Talk:Real Life Ministries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.



Contents

[edit] Real Life Ministries

::The Real Life Ministries Wiki Page was launched at 22:31, 4 June 2006 by BG357. In a limited 30 hours and 37 minutes, 11 revisions were made by BG357.

22:31, 4 June 2006 Bg357 (Talk | contribs) (new page)
05:08, 6 June 2006 Bg357 (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
A spellcheck was the next revision:

Revision as of 08:01, 28 June 2006 (edit) (undo) Mboverload (Talk | contribs) m (Limited spellcheck + minor fixes READ ME using AWB)--Mountainview (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is undeniable that Real Life Ministries is a notable church of growth both in numers as well as in church plants in neighboring communities. Two questions that bear consideration: 1. Is RLM's presence beneficial or a detriment to the Kingdom of God? 2. Should that organizations marketing promoters/staff have unfettered freedom to delete factual and material references that are substantiated by third party news agencies that might detract from their mass-media success? A third question might be argued: If the Real Life Ministries is investigated and found in error, and those errors were previously posted on Wiki, what impact would sustained deletions by BG357 (most certainly upper staff of RLM) have on Wikipedias integrity? 05:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)MountainviewMountainview (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have your "story" a little backwards. 1TruthTracker (talk) is the one who has repeatedly deleted "factual and material references that are substantiated by third party news agencies", I have been reinstating those references. Bg357 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Try as you might BG357, you cannot wipe away the stain of Purpose Driven Error - YOU REMOVED THE CITATION AND REFERENCE! Revision as of 05:00, 12 March 2008 Bg357 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_Life_Ministries&diff=197652627&oldid=197420592--Mountainview (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never denied making the edit you've cited here. I explained exactly what I had done in the edit summary, when I removed your comments.[1] The reference to that Spokesman-Review article already existed in the reference list so I removed your improperly placed inline citation, I also removed your comments due to irrelevancy. One member of the staff mentioning that they read a particular book, doesn't mean that the church was founded solely on the principles found in that book, as you seem to assume. If there had been a quote in the article from a pastor or elder that said "we founded this church based on the principles found in such & such a book", then you would have had a point in posting something about it in the article. As it stands, that particular comment was inconsequential & irrelevant, which is why it was removed. The article remained in the reference list for anyone to read and draw their own conclusions. Bg357 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

White-Wash this all you wish BG357, but you cannot duck this one! (pun intended) Your deletion of my comment and labeling it irrelevant reveals your inside ties to RLM. This is supposed to be a neutral commentary on an encyclopedic entry, not you PR venue! You are not an innocent contributor/editor of Wikipedia. Rather you are the spin master who meticulously selects what will be included and what will be deleted. You wish to have 247% growth exhalted, that you initially got wrong, yet deny the influence of Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Church on the minds and hearts of the founding two couples. As for Jim Putman, there is controversy over whether he considered this pioneer effort even worth his time to pray about it...though he did promise to pray. We are left to speculate on what he did. It wasn't long befpre the Church Development Fund came knockin' at his door!--Mountainview (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've clearly stated why your comment was removed. Your agenda is very clear from your recent posting. Bg357 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes BG357...you did make it very evident: You deemed a link to PDC was irrelevant from your perspective as author of this WP Page in that it detracted from the image you wished to present. THAT IS NOT NEUTRAL - that is controlling and manipulative. This is the exact reason why a controversy exists at all!--76.182.157.18 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)



