Talk:Sovereign Grace Ministries/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

SGM Uncensored

The website SGM uncensored is the primary source of blogopshere criticism regarding SGM. As such, it deserves to be refered to, though not endorsed. Mentioning it does not legimise it: but acknowledges it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reporting valid criticism is fine, but cite reliable sources. Citing one anonymous gossip weblog is not sufficient, it's more tantamount to slander, certainly rumor and personal opinion. Please read the Wiki policy on verifiability, reliable sources, and questionable sources. Here's a snippet:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

Again, I encourage any and all critical information to be supplied, as long as it is factual based upon reliable sources. Thanks Timothy6 20 (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, from what I can plainly see on this article, it is all either in need of verification, or deletion, there are no citations at all. Most of this article appears to be original research. And just for the record, I'm not going to take sides on this. I'm merely stating what I see. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And for the record, I'm Adventist. Also, please sign your posts. SineBot really does have enough work on its hands already, don't you think? :) Steve Crossin (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what I mean - it's like a press release from SGM itself; not a research article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Episcopalian. User:Look2008 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw, it's exactly the same with CJ Mahaney article, which is scheduled for deletion. User:Look2008 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm tagging this article, with the tags I think necessary. Discuss disputes about them here. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe we now have a fully-referenced article. (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the tags can now be removed. The article is fully sources with primary and secondary sources freely viewable on the internet or purchasable through Amazon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire criticism section and the two blog external links. For the record, I am not and have never been associated with SGM. Wikipedia policy is clear on the use of blogs in this way, that it is not acceptable. So I appreciate the discussion here, but until a reliable source includes those criticisms then they will have to be removed. As an experienced editor, I just can't allow it to stay, it's a clear violation of WP:RS . Gatorgalen (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that you might think you are "neutral" since you have never been associated with SGM but aren't you involved in another church (Great Commission) that has also seen its share of questions online quite similar to the SG Uncensored post? With this being case, are you sure you can be so neutral? Perhaps you are sticking up for another group similar to the one you have defended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.107.119.50 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi "Look2008", in regards your edit that suggests that SGM has expunged Larry Tomzack from their history, are you aware of any evidence of this? I don't think that they have any sort of official written church history. Therefore, I'm not sure that it's completely fair to suggest that they are trying to "cover up" his role. What are your thoughts? Timothy6 20 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If SG Uncensored is a blog (and it clearly is, and a potentially libelous one at that), why does the link continue to be added?

Together for the Gospel

Together for the gospel is not "put on" by SGM. CJ only attends as one of four hosts.

This is not entirely accurate. Together for the Gospel event registration has been administered by Sovereign Grace Ministries since the conferences' conception. Meanwhile, t4g.org and togetherforthegospel.org are registered to Capitol Hill Baptist Church, where Mark Dever (another of the four hosts) pastors. If "T4G is put on by SGM" is an overstatement, "CJ only attends" is a greater understatement. -- travisseitler (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the above statement. I should have been more clear. SMG doesn't put on T4G but CJ also does much more than attend. He is one of the four main speakers and hosts of the conference. And SMG does send out volunteers for the conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.136.135 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Using Blogs as Sources

some information for you to read can be found here: Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

“ Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[1]
  1. ^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
 ”
So far on this page I don't see a very thorough discussion of the policy issues in linking to the Sovereign Grace Uncensored blog. The WP:BLP policy cautions us about linking to defamatory material, and I don't know yet if the blog is troublesome in that area. Since I'm new to this page, and not a member of any related church, my main issue is learning if the blog link is being analyzed properly. Policy seems to lean against it, as noted by the poster above. If there are criticisms by former church members that have been published in reliable sources we can certainly use those. If there are published sources that have commented on the blog in question, we can refer to those publications. Is it publicly revealed who has created the blog? Does it have anything we could point to as an editorial track record? Does it have a reputation for reliability as regards facts? It is a concern that the current text of the article makes no reference to the blog. If the blog is not described in any reliable sources, it will probably have to remain unmentioned here. Some of the people who comment in the blog might be quoted elsewhere, and we might be able to use those quotes. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one can credibly say that the SG Uncensored blog is not "defamatory" -- it most certainly is, and from what I've examined is likely libelous. It is not a credible source, but rather a place for a few disgruntled former members, many of whom were under discipline in their churches, to air their grievances in public. Their grievances have never been substantiated, and are not published in any legitimate media. Solideogloria80 10:27, 10 March 2008
Solideogloria80, could you please substantiate this claim? From medialaw.org: The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim (emphasis added). -- travisseitler (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Travisseitler, upon reading the blog do you think it's mere hearsay and slander or personal stories told under assumed names? Look2008 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Look2008, Travisseitler is one of the contributors to the blog, so I'm pretty sure he's fine with it. Timothy6 20 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe the accounts shared on that site are personal stories told under assumed names. (Now that you mention it, I suppose I am one of the only people on that blog who's writing under his real name.) Whether SGM is considered a cultic group or not, I (and others who have left) have been made to feel a certain pressure to remain silent regarding matters which may shed a poor light on the organization. Friendships--and even familial relationships--can be threatened if a former member publicly makes a negative statement regarding leadership within the group (either pastors or members of the Leadership Team). Because of this, many feel they would risk alienation if they identified themselves. (I suppose I seem reckless by comparison; on my own blog I had already shared a summary of my own break from a Sovereign Grace church. You can read the comments on that post to get a glimpse of the typical responses from other members, and I've received e-mails from yet more members of that church who agree with me to varying extents, but choose to remain silent because they fear the reprisal and/or loss of friendship which may result.) Additionally, I have witnessed Sovereign Grace pastors attempt to gloss over such negative accounts as have been given on this blog--or dismiss them entirely--rather than deal with them openly and honestly. All things considered, "the pieces seem to fit" is my general impression of the stories recounted on the blog. Of course, I certainly see how a greater degree of transparency (re: commenters' identities) would lend greater credence to the blog. -- travisseitler (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)