Talk:Bill Gothard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Controversy

Please see WP:NPOV. Gothard is a controversial figure, and much of that controversy centers around his authoritarian teaching, and how that has been applied or misapplied--most specifically under his direct authority and leadership. So the controversies belong to his biography, and not just the organization's article. Please do not remove information simply because it is critical or negative. If it is incorrect, please edit it, but do so in a way that adds detail rather than removes detail. Thanks. --Gandalf2000 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

First, your request that "any" edits be discussed first is absurd. That isn't how Wikipedia works and you know it.
Next, putting uncited (e.g. alleged) sex scandal information about a co-worker and Gothard's brother adds nothing to Gothard's entry. With your logic, we should include the names of every person who has attempted using his teachings and failed. If there is a place for those things, it is on his organization's web site; or better yet, on the individuals' pages and not Bill Gothard's.--Jason Gastrich 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Jason, thank you for participating. Perhaps you should review the history of this article. Many controversial statements have been deleted without explanation. The controversial statements are substantiated, though I agree citations are thin. It would be better to add a {{Fact}} template or do what I did with the sourceless acclamations and endorsements--move the content into the Talk page rather than deleting it. Please remember that it takes effort to summarize and add information to an article, and you're deleting other editors' work with very little respect.--Gandalf2000 06:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I have put the controversial information back in, with citations. And please re-read my first statement. I did not ask for discussion of "any" edits first. I asked for discussion about removing content. Making factual corrections or style improvements, as well as adding material, is great.--Gandalf2000 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acclamations and endorsements

There are no sources listed for the endorsements below. When sources are provided, they can be moved to the article.

Bill Gothard is highly praised by such men as:

3 August 2007 - All of these names are listed in the begining of this book: http://www.multnomahbooks.com/book_detail.aspx?ISBN=1590520378 See the PDF. Not sure how you want them worked back in.

[edit] Merge?

See the AfD discussion [[1]] for a discussion of whether to merge or delete one of the articles.--Gandalf2000 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Deletion

Just to explain why I deleted the link to [this] article (linked as "Investigative report of Gothard's Indianapolis Training Center"), it's because [this] other article explains that the charges in the former one are "false, unsubstantiated, and unfounded." Yes, I know that the latter link is from the Institute in Basic Life Principles, the organization charged, but an included PDF from the IBLP site is also there as a signed council resolution for what IBLP is saying. Furthermore, searching the [WTHR] (news station hosting the article) website for many of the key words in the "Dark Secrets" article (such as "Gothard") provides no results, meaning at least that it's not an article that they've continued to hold in their archives (it's also undated).

Hope this is a sufficient explanation for my actions ^^ (I'm still a newbie, so any corrections will be accepted kindly, yes they will!). Thanks, Weien 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A perfectly reasonable perspective. I'll take a closer look at it, later. My thinking, actually, is that all of this should be merged under a Gothard article. - WarriorScribe 17:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This [Midwest Christian Outreach article] provides a middle perspective on this series of events. It is important to recognize that the WTHR article provides very typical examples of many of the objections to Gothard and IBLP, though clearly with a negative POV.--Gandalf2000 16:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to summarize and include links to both the WTHR article and the city council resolution, which together would provide balanced, NPOV.--Gandalf2000 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The MCO article indeed speaks from a rather fair viewpoint ^^. But linking to both the WTHR article and the resolution--doesn't the resolution kind of cancel out the WTHR? Or, with that point conceded, would they be presented as a pair, where "WTHR said such-and-such, and in response the city council said such-and-such?" One thought I have been chewing over (but have been too afraid to voice ^^) is possibly creating a "Gothard Controversies" article (linked to in the normal Bill Gothard article), for a tighter presentation of the hotter issues concerning both Gothard and IBLP. After all, from what I see, one of (if not the) main things that those two articles have in common (i.e. overlap) is the controveries and criticism (notice how the "controversies" section of the IBLP article kinda takes over XD). Then again, there are many in favor of deleting the Bill Gothard/IBLP articles altogether, so I think the last thing they want is another related article. Ideas?
Anyway, thanks both of you for your thoughts. Weien 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
At a minimum, I agree that this episode is a good illustration of the controversy(ies), and MCO summarizes the issues quite well.
To address your other point, I think these two articles are progressing quite well. There is a summary of issues on Gothard's page, relating to him as a central figure, and more details on the IBLP page. I think the normal editing process will take care of it, without any drastic reorganization or restructuring. Of course, if someone with a boatload of relevant information wants to add to the pages, that's great, and may justify overhaul, but I think the AfD and merge suggestions are completely unnecessary.--Gandalf2000 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
True enough; though it might need at least a semi-significant amount of "the normal editing process" to make Bill Gothard look like less of a monster that everyone hates (rather than simply a controversial figure in the Christian world). At least, that's being said as almost every section in the article has something to say along the lines of his controversies and criticisms (including the summary). And correct me if I'm wrong, but the IBLP page seems to follow a similar pattern. On the bright side, the "See Also" section doesn't mention any scandals at all ;). Anyway, sorry about the rant... hopefully I'll be able to justify it by adding some relatively tame information to these pages in the future. And again, thanks for your replies (let me know if I'm getting out of line!). Weien 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
One more thought--since the AfD discussion has been concluded, does that mean that the flags for merging are still inherent? Weien 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The Indianapolis Training Center situation is wholly pertinent. Just tell both sides. CyberAnth 02:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. Most amazing to me is that it was even so much as nominated for deletion. Pretty amazing. :rolleyes: CyberAnth 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mergers

Whereas the vote is over and the article survived, it is time to discuss the two proposed mergers. Harvestdancer 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Harvestdancer, if we add substantially to both the Bill Gothard and IBLP pages (resulting in two related but distinct articles as opposed to two articles both focusing about the IBLP/Gothard controveries) in the mid-future, would that warrant that the two articles remain separate? Or would a merge still be in order regardless? But regarding the Forty-nine character virtues article, perhaps it could just go altogether, or work better as part of Character First! (a new article, see discussion at bottom of the article's talk page). Weien 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
As I and others argued in the AFD, both Gothard and the Institute are notable just as both Pat Robertson and the 700 Club are notable. However, I like the idea of merging the Forty-nine virtues article somewhere, either to Bill Gothard or Character First!--DDerby-(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I support keeping both the IBLP and Bill Gothard articles separate, although I am open to the Forty-nine character virtues being merged into IBLP.Dick Clark 17:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge Gothard and Institute. Delete "virtues" article and put link on Gothard page for interested parties. The reader gets a better idea of the facts when the articles are contextually connected-- merged. There is not enough information to warrant separate articles and contain the same information. Arbustoo 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep separate Gothard and IBLP articles. Merge 49 character virtues into IBLP or delete and link to external source.--Gandalf2000 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge Gothard and IBLP are essentially one and the same. Gothard has absolute control over IBLP, IBLP is based solely on Gothard's interpretation of Scripture, and outside of IBLP Gothard is not otherwise noteworthy. Quidam65 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge for same reasons given by Arbustoo. Vivaldi (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megachurches?

