and more used article. Mgroop 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Independent Fundamental Baptist Article

message: I removed Cedarville University as it is not an Independent Baptist College.
Cedarville was a GARBC College, however that organization is separating from Cedarville     because of their close association with the Southern Baptist Convention  . Mgroop 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cedarville University]] 

message: Towards the bottom of the page, some controversial points are made without any references or sources.  In fact, the whole article seems curiously devoid of any citations.  Would people please try to better provide references and sources for their material from now on, particularly that which is likely to be controversial?
--Jzyehoshua 03:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Sources? 

message: This page is in need of clean-up. However, before we go in and make some wholesale changes, I thought it best to voice my concerns here. First, the very nature of "Independent Baptist" makes it a difficult subject to quantify. The section on "Beliefs" just got marked for weasel words, because of its use of the word "tends too", etc. However, because each independent baptist church is in fact independent, we can't make blanket statements, because as soon as we do, somebody will say "My Church doesn't believe that." On the other hand, every independent Baptist Church would follow most of those beliefs mentioned. Since there is no spokesman for this, how do we give citations? Some follow Jack Hyles, some follow The Sword of the Lord, some follow Bob Jones University, some follow Pensacola Christian College, some follow Tennessee Temple University, some people hate everybody I just mentioned. So to cite The Sword of the Lord would be to discount the impact of TTU on Independent Baptists. To cite PCC would be to alienate BJU. To simply focus on what all these agree on would leave this a very small article indeed.
Also, IMHO, The section "Current Developments", no citations, very controversial, and not very relevant to Independent Baptists as a whole. I suggest getting rid of it completely. Mgroop 13:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is to find secondary sources that cover the topic as a whole and not rely on trying summarize primary sources. These secondary sources hopefully quantify the vagaries in a helpful way. ✤ JonHarder talk 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: I removed Hephzibah Baptist Church and Westboro Baptist Church from the page. Hephzibah is a Southern Baptist church, and thus does not belong here. Westboro claims to be a Primitive Baptist Church, and thus doesn't belong here. Also neither church is representative of Independent, Southern, or Primitive Baptists, and as such (IMHO) shouldn't even be mentioned. Mgroop 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two church links 

message: ifbreformer and others, please see wp:not before you start COMPLETELY rewriting this page without any explanation as to why. Wikipedia is not about advocacy. Your intent may not be vandalism, but it's starting to look that way. Please respond or this article may need to be reverted or protected. BURNyA 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT 

message: Is there really a point to listing the "Colleges and institutes" on these denomination entries? This list in particular is getting a bit long. BURNyA 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colleges and institutes 

message: Some Independent Baptist churches have dismayed moderate Baptists and other evangelical Christians by using outreach techniques that many American Christians consider tasteless and inappropriate for modern Western culture.[6][7] These techniques include distributing frightening religious tracts authored by conspiracy theorist Jack T. Chick[8] and marching in local parades with signs urging watchers to repent.[9] Critics say the aggressive techniques used by fundamentalist groups give Christians a bad name.[10] Not all Independent Baptist churches use these techniques.
Someone added the above to this article.  I think that it should be removed.  It doesn't seem NPOV to me. Deigo 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outreach

message: The section currently titled "King James Bible debate" is largely unsourced and has been tagged since May. The main point seems to be, per the intro sentence, "A number of English-speaking Independent Baptist churches and associated educational institutions support exclusive use of the King James Bible or other Bible translations based on the Textus Receptus (or Received Text)." The rest of the section notes that some hold the opposite view. But that discussion focuses primarily on the Textus Receptus, which is not entirely the same debate as the KJV only debate.
The section seems to be there to show that some (most?) Independent Baptist churches hold the KJV only view, or at least a TR only view, and implies that this is a defining characteristic of IBs. The alternative that "some" others disagree seems to modify the general proposition that most are KJV only. In any case, there is not a single source supporting the proposition that KJV only or TR only is a defining characteristic of IBs (though [the one source does not that many or most fundamentalists do, it is not clear this assertion, which is not the thesis of the article, is limited to IBs). The only source argues that the KJV only or TR only position is wrong. (William W. Combs,Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal)
Without RSs, there is no way to verify whether this KJ only view is a defining characteristic of IBs, or even a view held by an appreciable number. Without that, even if true that some hold that view (and it must be true that at least some hold the view) it is almost impossible to evaluate the section for WP:UNDUE purposes.
I propose that unless there are some sources provided soon to support the KJ debate text section, the whole section should go as failing WP:V and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). The one source there is great, but it is not clear whether the position it advocates interplays with the normal position of IBs, so it is of limited use in this context. In short, based on the source provided I can't verify what this section says, let alone what it implies, nor do I have any idea how central the "debate" is to IBs so as to determine the weight it should receive in the article.
Novaseminary (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since nobody has objected or come forward with any sources, I will delete the section. Novaseminary (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  King James Bible debate 

message: I posted a section entitled Criticism with the following text: "== Criticism ==
 
Independent Fundamentalist Baptists churches were featured on the April 8, 2011 20/20 television Program. The program featured a former member who alleges that she was forced to confess to the sin of adultery after she was raped as a teenager by an adult member of the church. The program also discussed the churches teachings on corporal punishment as well as a defense of the church by an IFBC pastor who said that such events were aberrational from normal church practice.
 