I have shown over and over that the Spokesman Review (your third party news agency) is not factual. Also the references to the "continued current growth" that you state cannot be used because using only 2004-2006 data, supplied by the church itself, cannot substantiate "current" growth...only past growth. Current growth would only be an assumption as I have said before. Even past growth is questionable, because the numbers were provided by the church which is biased information. It appears you must have some affiliation with the church to continue trying to push only positive assumptions about the church which, again, is not encyclopedic content.--1TruthTracker (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You cannot show that the Spokesman-Review isn't factual. The Spokesman-Review is a reputable, mainstream news organization and it's reporting is acceptable as reliable sourcing for Wikipedia articles, according to WP:VER.
The continued growth claim is based on the most recent verifiable data available. If the upcoming Outreach Magazine growth survey, or any other verifiably sourced growth survey, shows a lack of continued growth, I will be happy to remove the claim myself. If there is to be a change of the continued growth claim, it will have to be backed up by verifiable sourcing, as required by Wikipedia guidelines.Bg357 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I did show that the Spokesman Review isn't factual. Their population number that they used to show the population of Post Falls wasn't even acurate. They didn't verify factual information from a current census [2]. They used the numbers that RLM gave them. Just like they used only the information that RLM gave them about their attendance. They didn't verify the numbers. Same thing with the Outreach Magazine. They used unverifiable numbers that RLM gave them, as shown in their own article [3]. It's RLM posting their numbers by proxy, which is not to the standard of Wikipedia; and not from a factual, verifiable, unbiased source with a NPOV. You cannot base your claim of CURRENT growth on 2 year old information given to the source by RLM themselves. I am not posting on the article that their growth diminished because, I have no current proof of an outside, unbiased source just like you can't post your assumuption that they have continued growth with outdated, biased information posted, by the company themselves, on another forum such as a newspaper. If that were the case, then I could take out an ad in the local newspaper stating diminished growth for the church and with your own reasoning state that as a reliable source to add to the article. You, yourself, removed a reference to a blog on the CDAPress newspaper stating that it wasn't a reliable source. I, however, did show, with your same "reputable source" that it indicated that RLM's attendance was diminishing, currently, for the simple fact that the new building to be built on the new property, seated 100 LESS people than the current property's new building they wanted to build. Wikipedia's rules have to apply to everyone equally. BTW, I do not edit under any other name or IP address but "1TruthTracker", no matter what your discriminiating, assumptions indicate. --1TruthTracker (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point! You cannot show that the Spokesman-Review isn't a reliable source because you're a nobody, just like I'm a nobody. Wikipedia considers mainstream newspapers to be reliable sources and no amount of nitpicking on your part will change that fact.
Secondly, I can't believe you're trying to claim diminishing attendance based on auditorium size. The current auditorium is 1700 seats, the planned auditorium at the new site will be 3500 seats. You're trying to create a discrepancy based on an old master plan?? The only relevant fact is the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium (3500 seats). Bg357 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)



It is ethical to permit skunk BG357 to repeatedly purge additions to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Life_Ministries> that remove references to his community's true nature: an emmitter of questionable scents?... Is there a Wiki policy prohibiting the Object of Community Review from deleting qualified comments and references that detract from Real Life Ministries advertising goals? Current revisions are tantamount to Bill Clinton deleting documented analysis of a blue dress from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton> that links to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.157.18 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel I have somehow thwarted your agenda. I have no interest in Real Life Ministries' "advertising goals", my only concern is upholding the standards of the Wikipedia community. The remainder of your diatribe is veritably incomprehensible, but you seem to be upset about something. If you can summon a cogent thought, perhaps we can discuss it reasonably. Bg357 (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from Prior Tagging

Apparently, this discussion page has become the playground of the "ScrewLoose Society", who have no concept of NPOV. There's nothing wrong with this article. The subject is notable, the assertion of notability is cited. Those who happen to dislike the subject have no grounds to vandalize or delete this article. Bg357 (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my potential errant attempts to address the following issue. I am too new to scripts and codes. Please have patience while I contest the attempt by leadership at Real Life Ministries to delete this page.

Apparently, Real Life Ministries bg357 has resolved that certain information posted at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Life_Ministries > contained inaccurate information. Questions were posted in good faith in hopes of inspiring accountability within the community at large. If this deletion is successfully completed, it will not be the first time Real Life Ministries leadership has unduely influenced reputably neutral media sources. In that event, public records will be displayed on another venue immune from RLM's adverse influence to purge information that accurately describes the ministry operations.

The following statement appears to be the reason for the deletion: User talk:Rlmmedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Unfortunately, some of the edits that have been contributed to the Real Life Ministries article have not been accurate.

Community discussion of the issues is reviewable at: http://www.cdapress.com/blogs/?req=read&blogger_id=101&entry_id=513

Rather than make accurate RLM claims and representations, the entire Wiki link has been slated for speedy deletion as detailed below in bold. This is tragic for those placing trust in religious advertising and promotion.