What "megachurch" has Gothard pastored? How id this category applicable here? I'm removing the uncourced supposition. Dick Clark 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the biography section, "Since then the Basic Youth Conflicts grew and attendance averaged between 10,000 and 20,000."' Arbustoo 20:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
They are seminars or workshops, though, not "churches." These are very different things. A church has members who regularly attend worship, generally at a particular place of worhip, and has a hierarchy of pastoral staff (sometimes this does not hold true, although it almost certainly would for any "megachurch"). These seminars were not designed to take the place of the attendees' regular church activities, but rather to supplement them with relatively short, (usually) one-time workshops. Dick Clark 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If the Institute is a church (which it does not appear to be), then it could be in the category. Since Gothard is a person, not a church, he should not be in the category. -Will Beback 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it more like a [[parachurch]] organisation? Like Focus on the Family? Or does that designation fill more specific criteria?--EuropracBHIT 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC).
EuropracBHIT: I would say that assessment is pretty accurate. IBLP does not purport to be a "primary provider" of worship services, fellowship, etc., such as a "church" would. Rather, IBLP is an organization that provides training which is designed to supplement (not replace) the activities at the local church level. Dick Clark 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas A. Hill and CharacterFirst

I edited the brief description of Mr. Hill. Previously, this article referred to him as an "oil tycoon", a term that generally refers to someone who owns oil fields or production companies or both. Mr. Hill is the retired chairman of a company that makes supplies for oil and gas pipelines. They are a manufacturing company, and therefore Mr. Hill is no more an oil tycoon than Bill Ford, Jr. (For the record, Mr. Hill is an acquaintance of mine. He lives in my neighborhood and I used to do contract work for his father-in-law, who co-founded the company we are talking about here.) - JimMiller 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oil tycoon was a quote from the source. Arbusto 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I realize that, but the source used it wrong in the first place. Therefore, this is a factual correction. JimMiller 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire CharacterFirst from the Biography section because it is not biographical to Gothard. 3 August, 2007

I removed the following claims from the end of the teaching section:

In addition, Gothard founded the International Association of Cities of Character which advocates reorganizing government and civic organizations around Gothard's character principals, but does so without using Christian terminology specifically.

These claims are unreferenced, and other verifiable sources[1][2] list Tom Hill of Kimray, Inc. as the one to develop and pilot the program. AdamsEdits (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FeloniousMonk reversion of improvements June 8, 2006

I made a number of improvements and additions to this article which user FeloniousMonk has recently reverted by saying "whitewash POV" or something similiar. He advised me to discuss my changes on the talk page, which I will do, but I intend for FeloniousMonk to explain his deletion of information from this article as well. It is unfair that only I should be participating in these discussions, while FeloniousMonk sits on a big revert button, erasing lots of hard work and verifiable information that improved the article.

I improved the article thusly:

1. Originally there was a sentence that read: "His solution to family and youth problems is a conservative, some argue ultraconservative, view of family life" This sentence doesn't even make sense. How can a "view of family life" be a "solution to family and youth problems"? Also, including the term ultraconservative with conservative in the same sentence, when both wikilinked terms lead to the exact same article is silly. I changed this sentence thusly: "His views on how to handle family and youth problems are considered very conservative." My sentence actually make sense and still leaves the reader with the notion that Gothard is on the more conservative side of the spectrum without using biased terms such as "ultraconservative".

2. The article used to have this sentence: "Yet, critics of Gothard and IBLP believe that it is authoritarian and legalistic in nature, and that he does not always "practice what he preaches".. I changed this to read: "However at least one critic of Gothard believes that his views are too authoritarian and legalistic in nature, and some critics have even accused Gothard of hypocrisy." There is only one critic that was cited that wrote that Gothard's view are too authoritarian and legalistic in nature. Really there is only one citation that shows that Gothard was accused of not always "practice what he preaches", so perhaps even my version leaves the reader with an undue idea that there are numerous critics of Gothard that have stated that he was a hypocrite. Using terms like, "Critics say" are weasel words that should be avoided. We should specify exactly who these critics are, especially since it appears as though the number of cited critics of the man is approximately 2 people.

3. I also made a number of improvements to the references section and in the article itself where blank references to web pages were left with no "ref" tags to explain who or what the person is that made the claim. I also named some references so that they could be reused, since there was duplication in the references section and a single reference was being used for numerous claims in the article.

4. I did a major improvement to the controversies and criticism section. I explained that Gothard is being criticized mainly by two seperate small groups that print quarterly religious journals about groups they believe to be cultic in nature. These groups are primarily the work of a few individuals and these two groups cannot be said to speak for the "evangelical" movement or even a significant portion of that movement. The two quarterly journals are not widely read well-respected journals in the field of religion. They are not peer-reviewed. Using them as sources for information presents problems with reliable sources, verifiability, and also with the guidelines on how we are to create articles about living persons. However, I am willing to leave the fact that Gothard has been criticized by a few people, but I want it to be made perfectly clear exactly who or what is criticizing him.

5. I removed claims where the only source of information was provided as http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard. This is a personal website that belongs to John & Kathy Beardsley. These people are not qualified to speak on Bill Gothard. According to the policy of WP:V and the guidelines of WP:RS, personal websites such as this are not appropriate to be used as sources for information in an encyclopedia article -- especially for one that is critical of a living person -- for which the guidelines about biographies of living persons says we should take extra precaution to make sure that the claims presented are verifiable. Here is a relevant section from WP:BLP to consider: "Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors: The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."

