Talk:International Churches of Christ

USC "apology"

JamieBrown2011, you added a paragraph claiming that "the University of Southern California's Dean of Religious life offered an apology saying they had repeated outdated and misleading information about the Los Angeles ICOC church". However, the source establishes no such thing. The source is a letter published in the Daily Trojan, co-authored by the Dean of Religious Life, in which they criticise the newspaper, writing that an article it published "repeats outdated and misleading information about the Los Angeles Church of Christ". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The source makes these comments:

- the Daily Trojan repeats outdated and misleading information about the Los Angeles Church of Christ

- The article unfairly and incorrectly identified the Los Angeles Church of Christ as a problem group when in fact they have been a very positive influence in the lives of USC students in recent years.

- Since 2001, the Los Angeles Church of Christ has been a recognized student religious organization at USC and has conducted itself entirely within the bounds of USC’s Ethical Framework for Religious Life.

- John and Arlene Markowski have served since 2003 as Religious Directors (professional religious leaders assigned to USC), and have shown responsible, sensitive and caring leadership in their work with students. Furthermore, they have been exemplary colleagues in the broader context of religious life on campus.

- A fact-checking call to the Office of Religious Life would have alerted your reporter to the fact that her story was incorrect and would also have avoided the distress that has been caused to the leaders and members of this particular Christian group in consequence of the article.

This is all from the Dean of religious Life of USC, what would you like the wording to say? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The most it could be used to support is that the Dean of Religious Life criticised the Daily Trojan for "repeat[ing] outdated and misleading information about the Los Angeles Church of Christ". Suggesting that the Dean of Religious Life was apologising for their own actions is bordering on libelous, I would have thought. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I think you are trying to greatly minimise what is being stated in the article. Let's try again. Happy to drop the word "apology" and replace it with "unfairly and incorrectly" or "avoided the distress caused" something like that. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what the source is. It's a letter making accusations against the newspaper regarding their coverage of the ICOC. It's in no way an apology, because the people writing it are making those accusations, not the subject of them. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

All that aside, even if the source did say what they wanted it's a fucking student newspaper. While student newspapers can be reliable sources, not many of them are. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It would perhaps be justified to use this source if we were also using the article that the letter is a response to, but we're not. A letter to a newspaper is also very much a primary source, albeit we might give it a bit more weight given the authors were officials of the university. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Ps, the letter to the editor also states that it is about "Los Angeles Church of Christ" not the ICOC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The original article does refer to it as a branch of the ICOC though. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also reverted this attempted addition. The claim that the church "has conducted itself entirely within the bounds of USC's Ethical Framework for Religious Life" would need in-text attribution (also, why "entirely within", not just "within"?) and it's not clear from the letter that the authors speak on behalf of the USC as a whole in the way the wording of the addition suggested. Furthermore, the source is from 2007, so we shouldn't be using it to make claims in the present perfect tense. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is pretty clear it comes from the Dean of Religious life of USC. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't know if they're expressing an official position or their own personal view. I note that you've restored the material without addressing my other concerns either. I suggest that you self-revert and try to reach consensus here before adding this material. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm a bit lost on this USC article inclusion. There is so much adding and reverting. What is the issue with its inclusion? I attempted to make a middle ground statement from it. What is the issue with including information from that newspaper? XZealous (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@XZealous, Jamie has been attempting to include in material based on what is esstentially a letter to the editor sent to a student newspaper by a university dean, which given the receipient appears to be nothing more than the personal opinion of the dean and not an official statement of the university. Jamie has tried to change up how he is covering the source a few times but it doesn't make the source any better or anymore relevant to the rest of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 04:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There are many opinions from deans and others expressed in the "University Campuses" section. How is this one different? XZealous (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that a letter to the editor sent to student university newspaper would generally be considered reliable? TarnishedPath^talk 05:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the opinions of deans and others are also used, I don't have an issue including the opinions of the Dean and Senior Associate Dean of Religious Life on USC. XZealous (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Lets look at the material Jamie attempted to include last at Special:Diff/1259871025 (since it is the last iteration of them trying to weave the dean's letter into the article):