I would think that public relations and accountability for a church in the top one hundred of the fastest growing churches in America would conduct their affairs in a more credible manner. User talk:Bg357 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [edit]Speedy deletion of Real Life Ministries

A tag has been placed on Real Life Ministries, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit]Speedy Deletion of above article Hi, I saw several edits from a user called Rlmmedia who keeps adding and deleting huge chunks of the article. I saw that they were responsible for the last several edits and thought it was a COI, but I guess that wasn't the case for the actually article. That's why I asked for the articles speedy deletion. It had turned into blatant advertisting Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Afd

I strongly believe that the article about Real life ministries should REMAIN on Wiki. Real life ministries is a historical figure in the Pacific Northwest and will become more of an icon as the truth about the leadership and comes to light. I believe that if the creators of this page (real life ministries) wants to have it quickly deleted AFTER VERIFIABLE TRUTHS have been posted, there is something extremely wrong about that. I find it also very interesting that March 2nd, 2008, Jim Putman preached on TRUTH and now he wants the TRUTH erased and speedily deleted. WHY?

The truth should be allowed to be posted in a NON BIASED way. The history of real life ministries should be kept on wikipedia. It's just as important as Rick Warren's Saddleback church, Jimmy Swaggert, Jimmy Baker, Jim Jones; there SHOULD be a Jim Putman, he's just as historical as those previously mentioned. If Real Life Ministries is removed so should every person and every organization. If it should remain, the whole truth should be posted IF it's VERIFIABLE; like recorded documents from the county records department, historical records from RLM themselves (not just made up stuff from whole cloth), articles printed in local newspapers and such. The items that RLMMEDIA tried to removed was PROVABLE from those sources.

To sum up my position on this nomination for speedy deletion; I WANT Real Life Ministries article here to stay with the whole truth. Thank you for allowing me to put in my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response, my nomination for deletion has to do with the lack of secondary sources establishing the notability of this church. These are required per [[WP:N|notability] policy. Also local orgs require 2ndary sourcing to prove notability, please have a look at these guidelines to see what can be added. WP is not about truth as much as WP:V verifiability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The church is written about in several books including "church is a team sport" by Jim Putman. As for the verifiable sources, there are many that were added to this article and were then erased by the leadership within the church as it's damaging to their character; as it proves that they are corrupt but that's neither here nor there. The church is a historical figure worldwide as they are all over and spreading. I will look at the notability policy as well as the others noted by yourself and I will do what I can to prove it's notability to you and WP. Please give me a little time to do this before you act on the deletion of this page. Thank you for your contribution as it WP shouldn't be filled with junk (but I don't think RLM is junk). Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion will usually run for approximately five days, although it can be relisted to establish consensus if necessary. Information should always be neutral and factual, not be skewed to present the church in a good or bad light. I wasn't involved in the previous incarnations of this article to know what the content was. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
also note that if the book's author is the Jim Putnam who is senior pastor of the church, that is neither an independent nor a reliable source. I'm linking this discussion to the deletion discussion, but you should comment there as well as it's created as location for centralised discussion. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking over WP policies and was wondering what policy are you sighting cause to delete this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Reasons for deletion: WP:ORG for local organizations and WP:RS for independent reliable sources TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What I removed....

1) The link in the first paragraph attesting to the church's growth doesn't work -- it's a dead link and the fact needs to be cited so I added the {{fact}} tag. 2) The mission statement is not even remotely encyclopedic as a copy paste statement. The mission statement can be explained in a sentence or linked to on the Ministries' site but it's not encyclopedic. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstate AfD message

Obviously the church leadership feels that they can do whatever they want and ignore posted "warnings" not to delete certain content on this article. I found that I cannot "undo" their removal of the "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" warning. I guess the church leadership feels that they can settle this matter themselves without anyone elses approval. If they were not trying to hide the truth from their congregation, and anyone else, then why avoid the discussion and try to remove all of the proven facts on the Wiki article. They even put back on the old "Mission statement", from their old website (that no longer exists -- www.rlmin.org) that you removed, stating that it is from their current website, when in fact it can be proven, by going to their website, that the same thing is not even on there. It is different. And if you go to the Secretary of the State of Idaho's website; and look at their "Articles of Incorporation", they have indeed been recorded with the State as a "Church of Christ" church. Isn't a recorded document enough "proof" to reflect in their first paragraph, cited as such, the truth? Please do not let this church leadership "bully" or intimidate another organization, such as yourself, to hide the truth. Thank you. --1TruthTracker (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church Development Fund

I removed a section several lines long describing the Church Development Fund, which would be fine in an article about the CDF but isn't here. If we need to describe the beliefs of RLM we should do it directly, and not by describing their funding organization. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other groups

I find that there are other groups called Real Life Ministries. Do we know if they are related, or too small to be mentioned, or should we disambiguate? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

..for what they are worth...

DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: References
They are all the same church. Real Life Ministries took over the former "Crossroads Christian Church" in Boise, in April '07; and changed their name to Real Life Ministries-Boise. Just another church plant (take over) by RLM. The book on amazon.com is written by Jim Putman the senior pastor/elder at Real Life Ministries, Post Falls, Idaho. The 3rd article was just stating that Real Life Ministries did the funeral for a local family here in Idaho.

I feel that the reference about the Church Development Fund only giving money to churches of a particular faith is relevant to describe RLM, since they don't want to show it anywhere else. Can I reference the church as being a church by that faith and link it to the article about CDF, instead of listing it as just a non-denominational church? Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that clarifies it a lot. Many of us are not familiar with the church and that's why this knowledge helps. I think the Pastor's book could be mentioned in a line about him, but it should not be used as a source because it's not independent. It appears to be a notable book, however.

I don't know why the references are being locked to that particular website. Both references to the Church Development Fund don't go to anything. Does anyone know why? Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There were two points I was making up there. Yes, all the references I gave above are for the Post Falls RLM. Some of the other organizations I found are here. I'm assuming they are not all the same ministry...

DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture of the lock next to the "church development fund loan criteria" doesn't prevent it from being linked directly to their website on that page. However, I cannot find out why #4 either won't go to the website or it shows the link. Maybe someone else can fix it. Thanks.--1TruthTracker (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. For whatever reason, the link you (guessing it was you) used didn't work so I linked to the general overview. That seemed to back up the claim and from there the user can navigate to what they need. I think that works? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

I placed a fact on this article that BG357 removed that can be backed up with the reference to the church development fund loan criteria. I placed it back on because Real Life Ministries has several multi-million dollar loans with this company that only will loan money to churches who "exemplify the characteristics of congregations and ministries that came to be identified with what historians have called the Restoration Movement, led in the early 1800s by Barton W. Stone and Thomas and Alexander Campbell". Therefore, Real Life Ministries HAS to possess these characteristics in order to receive monies from the CDF, no exceptions. It is FACT. BG357 also changed the exact quote from the CDF website that I posted directly from CDF's website regarding the building of RLM in 1999 and their weekly attendance....see reference. If RLM has a difference of opinion, they need to discuss that with CDF. We can only go by what facts the CDF puts on their website regarding the loans that they give churches. Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement you've added regarding CDF's loan criteria is irrelevant to this article. It might be relevant to describe CDF's activities & loan criteria in an article about CDF but this article is not about CDF. You've removed pertinent information describing the type of church and replaced it with CDF jargon that has no relevance to this article. Bg357 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right it's not about the CDF, however, it is still FACT. To use just the word Evangelical or non-denominational is too broad a view to describe anyone specific in an encyclopedic way. Unless BG357 can prove that RLM doesn't possess these characteristics then the description, described and agreed to by leadership at RLM in order to obtain loans from CDF, should stay and is completely relevant to describe their OWN characteristics from a NPOV.--1TruthTracker (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Citations