I am willing to discuss these issues with the ultimate goal of reaching a consensus or compromise on how to best present the information in this article. Vivaldi (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're free to consider your edits "improvements", but I call them whitewash. FeloniousMonk 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the edits being whitewash they created significant changes in semantics. Saying "I improved this", "I improved that" is subjective, and such comments automatically raise people's hackles as they can be seen as insulting to those who wrote the original, and rather arrogant.
Re "His solution to family and youth problems is a conservative, some argue ultraconservative, view of family life" -- this did not need a full blown rewrite that significantly altered the meaning of the sentence. All that was needed was a minor tweak: "His solution... is based on a conservative ... life".
Peer review for religious journals? Religion ain't science.
"We should specify exactly who these critics are, especially since it appears as though the number of cited critics of the man is approximately 2 people", is a specious argument. If he were criticized in writing by a hundred people, would you want refs for all hundred people? That there are only two people referenced merely means that the person who inserted those references felt that two was a represenjtative sample. •Jim62sch• 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Saying "I improved this", "I improved that" is subjective, and such comments automatically raise people's hackles as they can be seen as insulting to those who wrote the original, and rather arrogant. Subjective statements belong on talk pages. I am giving my opinion. Certainly the goal of every editor should be to improve the article, so every time somebody makes a change, one would imagine that they believe their edits are an improvement. Hopefully I'm not being reverted because I claim that I am improving the article? Vivaldi (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Peer review for religious journals? Religion ain't science There exist hundreds of peer-reviewed religious journals. These exist to evaluate the factual claims that are made by other writers and researchers in the field of religion. They can also evaluate the philosophy and the logic used by other religious researchers. And we aren't even talking about "evaluating a religion". These "religious journals" are being used in these articles to make positive assertions that people have committed certain acts or that certain events have happened. Non-peer-reviewed self-published journals by biased sources are not an acceptable place to find this kind of information. They are dubious sources, which need to be avoided in biographies of living people.Vivaldi (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If he were criticized in writing by a hundred people, would you want refs for all hundred people?. If he were criticized in writing by a hundred people then there would be multiple references that would say he has been criticized by over a hundred different people...or that he as been criticized by a large number of people. My suggestion to specify the actual names and identities of critics is what is appropriate. Please read the style guide Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, where it says, "Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):" and then lists, ""Critics/experts say that..." Then later on the style guide tells us how to deal with such weasel words and specifically gives an example how to change a statement from "Critics say...." to "So and so wrote that...". Now certainly there can be exceptions to this, as the guide suggests, such as when "the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify". But it is clear that the holders of this opinion are absolutely not too diverse or numerous to qualify. Vivaldi (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost completely dumbfounded that an editor of Wikipedia would seek to hide the credentials and identities of the people that are being used to source claims to in the articles. Vivaldi (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I know you unfairly called my edits whitewash, but you also removed verifiable information in the article because of your biased opinion that criticism of Gothard should be made to look more important and prevelant than the sources indicate. Can you justify the usage of http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard as a source for an encyclopedia article about Gothard while considering the written policy of Wikipedia at WP:V regarding such self-published personal websites from non-notable people? Vivaldi (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Biblical Discernment Ministries [2] is a small group, not a personal website; it is perfectly acceptable as a source per WP:V. Biblical Discernment Ministries is reasonably notable, getting 966 google hits [3] and are cited by other Christian groups like biblebelievers.net [4], christianwebsite.com[5], spiritwatch.org [6], and so on.
Since your gutting of the criticisms was based on your faulty interpretation of WP:V and mischaracterization of Biblical Discernment Ministries, it was rightly reverted. FeloniousMonk 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Biblical Discernment Ministries [7] is a small group, not a personal website, writes Monk. My reply: BDM is such a small group that they are made up entirely of the works of one man that is self-published on the personal website called at "The Beardsley's Homepage" BDM is apparently comprised of a single man, Rick Meisel, who has authored all of the "exposes" on his website himself. None of his works has been published by anyone other than himself. Rick Meisel is not a notable person himself. He is not a "professional researcher" or "journalist" which would make him eligible for his self-published works to be used as sources of information. Vivaldi (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Since your gutting of the criticisms was based on your faulty interpretation of WP:V and mischaracterization of Biblical Discernment Ministries, it was rightly reverted, writes Monk. My reply: I didn't gut the criticisms. I removed those criticisms where the only source was a self-published personal webpage. BDM is not a "group" -- it is a collection of essays by one man. The man who wrote the essays isn't notable and he isn't a respected professional that has had his works printed by other reliable sources. In fact, BDM is a "group" where you can discover such things as: TBN (home to the 700 Club) and Pat Robertson are blasphemers helping spread secular filth, that someone is wearing Hitler’s secret Mormon underwear, that Elvis Presley is burning in Hell (and Billy Graham will be joining him there), and of course that Bob Jones University is anything but a bastion of Bible Christianity. Did you know that Bob Jones allows sodomites to view his collection of blasphemous “sacred art” and sponsors a demonic karate team? Vivaldi (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
What do reliable and reputable sources have to say about BDM and Rick Meisel? How can you consider Meisel to be an expert about Gothard (or really anything at all?) Has Meisel been published anywhere besides his own webpages? Vivaldi (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also point out that you have reverted the addition of new information that is verifiable. You are trying to cover up information about the two small groups that have criticized Gotthard -- preferring instead to use weasel words, like "Critics said....". Tell us who these critics are and why they are qualified to talk about Gothard. What are their degrees in? Where have they been published? How many people are involved in their groups? How many people read their quarterly newsletters? Vivaldi (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding proper attribution for critical claims

The article used weasel words, like "some critics" and "critics said". I have added information that provides the proper citations for the exact claims made and information identifying the critics that made those claims. It is not appropriate, especially in an article that is a biography of a living person to make these types of poorly sourced claims. This is exactly the kind of article that Jimbo Wales was referring to when he talked about how editors should NOT handle biographies of living people. Vivaldi (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixing actual weasel words is one thing, removing properly supported and sourced content [8] is quite another. Deleting the coverage of the sex scandal seems to have nothing to do with fixing weasel words, meaning "weasel words" and "proper attribution" appear to be a pretext for POV deletions. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The "coverage" of the sex scandal was published by one man in one book, however in this article it was written about as if it was a factual claim of Wikipedia that these things happened, when it was only an allegation made by this man in his book. All you need to do is properly specify who is making the claims and the authority that they have to make those claims. And again you seem to indicate that you think I have a POV -- which you have also claimed in other places. So again, I will state emphatically that my POV with respect to Bill Gothard is that I do not like him. I do not support his ministry. I am not a Christian. I am not religious at all. My only concern is that Felonious Monk and his very tiny cabal have decided that they can ignore the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia when it gives them a chance to make fun of or disparage people that they don't like -- which in FeloniousMonk's case, involves a number of Conservative Christian ministers. Now I don't like these people either, but that doesn't give FeloniousMonk or myself the right to violate Wikipedia policies in order to defame them with poorly sourced or unsourced claims. Vivaldi (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I find edits like this[9] troublesome. You've had issues with the criticism on the article; why did you move a section out of controversy where he instructs people to pray instead of seek medical help? So I put it back in.[10] C56C 06:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I find edits by C56C (talk · contribs) like this very troublesome. C56C seems to want to include basic biographical information into a criticism section and then C56C adds information that is unsourced (saying that Gothard distrusts modern medicine) and C56C removed information that shows that the institute actually is run by a medical doctor. Vivaldi (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi edit[11] noted he was "reinserting" something, but removed "This should not be confused with a licensed medical school", the cited fact that the MD mentioned has been with Gothard for twenty years before being a board of director, and removed a cited WebMD study. You'd think such details would be important when Gothard is medical advice, but obviously Vivaldi's wants it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk)
MTIA never claimed to be a medical school, so including this information in the article is unwarranted and looks childish and ridiculous. And I haven't seen how promoting prayer to reduce a woman's fear is medical advice that contradicts conventional medicine. You are trying to make it seem like Gothard is telling people to ignore conventional medical therapy and seek a prayer alternative, like the Christian Scientists do, but I nothing sourced that makes that assertion. Is it really controversial that a preacher would suggest prayer to someone that is sick? Will you also include this information for every other religion on the face of the earth that also prays over the sick and dying? It seems pretty superfluous to me. Vivaldi (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] $63,000,000 profit?

