Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] History Coming Soon!
I have some new things to share. There will be a history written and information for this page about NTCC coming shortly from the two official sources, Pastor R.W. Davis and Rev. M.C. Kekel. I will let you know when it becomes available and will get it on here. Thanks.Stedfast 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- You guys aren't getting the point, at all! And I haven't had time to hash this out with you. An encyclopedia entry isn't to be written by Davis or Kekel...an encyclopedia is written by a third party! It at least has to sound like it's come from someone with no vested interest. I'm going to revert all your blanking of sections of the article as soon as I have a chance. Hanako 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hanako, I think you need to read up on some of the Wikipedia policies that supersede the old ones. Here are some quotes:
"Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."
"If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
"Links to Avoid - according to Wikipedia Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority are to be avoided."
I have taken out the parts that are NOT verifiable and do not come from any reliable sources. Rev Kekel has stated he will be working on this page and have it accurate and correct, he is the President of this church/organization and the reliable source we need. Stedfast 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Also to add: "Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles and policies must follow Neutral point of view and Attributability." Please see the page on Attribution before you start reverting. You must be willing to work this out before you add back in information that is not verifiable and rumor. You must be willing to work together or I will have to request more help, mediation. The things I deleted are not "attributable to a reliable source."Stedfast 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are we reading the same pages about Attributability? You guys are contridicting yourselves. Kekel and Davis are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if they were there. So were other people, and their word doesn't count toward the article either. To quote Stedfast, who was quoting Wikipedia, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." Publishing your experiences doesn't make up an article here. Please read the section about self-publication; WP:SELFPUB. The only way I'm going to agree to a largely self-published article is if there is a small "Controversy" section merely mentioning that there is controversy surrounding the church, with a link to Factnet as such. Otherwise I'm going to nominate the article for deletion, and see what happens. Because you guys are right, this article has no reliable sources. Hanako 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hanako that "no reliable sources" is not quite correct. To save everything angst over what to put in the article, simply go line by line and if there is a source keep that line. If not, remove it. To remove the article would be a tradegy for Wikipedia, the place you can look up anything. Fact: NTCC exists. Fact: they have officers and churchs and etc. The barebone, confirmed facts is something no one can deny, but deletion of the entire article I feel would deny it all. —the preceding comment is by 71.231.91.178 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC): Please sign your posts!.
-
- This is an encyclopedia, NOT a yellow pages directory. Please read WP:NOT#DIR and all of WP:NOT. In order for a subject to be included in an encyclopedia, it needs to be notable. Please read WP:NOTABLE The fact is, the only thing that makes NTCC notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, is that there's a huge debate between members, former members, and outsiders, as to whether or not they are a cult. If you take that out of the equation they are not notable. Hanako 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RFC response Comment
The article is about a denomination, not a local congregation. We want to have articles on all denominations. However, in the absence of sources meeting Wikipedia's standards, it may be necessary to limit them to a stub. An example stub would be Puyi Church, where I haven't found online any sources to have significant encyclopedic content (see the talk page and the two deletion discussions). So there almost definitely should be an article for the denomination.
The title of our article should be the most common name for the denomination. It seems doubtful that this is the title; few denominations are normally known by their full legal name. This should be discussed, but the goal is to put the article at the most common name, with any necessary disambiguation.
Images of newspaper articles uploaded to Wikipedia are not reliable sources, due to the risk of image manipulation. The original articles are reliable citable sources, provided full publication details are known. The article should be be written from sources that meet Wikipedia's standards and using them in ways that meet Wikipedia's standards. Those standards are set forth at Wikipedia:Attribution. Examples and illustrations are at Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ. If the controversy alluded to in the RFC request were more clearly set forth here, I might be able to offer more substantive comment upon it. GRBerry 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the points you made. I do agree with reducing the article to a stub. The name of the church is "New Testament Christian Church", as should the article be named. How is that normally done? Merge pages? Hanako 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There are spelling and punctuation errors in this article, even as it stands in its present stub form. However, it seems to be locked and I am unable to fix them.
[edit] Pulled from article
I pulled an IP section added today that was entitled "From a former member". The text is quoted below. The section itself is problematic; the issues if reliably sourced may merit some degree of inclusion, but on the whole are unbalanced. Do any of the broad scope anti-cult sources say anything? GRBerry 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
| “ | Seen as a cult, it coerces members to pay tithes and to attend bible school. This in turn persuades them to move their family to Graham, Washington. Where they are verbally abused and sometimes even physically abused.
If you attend a service, you will notice that all of the members are dressed in pants/slacks with a shirt and tie. All raise hands to God and most speak in tongue. Has servicemen homes near most Marine Corps and Army Installations. From which they charge rent to single servicemen that are actively involved in their church. No televisions are allowed by this society and are frowned upon. The only music you hear from the radio will be that of Country Gospel Music from a CD. Any other music form is also frowned upon. |
” |
From FairPlay: There are many positive articles about this group. Just because someone ate a lemon is it fair to ONLY site their view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.138.182 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