"Since 2001, the Los Angeles Church of Christ has been a recognized student religious organization at USC and has conducted itself entirely within the bounds of USC’s Ethical Framework for Religious Life<. USC noted that John and Arlene Markowski, the ICOC leaders of the USC campus group, have shown "responsible, sensitive and caring leadership in their work with students." (empahsis mine)

This material that Jamie attempted to add is making a claim on behalf of USC, even if we do allow the dean's letter for evidence of their own opinion, it does not support statements made on behalf of the university itself. TarnishedPath^talk 06:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Im happy to make the attribution to the specific deans. I see this is also done for the Boston Univserity Dean. Are you ok with that change? XZealous (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, happy to have it attributed to the Dean of Religious Life at USC. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The issues are noted in my comment of 18:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) above. These could be fixed through the addition of attribution and dates, but the bigger issue is that none of this really makes sense unless contextualised through addition of coverage of the original article that the letter is a response to. We could add something summarising what the article said, but in my view a student newspaper publishing something nasty about a religious organisation isn't really notable unless it attracted secondary coverage (and I don't think a letter published in the same newspaper really counts as that). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

How about "Since 2001, the Los Angeles Church of Christ has been a recognized student religious organization at USC. According to the Dean of Religious life (fill in name), they have conducted themselves entirely within the bounds of USC’s Ethical Framework for Religious Life. The Dean also noted that John and Arlene Markowski, the ICOC leaders of the USC campus group, have shown "responsible, sensitive and caring leadership in their work with students." XZealous (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That still leaves out the context of why this statement was being made (i.e. the claims in the original article), and the source can only support the LA church being recognised up until it was published, which was in 2007. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the previous article is needed for context. It seems to me that the proposed above flows well on its own. What context do you see would be helpful to add? XZealous (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The relevant context is the criticisms of the church made by the article that the letter was a response to. It makes no sense to include the defence of the church offered in the letter without explaining what the letter was attempting to refute. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The material being in the article doesn't make sense unless context is provided and as stated by Larry it doesn't make sense to include material about criticisms from a student newspaper. TarnishedPath^talk 00:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This version doesn't really work either. We still don't have secondary coverage and the paragraph starts by discussing a lecture, but then switches to "She went further to explain the original article in the USC Newspaper", when the original article hasn't been mentioned until that point. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is the text using both the original article and the follow on one published a week later:

- In 2007, the University of Southern California (USC) Sociology department presented a lecture entitled “Sects in the City: Protecting Your Children from Cults” and identified the Los Angeles Church of Christ (LACC) as a potential problem group. One week later the Dean of Religious life at USC, Susan Laemmle said "Since 2001, the Los Angeles Church of Christ has been a recognized student religious organization at USC and has conducted itself entirely within the bounds of USC’s Ethical Framework for Religious Life. John and Arlene Markowski have served since 2003 as Religious Directors (professional religious leaders assigned to USC), and have shown responsible, sensitive and caring leadership in their work with students. Furthermore, they have been exemplary colleagues in the broader context of religious life on campus." She went further to explain the original article in the USC Newspaper had "unfairly and incorrectly identified the Los Angeles Church of Christ as a problem group when in fact they have been a very positive influence in the lives of USC students in recent years."