That seems a little (really much more than a little) high to me. Did the article mean to say income rather than profit? Steve Dufour 06:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a direct quote: "Gothard, the 74-year-old, unmarried man at the head of the Oak-Brook, Illinois-based Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP)—which brings in an estimated profit of at least $63 million annually—has been in the evangelism business since 1964."[12] C56C 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the author of the article meant income and not profit. The author erred. IBLP is a certified NON-PROFIT organization. There are no shareholders or owners to distribute profits to. Vivaldi (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Non-profits can still have a "surplus", which may be legally, spent, invested, or distributed in various ways. In any case, it doesn't seem appropriate to list that in the intro. -Will Beback 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important to include the fact that it is a certified non-profit by the IRS to the article. This certainly doesn't mean that it is a completely legitimate organization, but the IRS does require certain standards to be met to become certified as a religious charitable organization, lots of groups don't make the cut, but IBLP does. However, your point is taken, that they could have had a net income that was reinvested. As the non-profit article discusses, the proper term should be not-for-profit. Vivaldi (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here is where we see how In These Times messed up. In this article by the SP Times, we see that in the year 2000, Gothard's group had $63 million in assets. The SP Times cites the source for their information, unlike In These Times, and the reputation and reliability of SP Times is much greater than the tabloid In These Times. Clearly a non-profit with annual profits exceeding $63 million annually would have assets that are consistently increasing by $63 million each year. Vivaldi (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the total revenue of an organization that Gothard founded is material worthy to be included in the opening paragraph of his biographical article (unless that revenue is the reason that he is notable, which it isn't). See Wp:mosbio for what should be included in the opening paragraph. I have rewritten the opening paragraph, and I have left out the reference to IBLP's year 2000 revenue. Perhaps it should be reworked into another part of the article or perhaps not. Your thoughts? --76.7.143.51 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, IBLP's 2005 Form 990 is available online. Net assets were $87 million (mostly real estate). Revenue was $23 million. Expenses were $17 million. Gothard was paid $23,664 that year. Their highest paid employee? Their printer, Ted Pollock, got $74,754. Now you know. --SirEditALot 21:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tabloid?

"tabloid"? got a source on that? anon edit left by 205.188.116.12 (talk · contribs)

If you are talking about "In These Times", perhaps you should read the article In These Times here on Wikipedia for starters. You can also read the definition of the word tabloid in your dictionary. And you can even read what In These Times says about the issue here in an article about themselves that they titled, "A Start-Up Socialist Tabloid". What do you think In These Times is? Vivaldi (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A 2005 article discussing a call for "Start-Up Tabloid" in 1976. Any proof this is still considered a tabloid? Its been 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2006
Have you read In These Times? Have you looked up the definition of the word "tabloid" in the dictionary? If you believe that In These Times has at any time adopted a format other than a tabloid, then it's your job to demonstrate that they have changed. I've already provided a source that shows they are a tabloid. Are you sure you know what a tabloid is? Vivaldi (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. # yellow journalism: sensationalist journalism
  1. newspaper with half-size pages it has negative connotations that refer specifically to sensationalist reporting lacking credibility.75.72.200.188 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon 152.163.100.69 reverts addition of proper ref tags

152.163.100.69 (talk • contribs • count) has reverted an entire series of edits that included proper ref tags into the article so that they show up properly in the references section. This user has also included unsourced claims and irrelevant claims to the bio of Gothard, including the claim that medical science says prayer doesn't work to heal people. I agree with this claim. I don't believe that prayer has any particular benefit other than as a placebo, but I don't think its proper for an encyclopedia article about Gothard to include a reference to a study about prayer effectivity in his bio. Vivaldi (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Watch your POV.[13] If you issue is with the sources fix the sources. It is completely fine to note that it is not a licensed medical school, and that studies have been conducted, which disagree with the advice Gothard has offered. Arbusto 20:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You watch your POV. You've let your desire to defame Gothard cloud your judgement. You also reverted the addition of ref tags! What possible reason could you have for that? Also, MTIA doesn't purport to be a medical school, it never has. And this article isn't the place to get into a debate about the effectivity of prayer. There are numerous people on both sides of that issue, and a number of them are medical schools and hospitals that are affiliated with religious organizations. I personally don't think prayer does anything more than placebo, but again this isn't the place for that debate. This line is completely out of place in this section. If you want to cite some sources that explain how Gothard advises people to ignore conventional medicine and seek prayer therapy instead then go ahead and do that and put the information in a section about why some people have criticized Gothard. I don't see anything in his work where he suggests people shouldn't follow the advice of their chosen doctor, but if you have that information, then add it to the article and cite your sources. Also, you may remember that Gothard is a living person and thus this article is subject to the guidelines at WP:BLP. Keep that in mind next time you add a statement that defames a living person. You have a bad history of adding irrelevant and unsourced criticism to people that have different religious views than you. Vivaldi (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have not sought to nor defamed anyone. Arbusto 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Luckily, there is an edit history for arbustoo (talk • contribs • count) and anyone can take a look at the edits he has made at Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond and many others. Arbustoo has only added negative and critical information about each of these topics. He has literally made hundreds of such inclusions of defamation into the articles. It is obvious that he has a POV that he is pushing. Vivaldi (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I looked at his edits, and I agree. Clear agenda. And it's not the agenda that's bad...everyone has one...it's bring that agenda into Wikipedia and violating NPOV that is harmful. David Schroder 14:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Hey guys. A line about Bill Gothard with the weasel words "considered even by many evangelical to be cultish" in the Biblical Courtship article brought me here. For the record...I'm familiar with Gothard's ministry and teachings, would probably agree with a good portion (as I suspect even critics would if they were honest) but also strongly disagree with a good portion (views on homeschooling, women in the church and music in particular). So that's my background, though I don't have any agenda for Wikipedia other than fairness.