Several websites created by former IFB members alleged that the church is a dangerous cult.<ref</ref>"
This section was deleted. I think the section I added was fairly neutral in presenting the controversy regarding the IFB's, and was well documented. Before I repost it, I want to see what the consensus of other editors on this article is. Jmbranum (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems is that the selection presents "Independent Fundamentalist Baptists churches" as a single homogenous group in which this problem is widespread. Having not seen the 20/20 program in question, I can't comment as to how the program was presented,but you wrote "The program featured a former member" - that's a member of a specific chruch, not a menber of allt he churches as a whole. Also, the statement that "Several websites created by former IFB members alleged that the church is a dangerous cult" treat the group as one church, and the sites given are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Independent Baptists churches are by nature a very diverse droup with no single head, and it is very difficult to make blanket statements, as it is not a hierchial group like the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if the 20/20 program presented memebers from specific churches, then such info could be presented on the specific church article, if one exists. However, this article is not the place to try to present the issue as being widespread without specific reliable sources that actually say that. All church groups to some degree have dealt with such issues, and it's not unique to a specific type of church or church group. - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: BilCat gets it just right, I would say. If RSs indicate that this is widespread or, somehow, an actual characteristic of these types of churches, then it might meet WP:UNDUE, but not as is. As noted, this might be appropriate on a particular church's article (and having a 20/20 segment dealing with a particular church leads me to believe that particular church might have been sufficiently covered to meet WP:ORG/WP:N). In addition, the website/former member mentions also raise WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues. Novaseminary (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Disagree that the fact that the churches are non-denominational gives the church a pass. If there's no central hierarchy, then what is this article documenting? The point has been made in the sources cited that child victims were exported from one congregation to another in a faraway city. If that's not proof of at least some sort of inter-congregational communication, I don't know what is. The fact that this collection of congregations falls short of a traditional ecclesial denomination should not keep content from true, verified references from appearing. Additionally, about the only people who would care about the distinction would be the members of the church themselves, who by definition are biased towards a particular view. The ABC 20/20 episode had an articulate, apparently gentle preacher from one of the congregations, who expressed precisely this view. So let's "teach the controversy," as it were, and include both. Suppressing valid and relevant information in the name of a piece of church doctrine may be fine for a theological encyclopedia published by a particular church group, but Wikipedia is not that. Alan Canon (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I totally disagree with your interpretation of my view, your addition is by far the least POV one that has been added to the article, and I won't delete it. In dealing with controversy, the tension between experienced editors wtih differing POVs is part of the process in producing a neutral article, and you addition is the first step towrand covering this issue in a neutral manner. Most of the other additions were too far from neutral to rmain as written. The 20/20 piece has caused quite a stir already in independent Baptist circles, and once - if - reliable sources start covering that reaction, we can add them to the section. In essence, 20/20 is becoming part of the controversy, not just reporting on one. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at those earlier edits, but of  course I'm glad to hear it. I did this in haste on my way to a rehearsal, and when I get a little more time tomorrow I'll go back and mention the issue above in the article itself in connection with the 20/20 video, and references to the sympathetic pastor as well. The show actually had fairly responsible reportage, I thought so if we just describe the show well, then we'll be in NPOV territory, and everyone should be able to live with themselves. And more importantly, each other! :) Alan Canon (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we have any idea whether this comports with WP:UNDUE? Per UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." How many of these churches are there? Is this widespread? I don't know. This one source is not sufficient to establish this. I'm going to remove it pending better support and context. Novaseminary (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the size if the article, the controversy section is definetely out-of-proportion, but I felt that could be worked on as we go along. It was certainly better than the previous attempts, and since Alan did discuss it here (and none of the others did, except Jmbranum), I thought it best to leave it, and discuss it further rather than for me to remove controversy again, as I had done so several times already, at the risk of violating 3RR. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the earlier Controversy section of this page, and stand by it.  I welcome seeing what copy replaces it and trust that no editors with ties to the IFB itself or the Baptist church are preparing the content?  (If they have ties, I suggest they refrain from involvement.) Perhaps we can learn from the "Catholic sex abuse cases" page  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases</ as an example of a proper way of dealing with this subject matter.  From my online research, there is obviously no shortage of cases of abuse by IFB leaders and members over th past decades. And, no, I have no ties to the IFB, I am just a concerned citizen wanting to accurately inform Americans of the news.Mykjoseph (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: [Novaseminary], nothing personal, but based on my review of dozens of Baptist-related Wikipedia stories that you have edited or written over the years, it is very questionable that you can provide a fair, balanced and "independent" perspective to this article.  You appear to be much more of a church insider or PR person.Mykjoseph (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am shocked and disappointed that there is no criticism section. The 20/20 report should have been enough, but now with the new, in-depth Fort Worth Star Telegram reporting there should be no question that this is information that should be available. This article has been destroyed from when I first viewed it years ago, what a disappointment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog83 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What Star Telegram report? - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