Is there something that anyone can do about various people deleting verifiable and substantiated citations and references to the Real Life Ministries article?--1TruthTracker (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it the IP? I'm still trying to work my way through. If it's getting vandalized, it could be semi-protected but I haven't yet made heads or tails of it. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MSN groups is just a host to hold photos of the actual documents. The photos of RLM's finacial records are real, unaltered and can be easily verified by RLMs staff (If they deny the authenticity I would like to know here). The photos of the Copies of the Kootenai county records are also real and unaltered). Every photo there is authentic. Again, MSN groups is just a host to hold photos of actual documents so they can be verified. If MSN isn't a reliable verifiable place, can you give us a place or recommend a reliable place to do such? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of RLMs staffers (BG357) are asking for citations and claiming some facts are unsubstantiated. BG357 knows that it's a bogus claim that they are unsubstantiated. These are facts and are easily substantiated by photos of the actual Couer d Alene Press articles hung in the lobby of RLM's main building (west wall). Is there a host for photos that can be reliable enough for substantiated citations? How about photo's of paid copies of the Kootenai County records? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an RLM staffer, I am not affiliated in any way with RLM staff, and never have been. I originally put this article together based on a series of newspaper stories in 2006. I hadn't reviewed the article for some time and recently discovered that it had once again been ravaged by vandalism and was being considered for deletion. I am doing what I can to fix problems with the article and get it properly sourced. I don't intend to stand by and let the article be deleted because of unverifiable sourcing and poorly considered edits. Bg357 (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Replying to BG357, you are a horrible liar. YOU are the ONE who tried to speedily deleted this article when the facts where coming out. YOU are also the one who NEVER upheld ANY standards (as the history shows--No NPOV, no citations, no verifibility, not one standard you tried to hold everyone else to-again like an RLM staffer, do as I say not as I do) of WIKI UNTIL it was the only way you could try to hide the TRUTH about the REAL RLM from coming out. YOU can claim all you want that you're not an RLM Staffer but that's too bad no-one with an iq greater than 45 will fall for it. IF you're going to lie, you should try to do it where there isn't such a detailed recorded history of YOU DOINGS. IF you're going to lie through your teeth (like an RLM Staffer) maybe you should claim you invented the internet, paperclip or the post-i-note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, let me suggest you relax just a bit... put on some soothing music... maybe up your meds a little... Bg357 (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Response to both. The issue with MSN groups and other similar sites is that there's no editorial oversight to ensure that the photos/documents are authentic and haven't been doctored with . (This is a general statement, not alleging that anyone involved here or within any particular article would falsify docs). Is the information not available via the county clerk's office or other reliable source? Otherwise I'm not really sure how this can be resolved with a difference of opinion and WP:COI issues. I know the only thing I tagged for source has been tahen care of by Truth Tracker (I think, lost track of who sourced it). TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The recorded documents at the county (eg the $771,400 loan, the conditional use permit and such) are available at the county but not online. The photos of the presses articles are in the lobby of Real life ministries but since they are the ones making the assertion of unsubstantiation claims, I doubt they would make a reliable source either. The press has the articles archived but they charge to see such documents. Would dates and names of articles in the local press be a reliable enough citation? I understand that photos can be altered but is there any sight that does allow such or to send documents to them to have them posted as "reliable" or does sighting the source (eg. Kootenai county records dept, document number) go enough? Obviously, if anyone was slandering or falsifying records, Real life could sue for libel or deflamation but they can't because everything posted is Real and legit. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe county record numbers and print citations are sufficient but I'd suggest checking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as they deal with issues such as this more regularly. While I don't believe Bg357's methods of doing so are the most beneficial s/he does raise a valid point about reliable sources and verifiability. Sadly I think this article is always going to be a battle ground due to an apparent difference in opinion in how the church should be represented. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about citing the Coeur d Alene presses articles date and title of article? Please note The Press is a member of the Associated press. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think those are fine. That's what I meant when I said 'print citations' since I assume you're referring to an article from the paper. I think it's OK with Title. Publication. Date. Page (if possible). TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI Discussion

Hello, Real Life Ministries. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ANI regarding The issues regarding reliable sources for this article and the apparent COI of some parties. I'm concerned for the stability of the article, which has proven to be a vandalism magnet for quite some time, although there are a lot of good faith edits occurring as well.. The discussion can be found under the topic topic. --TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought this article to the attention of ANI in a hope we can get some stability. Direct link to the discussion... TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable Continued Growth

1TruthTracker (talk) removed a long-standing claim that there has been continued growth in this congregation, saying that it was unsubstantiated. Edit History

I reinstated the phrase and added three citations to independently verify the claim. Edit History

The following citations are more than enough to independently verify continued growth:

1TruthTracker (talk) has again removed the claim and deleted the citations. Edit History

Travellingcari (talk) has recommended I pursue Wikipedia:Third opinion if this cannot be resolved here. Bg357 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just tighterened up the spacing, BG and replying here for the sake of the conversation in one place. I think Third Opinion is good idea because all of you seem to be connected with the church in some fashion. I'm not saying anyone is directly involved (i.e. employed) or has a conflict of interest, however someone mentioned above knowing that there were certain articles hanging on a church wall, etc. and I think it's hard to neutrally assess something you're (general you, not either BG or Truth) so close to, does that make sense? It also helps to avoid three revert as I do't want to see either of you blocked. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 11:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My Response