- What text would you like to add to clarify? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it the lecture or the newspaper article that characterised the church as a "problem group"? Because the first part of your paragraph suggests it was the lecture, but the latter part (where Laemmle is criticising the newspaper) suggests that the newspaper must also have characterised the church as such. I'd be happy to check the original article myself, but I don't think this is worth the time finessing if we don't have secondary coverage to demonstrate that this incident is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the original source and it's unclear whether the LA church was cited in the lecture or if the newspaper is using its own example. The relevant text is "Although a discussion about cults on college campuses might seem sensationalist to some, groups on and around USC's campus — including the LaRouche movement and the Los Angeles Church of Christ — have been accused of cult activity in the past". We'd probably need to quote that as context for Laemmle's criticism of the article, if this was to be included. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

A student newspaper covering a university lecture and you want to use that in the article? Please tell me you realise how this sort of stuff isn't encyclopaedic. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath could you explain further why you don't think this is a source that should be used? XZealous (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION says that opinion pieces are reliable for the opinions of the authors but not for statements of fact. So if we were to cover the dean's letter to the editor it's only useful for a statement about their opinion. Now covering their opinion out of context makes no sense but including what they were expressing their opinion about doesn't make sense either because they were expressing their opinion about the opinion of some student journalist whose opinions have zero WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm aware that the content is the opinion of the Deans. That was expressed clearly in the writing. @JamieBrown2011's last edit included the context from the previous article.

To your last point. I'm not sure how the opinions of religious Dean of a university has "zero weight" about a religious organization on that university. Could you clarify that? XZealous (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write that 'opinions of religious Dean of a university has "zero weight" about a religious organization'. I wrote that the opinions of student journalists have "zero weight" so why would we cover them and without covering them the dean's response makes zero sense. TarnishedPath^talk 14:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for misrepresenting you. I disagree that the dean's opinion of the religious group makes zero sense without the student's remarks. However, that context was provided by Jamie's last edit.

As far as I have read on the source rules, using this as a source in the way it has been used is fine. I'm happy to take this to a Reliable Sources board if needed. XZealous (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Jamie's suggestion got the context wrong, suggesting that the letter was a response to a lecture that the original article was reporting on, when it was actually a response to the student journalist's characterisation of the LA church. Anyway, if you want to use these sources, I'd back that suggestion to ask about them on the RSN. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Like Larry I'd back raising it at RSN. If you do so, please ensure you leave a comment here that you have done so with a link. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Trojan Reliable Source XZealous (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Adding detail on "criticism and hostility" to the lede

As a result of the consensus emerging from the discussion at Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead, the following has been added to the lede: David V. Barrett noted in 2001 that in the 1990s the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" from the anti-cult movement. The church has been barred from recruiting students on campuses or has been denied student organization status at numerous universities.

Our closer, Compassionate727, noted that One editor proposed to instead [of citing scholars who've described the ICOC as having cult-like atttributes] directly mention the aggressive evangelism and strict discipleship, but this suggestion was not discussed by others, and it is not clear to me whether such a sentence would be original research.

I'd like to have further discussion on that proposal, because I think it would be useful to have a bit of context for why the ICOC "attracted a huge amount of criticism and hostility" in the 1990s. A brief sentence on recruitment and discipling would perhaps achieve this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There are sources which criticise their recruitment practices during that time. Love bombing, etc. In the RFC there was some discussion that instead of calling them a cult that we should describe exactly what those cult like attributes that they've been described as having, which they were criticised for. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Lawsuits refilled in the Superior Court of California

The federal lawsuit that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in July 2023 has been refiled in the Superior Court in Los Angeles, California. Given the lawsuits take up two paragraphs of the article and that the previous federal lawsuit has been refiled at the state level, should a sentence be devoted to the lawsuits in the lead? TarnishedPath^talk 01:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm near-neutral on that question but I lean a bit towards a sentence on it in the lead if we include enough info so that it is not misleading. Particularly including the time / era during which the alleged behaviors occurred. On the "exclude" side, anybody can (in civil court) sue anybody for anything and so a couple of civil lawsuits are not that meaningful. On the "include" side there is enough coverage on this in sources to have a section on it in the body of the article and the lead should be a summary of the body of the article. Also there is substantial plausible content in the lawsuits regarding that particular era and so IMO it is informative. North8000 (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should include this given the amount of coverage in independent sources it's attracted. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References