This article - to me - reeks of NPOV. Why? Not because of uncited sources...but because 40% of the article is dedicated to who Gothard is (biography) and 60% is dedicated to criticisms. Let's have some balance, maybe? I'm all for criticisms, but I'm dead-set against Wikipedia becoming an encyclopedia of so-called "Christian watchdog" opinions.

What I think would be better is to either (1) reduce the number of words in the criticism section to be more in line with a true biographic article, or (2) add a section that gives the details of his teachings. It's NPOV to spend half a sentance discussing Gothard's views on authority and then five sentances discussing the criticism of that view.

I'm tempted to put up the NPOV flag immediately, but there seems to have been discussion here recently and if anyone is still watching this page, leave your comments. David Schroder 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David Schroder. This article is mostly a critique of Gothard (as is the IBYC article). That isn't encyclopedic, and isn't what Wikipedia is for. I followed Gothard's ministry back in the '80s, but haven't paid much attention since then, and I kind of suspect his ministry and organization are winding down. If that's the case, maybe we could pare back the article to just list a few of his key teachings and a few critique citations. On the other hand if I'm wrong and Gothard is still influential out there in the church at large, his key teachings should be expanded per David's recommendation, so the reader can have an idea of what the fuss is all about. Timotheos 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with David and Timotheos. I certainly don't mind critiques of Gothard when they come from reliable sources of information. The problem is this article uses very dubious sources of information including the personal webpages of people that are clearly not recognized experts in the field of religion, nor are these people recognized as experts about Gothard. These are just criticisms of one denomination and set of beliefs that come from people that hold different religious views. This type of nonsense should never be included in a biography of a living person. This type of defamatory article is an embarrassment to wikipedia. Go ahead and cite what Gothard believes and provide quotes that are cited from reliable sources. Include criticism in an reasonable manner when you can find a reliable source that is an expert in the field that makes the claim. Don't use wikipedia as a tool to promote your personal agendas to attack and embarrass people that have a different view on religion than yourself. Vivaldi (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In These Times

I don't think In These Times should be cited in this article. Above there is a quote from the article on the site saying that Gothard is a 74-year-old man. The article was authored in 2006. Gothard turned 72 in 2006. He won't be 74 until November 2, 2008. That shows how reliable In These Times is.

JBFrenchhorn 06:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "In These Times", a tabloid, should not be used as a source of reliable information about anything, let alone as a sole source of defamatory information about a living person. Unfortunately, there is a cabal of people that insist on including every rumor and gossip ever put on someone's private website. While these are clearly unencyclopedic sources of information, just try to remove them and you'll watch these clowns reinsert their defamation. I'm sure these idiots would also insist that PerezHilton.com is a bastion of knowledge. Vivaldi (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. In These Times isn't a "tabloid" as you keep throwing around but a magazine. At one time, yes, it was half the size of a broadsheet and so qualified as a "tabloid". But, that of course was before the term took on its negative connotations that you are so eager to cast upon it. And to say that they are not a legitimate source of information is just inane and overlooks the contributions made by such writers and intellectual giants as Marcuse, Vonnegut, Zizek and Chomsky as cited in Wikipedia's own entry on the magazine. So your statements only reveal your "conservative" bias.75.72.200.188 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

I have put some flags up on this article. The section on Medical Advice should either be drastically changed or removed. Besides being very biased, it is sloppy. For example, one "quote" has quotation marks at the end but not at the beginning. Also, some of the quotes in the section are not of a quality that should be expected for an encyclopedia article. Also, the section says that Gothard claims to have absolute authority on a number of issues. I know that that is not true.

JBFrenchhorn 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

JBFrenchhorn, I agree with you that the section on medical advice should be drastically changed or removed. Nearly every single minister or religious leader of almost every religion would espouse the belief that praying over the sick and dying is something that is helpful. It is not controversial that a preacher believes in the healing power of prayer. The people who wrote this defamatory article have decided to use lies and innuendo to make it seem like Gothard has advised people to avoid traditional medicine when that is most certainly not the case. Apparently one of Gothard's most trusted associates for over 20 years is a licensed medical doctor. I would suggest that you go ahead and remove the information from the article that is defamatory and where the information is only provided by people who write from personal web pages and blogs. Rumormongering and gossip should not be the basis of an encyclopedia article about a living person. Vivaldi (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the section needs to be reworked (as does the whole article), but I have removed the totally-disputed flag from this section. If the section contained an unsourced accusation that Gothard held "absolute authority on a number of issues," then that would certainly be grounds for a "factually disputed" flag. However, that criticism is sourced. The criticism may be completely false, but no one is disputing the fact that the criticism has been made. As long as the criticism is based on a reliable source and as long as the article does not represent a minority view as being a majority view (i.e. violate the NPOV policy), then it is fine. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (see WP:Verifiability). By this standard, the criticism is reliable as far as I can tell. Thus, there is no basis for flagging this section as being factually disputed. That leaves the NPOV issue. I agree that this article seems to have an anti-Gothard bias, so there is certainly grounds for a NPOV flag. However, the top of the article has already been flagged as NPOV, so there is no need to reflag this specific section. Because of this, I have removed the totally-disputed flag. Your thoughts? --76.7.143.51 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

O.K. So far I have removed part of the first sentence of the Medical Advice section. I took out the part that explains who is on the board of Midwest Christian Outreach. This is not an article about the leadership and internal structure of Midwest Christian Outreach. If quotes from that organization should be used, people should be already familiar with the organization, or else they can look it up. The senior leadership is not relevant to this article.

So now take a look at that first sentence: "The Midwest Christian Outreach criticized Gothard for bringing his legalistic teachings into all areas of life." This sentence is biased. For one thing, its wording presupposes that Gothard's teachings are legalistic. It doesn't say that the MCO accused him of being legalistic; it says they accused him of bringing those teachings into all areas of life.