Regarding these last references that I removed, they are not current. The reports were made off of information from the year before (ie: 2007 was for info received for 2006 attendence); and they were given to them by Real Life Ministries themselves. How do you know that the attendence for 2007 and the first 3 months of 2008 went up? It could have gone down. If you look at the last 5 years of CDA Press and Spokesman Review articles, reports from various magazine articles, claims from the church's own website, CDF's articles, bulletins from the church, and Jim's book, none of the numbers match up and they are all different to a large degree. At first the church claimed to have grown to 1,600 their first year. It was actually approx. 400 (as seen on the CDF website). They claimed on their website that they averaged 8,000 in attendance with 12,000 on Easter of '07. Now they've changed that down to 7,000. They have claimed to have 8,000 in attendance in a city of 18,000 people (Post Falls). Post Falls actually has a population of 33,009 ('07 census). And people attend RLM from more than just the town of Post Falls. People from Coeur d'Alene, Spirit Lake, Athol, Hayden, Hayden Lake, Dalton Gardens, Rathdrum, Twin Lakes, Harrison, Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley and Spokane attend RLM. All of the cities added together are more than 300,000! RLM also, on their website, claims to have the 124 acres paid for in full. According to the county records that claim is not substantiated in the least. There are many more examples, but I think this shows the consistantly inflated claims of RLM. I think that the article is still lacking alot of information from a NPOV and in a true substantiated form. However, in it's simplist current condition it is fine for now. I don't think that the preposition "With their congregation continuing to grow", detracts from the fact that they bought another piece of property and obtaining yet another mortgage. I also don't think that I am being unreasonable with my arguments. I would like to know honestly how BG357 is associated with the church; and what his/her reasoning is for trying to have this article "speedily deleted", and continuing to remove encyclopedic content from this article? I live in the area of the church and read the newspapers here everyday. I have noticed how big and often-talked-about this subject is here. That's how I notice all of the inconsistant claims of the church. I do have a NPOV concerning this article and want to see this article with true content. Not written with biased claims in one direction or the other. Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your personal issues & agenda, in regards to the subject of this article, are irrelevant to this discussion. The issue here is your removal of verifiably sourced material. Your "response" is nothing but conjecture, no sources, no verifiability, no nothing. You can't remove verifiably sourced content based on nothing more than conjecture. The claim of continued growth is based on several years of verifiable data, up to and including the latest report. When the 2008 report comes out, there will be verifiable data that either supports the current position or it won't, until then, the latest verifiable report stands. In other words, until there is verifiable information that disputes the current trend, the trend stands. You can't just suppose that it might have gone down, based on nothing. If you have some verifiable source that demonstrates a lack of growth, then by all means, please cite it.
We're free to make all sorts of suppositions in our personal lives, but on Wikipedia, we don't have that luxury. As it says in WP:VER, if I may quote, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That's a tough standard to live with sometimes, but that is our charge as editors. Many things may actually be "True" but cannot be verifiably sourced to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. That's just the way it is, and trust me, it cuts both ways. Bg357 (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Response I have no personal issues or agenda regarding this article. Your responses contain no valid arguments. You want your way or no way (just like when you tried to speedily delete this article). The records (even yours) show that numbers and paragraphs have been changed constantly with no verifiability. There is even no citation to verify the 7,000 attending nor the 12,000 that supposedly attended last Easter. The last report that you are using for evidence was for 2006 attendence. The percentage of growth fluctuated the 4 years before; so how can you verify that the attendence grew for 2007 and the beginning of 2008? You are SPECULATING as to their growth, which is not Wikipedia content WP:NOR. I had changed the wording in the article to reflect as such, however, since speculation is not allowed on Wikipedia, I will remove the speculative phrase entirely. Trends can be broken. I can't speculate that the attendence went down, just like YOU can't speculate that the numbers went up. Let me quote Wikipedia's WP:NOR, "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1TruthTracker (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(1)My response doesn't depend on arguments and speculation, I have verifiable sourcing citations, that's what Wikipedia is all about. It's not about "my" way, it's about the "right" way. The right way involves verifiable sourcing citations, not conjecture and angry accusations. Once again, let me encourage you to review WP:VER, which is the applicable guideline here. WP:NOR refers to No Original Research, which could be applicable in that you cannot cite your own ideas about the verifiable growth statistics, or speculate that growth has suddenly stopped, despite verifiable published sources.
(2)Repeating a false statement (that I tried to have this article deleted) over & over doesn't make it true. A cursory review of the history log will show that the tag to delete this article first appeared on March 5th, I had not edited this article for over 7 months, at that time. I first discovered that the article had been tagged for deletion on March 10th, which was the date of my first edit since Aug of 2007. It's about time for you to stop with the ad hominem attacks.
(3)Your statement about a lack of citation for the current attendance is completely false. The reference list refers to a Spokesman Review article that verifies that claim. It's right there in black & white! As it says in WP:VER, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources".
(4)I've never said anything to suggest that a trend can't be broken, the key here is that there must be verifiable sourcing to show that the trend has been broken. You have not offered anything verifiable to document a lack of continued growth. You just keep repeating your assumptions that the latest available data is not applicable. And you continue to remove verifiable citations & content with NOTHING to back up your edits. Bg357 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