text: You mean this? They interviewed 200 people. Members of independent Baptist churches number in the low millions (7-8 mil per Pew Research cited in article). Hardly a scientific survey. The individual people mentioned as convicted abusers can be covered in their articles, if those exist, as can convicted abuse cover-ups at specific churches, if those articles exist. But again, using a small sample to paint all independent fundamental Baptists as supporting abuse is undue weight. - BilCat (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: It's odd, given such a lengthy and detailed discussion section, that the Independent Baptist article has a total of three sentences. Can someone work to expand it? This seems like an important topic on religion, and it's too bad that the article isn't more detailed. KBurchfiel (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nova Seminary, the editor who doesn't have a connection to the Baptist church but his Wikipedia name is named after a prominent Baptist seminary in Canada, plans to edit it I think during 2011 to include reference to abuse cases against church members.  Of course, many more people could be abused by the time this information is posted.  Oh well.Mykjoseph (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid personal attacks. I assure everyone, I have always and will continue to follow WP:COI. I have not attacked you personally and expect the same in return. Nobody needs permission to edit this article. They just should follow WP policies and guidelines and jump in (with reliable sources, please!). There is very little utillity in noting generally that somebody should expand an article, this one or any other. And remember, one of the things WP is not (WP:NOTNEWS) is a news source. Novaseminary (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the article? 

message: I am going to revert Mykjoseph's recent additions. The "Beliefs" section is OR as it violates WP:SYNTH. It also cites probable non-RS primary sources.  The "Controversy" section is a similar SYNTH violation, as well as an WP:UNDUE violation as it takes coverage of events and extrapolates them to the entire movement without context. Further, it cites several non-RSs (youtube videos, etc.). It also appears to have been inserted to highlight a single non-profit group (Tina Anderson Foundation) the article for which was created recently by Mykjoseph's. The text also seems to be POV as belied by Mykjoseph's statement towards the end of the Criticism Section above that s/he is "a concerned citizen wanting to accurately inform Americans of the news." Novaseminary (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mykjoseph's recent additions 

message: Oh look, yet another article about Baptists turned into a stub for spurious reasons. -- 202.124.72.250 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did this arrticle go? 

message: Are there any Independent Baptist churches outside the US?  I don't want to jump to the conclusion that they're all American, but, uh, well, maybe we actually can jump to the conclusion that they're all American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburke (talk • contribs) 
:Yes. - BilCat (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  American vs International 

message: Unfortunately, we live in a time which sex abuse taints just about everything. I don't think someone reading this short, stubby article is looking for this anymore than someone reading an article about Hollywood or public education in the United States, both of which have had plenty of sex scandals. Per WP:CRITS, I don't think this one sentence section about sex scandals should be included as it compromises the neutrality of the article. Perhaps as an alternative we could move the sentence to another section? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you. How often do Independent Baptists make news? I would say fairly rarely. Less than a year ago, investigative story broke about sex abuse allegations, and was reported on mainstream sites. It features allegations across multiple independent churches and routine mishandling. There is nothing negative about it being here. It does not get an undue large page, just a brief mention, with 2 mainstream references. I do not see how it tampers with the neutrality. --65.94.218.158 (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing this here, but when recently-added material has been challenged, it should stay out until there is consensus to include it. That makes this edit inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Please note: the above comment is not a formal response to the 3O request. StAnselm (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of in agreement with StAnselm on this; I don't think it would compromise the article's neutrality as much as a brief sentence in the histor section as it does in its own section. Re: 65.x.x.x, the fact that IFBs aren't in the news is kind of my point; Wikipedia includes noteworthy information based on reliable sources (in other words, stuff that does make the news), we're not here to be muckrakers. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what we decide, I am confused why you even bring up neutrality. I made sure to give it an appropriate mention here. It would be unfair to write a whole new article on it or to take up large space, but a brief mention like this is appropriate, especially since this did make news. I thought I acted fairly here. Anglicans, Catholics, JWs, Southern Baptists and Haredi Jews all have much larger sections, many of them, separate articles. Why does this brief mention compromise neutrality?--65.94.218.158 (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, don't take this personally as a new (or at least unregistered) user; content disputes happen on Wikipedia. As for neutrality, read WP:CRITS. I'm thinking mentioning it under the history section, as suggested by StAnselm (I was actually thinking the same thing before he said that) would be okay, but the article is way too short and stubby to create a whole section for one sentence. As far as other religions go, I don't know that we should have sections on those articles either; I don't know that an encyclopedia needs to cover every religious (and non-religious, for that matter) group's sex abuse scandals and how they handled them in an era in which every article covering a company or organization could theoretically have a section about sex abuse scandals due to how rampant the problem is. This is not to minimize the issue, it's just there's so much of it that it would be more noteworthy if an institution hadn't had some flavor of sex scandal. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 22:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O]] request: [[WP:UNDUE]] / [[WP:COATRACK]] issue on sex scandals