I am inclined to delete all or most of this Medical Advice section. To say the most, it is poorly written. Maybe someone will take the time in the next day or two to at least make the section technically correct. If not, I'll remove it. Any objections or comments?

JBFrenchhorn 09:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Taylor trivia

I have removed a section titled "Trivia" which contained the following tidbit of information: "Gothard was also criticized in a song by Christian rock musician Steve Taylor."

The reference given was "See songs: 'I Manipulate', 'You Dont Owe Me Nothing', and 'It"s A Personal Thing' off his album 'On The Fritz'." Lyrics to those songs can be found at the following URLs: "I Manipulate", "It's A Personal Thing", "You Dont Owe Me Nothing"

There are two problems with this section. As per WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, I am removing the offending section immediately. The problems were as follows: First (a minor problem), this article should not contain a trivia section (see WP:BLP#Writing_style). Second (the bigger problem), the lyrics to the songs do not specifically mention Gothard anywhere. Inferring that the songs are about Gothard requires conjectural interpretation. WP:NOR#Sources states that "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source [as this section did] should [...] make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."

If someone can find a source claiming that Steve Taylor wrote these songs with Gothard in mind, then this piece of information might be reworked into the article somewhere (though not inside a trivia section). However, the songs themselves do not mention Gothard so they cannot be used, as they were being used, as a reliable source for criticism of him. --76.7.143.51 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. Maybe you could take a look at the similar section in the Institute in Basic Life Principles article and see whether or not that info is sourced correctly. Thanks!

JBFrenchhorn 09:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Advice

I deleted the medical advice section with the comment, "Removed section; poorly written, inaccurate, etc." But DickClarkMises (talk) reverted my change with the comment, "medical section belongs here; improve the prose, but don't just delete the section."

I agree that is acceptable to have a medical advice section. But the current one is of a quality that is unbecoming of an encyclopediac article. I agree that the prose and some of the content should be changed. But if no one is going to do that, we should just delete the section. Incidentally, that revision would have to involve going back to the sources of the quotes and finding out what is a quote and what isn't.

Any thoughts?

JBFrenchhorn 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the section is somewhat problematic right now. We can either (a) stub the section for now retaining any useful sources and worry about revising it later, or (b) do a quick summary of the available sources now. DickClarkMises 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I think it would be best to delete the section, or at least the visible part of it, as you suggested. The section needs to be completely rewritten. The problem with it now is that it is basically a summary of so and so says Gothard says this and so and so says Gothard says that, followed by explanations of why those supposed things are bad. I have, on a number of occasions, spoken with Gothard personally. I know that most of the information contained in this section is false. I know it is probably true that so and so said Gothard believes such and such. But in reality, he probably didn't. I have not read any of the sources quoted in this section. But I assume that they are hardly athoritative when it comes to explaining Gothard's beliefs. How about creating an entirely new section that can say, "Gothard said such and such," rather than "So and so claims that Gothard believes such and such."

In the mean while, how about removing that section from the article. I think your choice (a) sounds good if that's what you were referring to.

Thanks!

JBFrenchhorn 05:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Well, I've met and spoken with Bill Gothard, too. My family was a part of ATIA for four years, during which time I was a 2nd violin with the orchestra that played at the Knoxville summit every summer. My time with ATIA (and with IBLP, etc.) was between Fall 1991 and Spring 1996. I very distinctly remember discussion of both legal and medical training by apprenticeship rather than the standard means. I am not personally opposed to this pedagogical strategy, but it seems to me that I am in the minority on this issue. I also remember the discussion of Cabbage Patch dolls, Garbage Pail kids, Stephen King books, and other objects as potential means for demonic influence, and as a foothold by which the adversary might start to establish a spiritual "stronghold," to use the parlance that Gothard frequently used. BTW, I don't think that the Midwest Outreach portrayal of Gothard's views are entirely accurate. However, the assertions are attributed to the source and are not made in the encyclopedic voice. Here's my proposed solution, which I will try to effect if I have time later today: Consolidate the Midwest Outreach stuff, as a paragraph or so of criticism that follows a newly added paragraph describing the teachings of IBLP's Medical Training Institute. I'm working on finding sources for the first paragraph now, and will post them below before I start trying to write up anything. Believe me, I find things like ATI's ALERT program to be far more interesting, especially since they were allegedly the first responders to the Oklahoma City Bombing (asserted in Knoxville in Summer 1995), but it is a bit harder to find sources on that. DickClarkMises 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
DickClarkMises 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


I have a few comments to add. First, I agree that the section seems poorly worded and needs to be reworked. JBFrenchhorn, you suggest that the section needs to be removed since what Midwest Outreach says about Gothard is not true. However, according to Wikipedia policy (see WP:Verifiability), the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As long as we can verify that Midwest Outreach did indeed make those criticisms of Gothard, and as long as we maintain a NPOV when mentioning their criticisms, we can include them in the article. I don't see any grounds for removing the section. Do you disagree, JBFrenchhorn?

DickClarkMises, a little while back there was a discussion about merging the Gothard article with the IBLP article. The reason that this did not occur was that the consensus was that Gothard and IBLP were not entirely 100% interconnected. That is, there were some things that IBLP did separately from Gothard. You mention adding a paragraph "describing the teachings of IBLP's Medical Training Institute." I am not all that familiar with either Gothard or IBLP. Is IBLP's Medical Training Institute in any way directly related to Gothard other than by the fact that he founded IBLP? If not, then I think the best place for information about the Medical Training Institute would probably be the IBLP article, not the Gothard article. Just a thought--you, no doubt, know about about the Gothard/IBLP connection than I do.

