Talk:Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] On Editorial Policies

As far as I can tell, this article has reputable sources, and conforms to a neutral point of view. Yet, this article is still unlisted as having unsourced information. Is there an editorial bias against religious articles? Previously, it was also categorized as an unfounded article. What can be done, if anything, to fix this article? Who decides how this article is to be classified?

Also, there seems to be no mention as to who founded the AAFCJ in Mexico. I think that the author, whoever that may be, should have included the founder and recognized patriarch in Mexico--Ernesto Veloz.

[edit] Other Organizations

Q: What is the point of having other Organization's in the links if they themselves don't even have this article in their links. And most importantly these organization's have not history (maybe the PAW) with the Apostolic Assembly. The UPC repeatedly has not shown respect to this organization and the Church in Mexico so I find it sarcastic.

A: The purpose is neither to be sarcastic nor to characterize or suggest any relationship with other organizations. The article makes it clear that the relationship with IAFCJ is languishing, that there exists a warm relationship with the UPC (think of the new leadership who is being trained by the UPC's CLC college in Stockton, as well as various joint events like Union City's annual Endtime Celebration), and that the relationship with PAW is historical. All in all, the purpose of the article is to provide an accurate historical portray, regardless of the content of other organization's pages. In other words, the purpose is not to "scratch each other's backs" with mutual links, but to inform.

[edit] Stop edit warring, discuss

There has been a lot of back and forth and reverting over the last month. Please, stop edit warring and come here and discuss the changes in order to work together, or else the page may become protected.-Andrew c [talk] 14:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to dialogue, but they choose not to speak but to continue with their vandalism. The link the other party wishes to put is not informative and has a horrible bias against the leadership of this denomination, and all content they wish to put here to this point does not conform to NPOV standards. -ApostolicMOP —Preceding comment was added at 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the Questioning over the election

Q: How come there isn't anything in regards to the questioning going on of the Elections problem that occured in Long Beach, Ca. Wether it is true or not, the public deserves to know that there was a scandal. Regardless if something was truly done, this is something that enough Pastors, Bishops and members seem to think actually happened. What do you guys say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backtograce (talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about putting out what the "public deserved to know". I'd ask you to review wikipedia policies and guidelines (a number of which are linked in the welcome post I gave you). Next, we need to discuss reliable sources. What sources can we site that independently covers this alleged scandal?-Andrew c [talk] 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Q: Why isn't *www.apostolicassembly.info used as a sources you can use that independently covers this alleged scandal is? Have you been able to review this site? ( C-los )—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.141.29 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 November 2007

A:That is not a reliable source. It is an anonymous, self published webpage. Anyone with $10 (or sometimes for free) can put up a webpage. Do you have any media sources? And also, this source does not appear to be independent. It seems to be put forth from a group that is party to the conflict.-Andrew c [talk] 16:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Q:While you are correct that it is an anonymous/stand alone webpage. The material within the site is coming from both sides. I personally know people that work for the General Board that are submitting documents to show their side as well. I also know that the party that is "a part of the conflict" are not behind this, I also know them personally. If I would be requesting for a blog to be a source then I could see your point because most of the blogs that are out there are nothing but childish rants. Again the point of the post is not to take a side nor to show favor on one side or the other but rather to post facts that are out there. I'm a part of a General Board members family and I can tell you that something did occur. Nothing will come out, out of headquarters stating that because they (a couple of them) are denying it. So it is really hard to show "both sides". Backtograce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backtograce (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 November 2007

First of all, please remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end of each post (~~~~). At the top of every talk page edit window is a message that explains this in further detail with links. Next, if you are part of the General Board, you may want to consider backing out of this. Wikipedia strongly discourages editors to edit in situations that may pose a conflict of interest (WP:COI). While you may think a blog is less reliable than the site you want to cite, according to wikipedia policies, there is very little difference between the two. Personally attesting to the verifiability of the content doesn't help because it is simply anecdotal. If this information is so important, then it will be picked up by a reliable media source at some point. If the information isn't important enough to be covered by independent, non-self published sources, then it clearly isn't appropriate for wikipedia. It seems like you want to use Wikipedia as a forum to get The Truth out, and unfortunately, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia does not care about The Truth, but only about what is notable and verifiable within out guidelines. While you may believe this information is notable and verifiable, as of yet, it has not been established to meet our criteria for inclusion, and the fact that you have a conflict of interest seems to be coloring your judgment (sorry if that is blunt, but I do not mean that in a harsh way). -Andrew c [talk] 17:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Q: I am not a part of the General Board but rather a family member of someone that is apart of the General Board. I did not request this with some type of agenda, you on the other hand sound like your on Head Quarters payroll. Either way, I do understand what you are asking for and will get the media coverage you are looking for. I also ask, will court documents suffice for a posting?-- Backtograce (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is going on?

Can someone explain what is causing this editorial war? Is there a split or schism of this group? If so can you explain or document? I can tell you as a fellow believer that I find some of this discussion embarassing. Let's work together toward a Wikpedian consensus. That is the view from my porch. (Seenitall 18:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC))


[edit] WHY REMOVE THE COURT DOCUMENT POST?

Q: why was the "2006 election irregularities" removed along with the link to view the court document? I can not see how this is bias and slander if it is stating the facts. the following post was removed:

2006 Election Irregularities

On Friday November 24, 2006 in Long Beach, California General Board Elections were held. Since then it has been outspoken that the Qualifying Board committed numerous violations; therefore, the results of said election are invalid.

A request in the form of a letter petitioning the present Honorable General Board of the Apostolic Assembly to establish a Commission of Honor and Justice (Article 39 of the Constitution of the Apostolic Assembly) to investigate this travesty was refused. The bishop who wrote the request was advised since there was no wrongdoing; there was no need for an investigation. Immediately thereafter, however, the Honorable General Board convoked a Joint Episcopal Meeting to advise that everything was under control.

Due to the travesty that was committed upon the pastorate on the day of elections a Law Suit has been filed with the Superior Court of the State of California. copay and paste link to view documents: http://apostolicassembly.info/Complaint[1]%20elecciones.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.141.63 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear why that proposed text was removed. It is full of unsourced, presumptuous and point of view statements like "the results of the election are invalid," "it has been outspoken that the Board committed numerous violations", and there are a number of loaded, emotional terms like "travesty" and "refused". On top of that, the source you are citing is the same, self-published source "apostolicassembly.info" that didn't meet the requirements, as discussed a few topics up. If there is an independent source (or government record) that can verify this, I would not be opposed to a sentence saying something along the lines of "A splinter group from the church who dispute the results of the 2006 election have filed a court case to examine the alleged election irregularities." Nothing more or less (but perhaps phrased a bit more eloquently). See the difference between that and what you wrote?-Andrew c [talk] 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Source

Q: I edited a portion of the last paragraph under subject Membership and Statistics. It states that there is a CBAN in every District. I would like to know whom that source is? It is affirmatively not reliable due to the fact that I am apart of a District with no CBAN. I hope this is okay with everyone here. Thanks.Backtograce (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)