Your reference, the Spokesman Review, is not exactly reliable and truthful. You, yourself, removed a statement, on March 12th, that another editor had quoted from the same article "So they contacted Bible colleges and church planting organizations. They also read Rick Warren’s “Purpose-Driven Church". The article also states "When it comes to shepherding a church whose membership equals nearly a third of the population of Post Falls.."; which is completely false. And the information that the newspaper received on their attendance was from Jim Putman. Even the report's information was given to them by the church. You keep saying the reports' data are recent or the latest available. Stating "current and continued growth" has to be verified with current data,...not 2006 data. In the reference to Jim Putman being a speaker at the conferences, Jim Putman himself states "..Real Life Ministries has grown from just five founding members to over 6,000 regular attenders,...". Since the specific number of attendees cannot be verified, it should be removed. And as I've said before, removing the preposition doesn't take away from the meaning of the sentence. And noting that the new building would seat a 100 people less than the proposed building on their current site, would mean that their numbers are decreasing, not increasing, which would indicate the lack of continued growth. You cannot show any verifiable, reliable, neutral, third- party, CURRENT information (sourcing) to document that there is continued, current growth and the burden of proof, according to Wikipedia, is on YOU. I am not using my own assumptions, however, you are. I have given plenty of verifiable reasons why your citations and references are not applicable and use your own references to back up my edits, yet you ignore them. Again the burden of proof is not on me to show that the trend has been broken; but on you to show that it is still continuing to this day. You haven't done that. So, please stop adding them, because it IS speculation.--1TruthTracker (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though my responses on the talk page are being avoided; and there is continuing edits to add assumptions and speculatve info to the article. Why can't this be discussed rationally? Again, RLM is biased and cannot be used as verifiable information. The church, who I've proved has given false numbers before, was the one to give Outreach magazine the attendance numbers as quoted in this statement from the magazine themselves--"More than 20,000 Protestant churches were contacted for the Outreach 100 lists, which includes churches that opted to participate in the study and data that each church provided. The lists are published in Outreach magazine's annual Outreach 100 Special Issue." http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071003/29559_2_Top_100_Largest%2C_Fastest-Growing_Churches.htm. --1TruthTracker (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not proven anything. You have made accusations. Unverifiable accusations are not worthy reasons to delete verifiable sourcing citations and related content. Just because you think the Spokesman Review article is inaccurate, does not change the fact that it IS a verifiable source. You have produced NO verifiable sourcing that directly disputes the accuracy of this source. Random citations from the last several years that indicate differing attendance levels are irrelevant. A congregation that started less than 10 years ago, and has since grown to over 7000, would naturally have many different attendance levels between then and now. Just citing an old attendance number has no bearing on the accuracy of current citations.
I have tried to discuss this issue rationally! You continue to make baseless accusations and delete verifiable citations from this article.Bg357 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I DID produce verifiable sourcing that directly disputes the accuracy of these sources. You ignored it. Here is one: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071003/29559_2_Top_100_Largest%2C_Fastest-Growing_Churches.htm ; and here is the other: http://www.bestplaces.net/zip-code/Post_Falls-Idaho-83854.aspx RLM supplied the data to both sources. --1TruthTracker (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these links mention anything about Real Life Ministries. What "data" do you think RLM provided to these "sources"? Data that isn't even mentioned at the links you've provided.
Your so-called sources show nothing.Bg357 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

After studying the dispute, it seemed a bit more than WP:3O might address effectively on its own, so I listed it on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Real Life Ministries. — Athaenara ✉ 06:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)