Also, out of curiosity, why and how did Gothard think Cabbage Patch dolls would result in, erm, demonic strongholds in one's life? --76.7.143.51 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after reading your comment above, here's my take on the matter: When people criticize some IBLP program, they almost invariably talk about Gothard, not just the IBLP. This is because Gothard is a charismatic leader who is very much seen as running things, at least by regular members and conference attendees. Maybe things are different now. I haven't had anything to do with the organizations that Gothard runs (IBLP, ATI, etc.) since 1996, so things may have changed. IBLP controversies naturally belong in the IBLP article (esp. since it is true that there are tons of people besides Gothard involved in that organization), but as I said almost all of the criticisms mention Gothard too, so it is tough to argue that they shouldn't also be in the Gothard article. I would say that scandals about Gothard personally (like the alleged sexual impropriety) should clearly be covered primarily in this article, with a short blurb at IBLP that points to the full details here. For IBLP controversies not specifically about Gothard, but rather about IBLP programs, I would say put those at IBLP and if Gothard is mentioned in the critical sources we can mention them here briefly and point to the primary coverage at the IBLP article. Given this, I am changing my position on the MTIA coverage being primarily in this article, since most of the criticism is really about the CARE bulletins and not about Gothard personally. Thus, I think there should be a blurb here that links to the relevant subsec at IBLP. DickClarkMises 16:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and about the Cabbage Patch dolls thing... my understanding is that they were basically considered idols by Gothard because each had an "identity." Why GI Joes and other toys with individual characters (each with a biography of sorts) failed to raise his hackles, I couldn't say. The Garbage Pail kids thing was more a matter of aesthetics, I think: They were ugly, unpleasant, and generally "negative." Stephen King books (and others that discuss the occult) were considered dangerous because they represent a demonic influence (because of their varying conceptions of the spiritual realm that differed from the evangelical Christian framework) and had lots of ugly, negative stuff in them. Rock music was an evil influence, according to Gothard, because its emphasis on the second and fourth notes in a 4/4 measure (the "backbeat") is contrary to the natural, "correct" emphasis on the first and third beats of the measure. So far as I know, there is no advice given on how to discern the respectability of music that has fewer/more than four beats in a measure. I remember that it was asserted that African tribal/shamanistic music shared this backbeat, as it was somehow an invitation to demonic influences. I can't cite page numbers, so this is all OR, but that is what I remember. DickClarkMises 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

O.K., 76.7.143.51. I suppose you are right to some degree. The section does mention actual criticisms Midwest Outreach has said about Gothard. So it is perfectly accurate to say that Midwest Outreach said those things. However, many of the things are not just criticisms; they are accusations. I agree that there is a place for accusations in an article. But these accusations are placed in such a way that it is suggested that they are true about Bill Gothard. For example, the first sentence says that they criticize him of bringing his legalistic teachings into all areas of life. The problem with that is that it presupposes that his teachings are legalistic. Furthermore, it uses the word "criticize" rather than "accuse." Using the word "criticize" along with the personal possessive pronoun "his" to modify the phrase "legalistic teachings" suggests that it is obvious that Gothard's teachings are legalistic. It follows that the only fact in dispute is whether or not Gothard tries to bring those legalistic teachings into all areas of life. And that's just the first sentence. The section continues in much the same way. And regarding NPOV, I do think we have a problem here. Using negative criticisms and accusations exclusively is clearly a violation of NPOV. What are you thoughts, 76.7.143.51? Also, do you think it might be possible for you to give us a name or something which we can use when communicating with you? Thanks!

DickClarkMises, I am currently in ATI. I am a musician, too--a horn player. I played in the orchestra at the Knoxville conference once, and have played at the West Coast conferences for the last several years, excluding this year. I have heard Gothard every year since about 1997 or so at the West Coast ATI conferences. I didn't go this year, though, as I was on a youth orchestra tour in Europe. I've been in ATI for about 17 years--most of my life. JBFrenchhorn 06:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

JB: To me, the passage could be brought into compliance with WP:NPOV by saying that "X organization criticizes Gothard, saying that Y teaching is illustrative of what they view as a legalistic current in Gothard's teachings." I'm not saying that is the best wording, or even correct given teh sources (I didn't look at them just now), but my point is that we can say it in such a way as to avoid using the encyclopedic voice in a POV fashion. DickClarkMises 15:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dick: That sounds pretty good. Should one of us revise it from what we see there now. It probably wouldn't take more than a few minutes. But I'm not really planning on getting the anti-Gothard book that's mentioned. So the changes might not be exactly accurate. Do you think the criticisms of Gothard should be put in a new criticisms section? Then the Medical Advice could be either deleted or renamed and rewritten by someone who is interested in doing so. What do you think?

Jeffrey JBFrenchhorn 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is 76.7.143.51. JBFrenchhorn, as per your suggestion, I have registered a Wikipedia account. From looking over your last comment to me above, it seems that you think I disagree with you about the section violating NPOV. Perhaps what I wrote earlier was confusing: actually, I completely agree that the section violates NPOV and should be reworded. I've gone ahead and reworded it to try to incorporate DickMisesClark's proposed change. What do you think? Is it a little better than before? I believe that ultimately the best thing to do to this section would be to include an actual quote (or quotes) from Venoit's book. I just found out that I will be able to get my hands on his book via a family member of mine. When I get it, I will scan through it to see exactly what Venoit has claimed about Gothard, and I will see if I can find choice quote(s) to include in the section. I'm not sure what you mean by "a new criticisms section." How would it be different from the current 'Controversies and criticism' section? --SirEditALot 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, why are Venoit's claims about Gothard's legalism in areas of "cosmetics, clothing, beards, sleep schedules, homeschooling, and courtship and marriage" even being mentioned in a section about Gothard's Medical advice? --SirEditALot 05:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

SirEditALot: That's a good question. I think the irrelevant material should be removed. Those things have nothing to do with the heading for the section. I'll respond to your other post shortly. By the way, nice username!

Thanks! JBFrenchhorn 08:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


I still think it would be good to separate out the article's Biography section and Teachings section, perhaps followed by a Criticisms and Negative Response section. The cabbage patch info should be in the teachings section, not biography. The Teachings section should set forth what Gothard teaches, fairly straightforwardly, while the Criticisms section can describe what people find objectionable. The Criticisms section is also the place to state that (for whatever reasons) there have been some vitriolic responses to Gothard's ministry (as well as more reasoned criticisms). In other words, in journalistic style it can be truthfully stated that there are people and groups dedicated specifically to refuting and criticizing the Gothard ministry. The article can truthfully report that these organizations exist, without implying that their claims/accusations are true. In addition, the Criticisms section can summarize some of the better-reasoned critiques of what Gothard says/does. I know this is emotional stuff, both for people who admire & respect Gothard as well as those who for various reasons have undertaken a crusade of sorts against him. Let's let the article state the facts (e.g. strong opposition exists), as well as presenting reasoned responses (from secondary sources) pro or con regarding specific teachings. Timotheos 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATI

I just noticed that ATI isn't mentioned anywhere in the Gothard or IBLP article. I didn't know what ATI was until it was mentioned in the discussion above, so I googled it to find out more. ATI should probably be mentioned in one or both articles, since it seems to be significant. Timotheos 13:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - added it to the bio with source. 3 August, 2007

[edit] Sexual misconduct

I've changed the following things about the sexual misconduct section:

  • The section claimed that "much of the criticism of Gothard originated from Don Venoit's book." I've removed this because I am unaware of any source that claims that much of the criticism of Gothard originated with Venoit. The claim seems dubious since Venoit's book itself cites dozens of earlier sources criticizing Gothard.
  • I've added a couple more sources (the LA Times and Christianity Today)
  • I've added quotes from Bill Gothard himself
  • There was little to no differentiation between the stuff that Venoit himself (or through personal sources) was alleging versus the stuff that Venoit was merely reporting from other reliable sources. I've tried to correct some of that.

Your thoughts?

Also, this talk page is getting rather long. Is everyone OK with me archiving all conversations which have not been updated in over 1 year? --SirEditALot 21:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be good to keep some of the old conversations, as they might have relevance to the current discussions. But if any of them are about topics that have been completely resolved, go ahead and archive those ones. It is a rather long scroll to the bottom. But I don't want to move anything that might still have relevance or that hasn't been completely resolved yet. How does that sound? Thanks

Jeffrey JBFrenchhorn 04:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence:

Christianity Today stated that Gothard knew about his brother's actions since January of 1976 but had "indicated no resolve to deal with Steve [his brother]."

After reading a reprint of the Christianity Today article, I cannot find the quoted sentence, nor did I find it anywhere on the Internet outside of this article. Regarding the first part of the sentence, it seems to imply that the "actions" was the fornication mentioned above. (Which is not supported by any verifiable information that I am aware of.)

If this information is deemed appropriate for a BLP encyclopedia entry, please cite verifiable references and reword this information for a more clear representation of the facts.

Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean and useful!

AdamsEdits (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teachings

I made some slight (mostly grammatical) changes to the first two paragraphs of the Teachings section.

The reference at the end of the first paragraph goes to a page at www.billgothard.com that contains some, but not all, of the information in that paragraph. Another page that can be found through a link on that page gives the information on the interpretation and application of scripture. Do we need to add that page in as another reference? I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's exact policies on referencing.

The following sentence appears in the first paragraph of the Teachings section: "However, Gothard's use and application of scripture has met with criticism." Does that sentence belong in this section? Isn't another section of the article devoted to criticism. That statement is not sourced, although I guess it is obvious, as a very large (too large) portion of the article deals with controversies and criticisms. What do you think? Should I remove that sentence?

Thansks! Jeffrey JBFrenchhorn 04:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connection with Matthew Murray (Colorado shootings)

As of this time there is not yet a published reliable source that can be cited to support this connection. CNN and other published sources simply say Murray was homeschooled. I've fact-tagged this part of the article as a citation that is something more substantial than a link to what are allegedly Murray's writings is clearly needed to support continued inclusion of this matter in the article. I'm actively keeping an eye out for any published reports that might cover this detail. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think that section should be removed completely until a reliable source is found. In my opinion, we shouldn't put something there and then look for a reliable source. I will remove the section until such a source is found. When (if) that occurs, the section can be re-added. Also, according to one of the sources listed, the murderer was also involved with:

"Freemasonry-Scottish Rite, York Rite, Shriners Everything Alesiter Crowley and Thelemic Magick, Marilyn Manson, Ceremonial Magick, Hermeticism, the Golden Dawn, Kabbalistic magick and studies. Alice A. Bailey and her books, Lucis Trust, H.P. Blavatsky, Theosophy"

So should he be mentioned in any articles about those topics, too?

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Denver Post published report found, section restored with citation. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7697827 Mike Doughney (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Murray was homeschooled, isolated, and raised in a strict Christian home that followed Gothard's IBLP program. Until he was an adult he did not challenge any of these teachings. He may have dabbled with some of these other things later, and since it seems that Crowley and Manson were some of his greater inspirations after his expulsion from YWAM and his rejection of Christianity, he may deserve a mention there. But his extensive postings reveal that he was very disturbed by the his environment which for most of his years was informed primarily by Bill Gothard on one hand and the Charismatic movement on the other. This is mentioned extensively in reactions to the shooting, as well as in secondary sources. NTK (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the citation. I think this section should be condensed or combined with something else. It is too long and therefore takes up too much of the article. The way it is now, you might think that is one of the main things Bill Gothard is known for. Perhaps the quote should be removed. What do you think?

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with JBFrenchorn. The connection here is so obscure that it hardly deserves to be in a biography. I'll go ahead and remove the quote but I wouldn't be opposed to taking out the section entirely. What do you think? UncleAndyBob (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Of all the many things you could mention about Bill Gothard, what relevance does this single web rant have to his biography? I'll go ahead and remove the paragraph and start thinking of some more pertinent content for this section. Danthur (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image was uploaded by User:IBLPWebEditor, his/her only edit. It has no source information, and he/she did not respond to my inquiry so I've tagged it accordingly.

If anyone has a free replacement, please upload it. NTK (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of salary information

This is a BLP, and I removed the salary (added by an IP here based on this and per instructions at Template:Infobox Person "only use those parameters that describe why the person is notable." TableManners U·T·C 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good.JBFrenchhorn (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Other notable material

Pres Candidate Mike Huckabee and Gothard: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/24/104520/57 Gothard (video) on Mental Illness including schitzophrenia being a lack of personal responsibility: http://axinar.blogspot.com/2008/01/mental-illness-vs-irresponsibility.html Reboot (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of bias is going on here? Let's please do Wikipedia a favor and stick with credible sources. "The Cincinnati Beacon" (by Jason Haap) and "Talk2Action" are political blogs. I don't see that they provide any biographical information for an encyclopedia entry. UncleAndyBob (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good will first and actually look a bit more closely before reacting as such. The talk2action's motivation is not important. They are links of videos of Gothard. A video of him speaking can be considered a reasonably good representation of him if used properly. I have admitted a personal bias in the City of Character article towards government intervention and have made (I think) good attempts to round it out and ask for help which you'll see in lengthy discussions and requests (I only came across gothard in that research and if you notice my main influence is injecting references where appropriate and giving them for others where it may be appropriate). It is also relevant to include references for the criticism section whether I or you agree with them or it matches our political beliefs is not important, only that it get balanced elsewhere. Reboot (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mathew Murray removal

I do not think the removal of the M. Murray info with "irrelevant" was an acceptable edit. It deserves mention as it is heavily on news.google.com and is proabably why this article is expanding. It also requires a current event tag. Moreover there are now quotes and opinions from Gothard about mental illness and youth and rock music. The fact that Murray attributed his acts in part to gothard deserves mention in an online encyclopedia provided it is tagged with current events. Gothard's response to this should also be recorded. Reboot (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.characterfirst.com/aboutus/#beginning
  2. ^ http://www.charactercities.org/aboutus/