Talk:City Harvest Church

Template:SG

Notice to all concerned!

As of today, I have tagged the article with a "current event" tag pending the outcome of an official police investigation report, I have also requested for a Semi-page protection to protect the article against POV (per WP:CPUSH), OR and patent nonsense from newly registered users and anon IP editors alike. If an article on Wikipedia, such as this one (emphasis being this one), is to be a faithful and neutral-point-of-view representation of the real-life one, we need all the participating parties or people to be accountable and responsible for their edits here or there will be no peace from all quarters. All those failing to comply will be held for their actions. That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

1. Strayedsouls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (updated 11 June 2010)

Benny Hinn isnt a controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This discussion page is Not a forum~!

so why do you include in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.104.5.184 (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you refer "you" to your question? So far I remembered, the inclusion of this Benny Hinn controversy was initiated by Ahnan. Refer to [[1]], it has citations/references for supporting the evidence. However, if you feel that it is not significant, you may discuss on this page. The last time Benny Hinn was being invited by CHC to Asia Conference was late 2008, I think.. Kimberry352 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the "corelation" between the investigation and the drop in membership

Unless we have any reliable source that states a direct connection, please do not phrase it in a way that would draw such an inference. From the source quoted, ST mentioned both facts but did not directly draw a link between the two. Plus the link is a subscription service which only shows the 1st 2 paragraphs of the article, which did not say much anyway. Do feel free to re-intro the content if a better, free source can be provided. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant portions of the article written by Mr Yen Feng of The Straits Times are presented below for your easier reference and verification:

"City Harvest's diminished presence at Suntec caps a year of setbacks faced by the church.

A dozen or so church leaders, including Mr Kong, remain under police investigations for the alleged misuse of church funds.

Acting on complaints alleging misuse of funds, officers from the Commercial Affairs Department raided the church's offices in late May, picking up computers and financial records. The allegations are not related to the church's relocation to Suntec.

Police said the probe is still ongoing.

Following the inquiry, City Harvest has tried to improve its internal processes. It comissioned an external review of its financial controls, and elected two independent advisors to its board.

But this has not stopped some members from leaving the church.

An annual report on the church's website recorded a weekly average of 28,000 attendees in December 2009. No updated figures are available.

Internal records obtained by The Straits Times, however, noted that between June and September last year, the weekly average was closer to 15,000."

The above can be verified against the February 19 edition of The Straits Times, free copies which can be obtained from the National Library of Singapore. Alternatively, you may also check with the editors of The Straits Times. Netizen22 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are unsure of how Wikipedia works with substantiating content here. As you are the one who put forth the claim, it is up to you to fully substantiate it. Especially as it concerns living persons, which involves BLP, asking other editors to check the facts out for you is unacceptable here. In any case, your statement implies that all those who left the church did so only because of the investigation, which is not substantiated by the report as the source does not state that it was the only reason. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into whether there is a link here, but Zhanzhao you are incorrect that Netizen22 needs to provide a free source for this information (WP:ACCESS). It would be fine to use this source to say "after the investigations into XXX ... the number of attendees dropped." Putting it this way, it is up to the reader to decide why that might be the case. SmartSE (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Also FWIW this is a reliable source - it is a journalist's blog published by Yahoo rather than a random WP:SPS hosted on wordpress etc. SmartSE (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smartse,the problem with using a subscription source is that it is hard to verify the truth of the content posted. But as another link has been provide which verifies the stated content its ok. I apologize for wrongly categorizing the other link as a blog as I was unfamiliar with it and was fooled by the URL. However on another related note I noticed that you reverted my last edit quantifying the disputed content as trivia. The problem is that such information is normally not found in other similar articles, with such indepth detail, as it does not add value to the article. If one were to allow such details in, it would hence be arguable taht the reason the pastors gave for their leaving the church should be included as well, hence ballooning thhe size of the section. I am unfamiliar with how such churches function, but is a manpower change so notable that it deserves such detailed mention? The most it should warrants is a mention of lowered staff numbers without going into details. Zhanzhao (talk)

Yea, it's true that free sources are preferred, but if you can't access it, then you should AGF unless it seems extremely unlikely. I don't think the source is given undue weight at the moment compared to the other information about staffing which is all based on one primary source. If a source says why they left, then there is no reason to not include that either. SmartSE (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the recent spat of edits following the Feb 20, 2011 report on the Straits Times

This is for both people who are supporters and those critical of CHC. Number one, due to potential conflict of interest, please restrain yourselves when editing here, if you choose to do so. Two, If in doubt, refer to wikipedia's articles on conflict of interest, coatrack, relevance of content, undue weight, "truth" and manual of style. These articles establish the groundrules for what type of content are allowable. I would rather not involve administrator intervention on this page and other related pages, but if this goes on that course of action is unavoidavle. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that WP:COI would only apply to the staff of CHC and that there is nothing to prevent them from editing, so long as what they add is based on independent reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but conflict of interest occurs as long as one has a strong view for or against a particular stance, and interested in promoting a particular view or stance which brings them against the aims of wikipedia. Such COI is usually evident in the contribution histories, i.e when a particular focuses on editing only one particular subject or article or those related to it, and the edit always seems to push the article towards a particular viewpoint rather than staying neutral. One does not need to belong to a particular organization to have COI, especially if the edits are aimed against it. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Staffing ≠ trivia

I've replaced some content that was removed under the premise that it was WP:TRIVIA. It is not trivial to report what a reliable source has said about staffing. SmartSE (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

People leave places of employment all the time. Unless this was in response to something significant it is trivial (just because something has a source does not mean it has to be included in Wikipedia nor does it mean it is not trivial). If it does have some kind of greater significance then that's what needs to be talked about. If it's some controversy already mentioned in the article then it should be mentioned there (if at all). SQGibbon (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely in agreement with this. As mentioned, refer to how other articles treat these types of staff changes, and see if they are notable enough to be included. As far as I can tell, the staff left the church for personal reasons, and their setting up a new church of their own could explain part of the drop in CHC's membership. However, so far some of the edits I see here are either outright assuming those speculation as true, or taking the reasons given by sample interviewees as the only reasons they are leaving the church. On the other extreme I see edits which try to downplay figures given by reliable tertiary sources as unreliable and unofficial figures. Notability, significance and benchmarks set by other articles play a part in my labelling it as trivia. For my case, when in doubt I ask myself what is the purpose of the staffing section in the article, and will any added content still serve a purpose in the future, or is it just current news (ie a few months from now will people still care who left, or are they interested in the current staff situation. I fear that adding such staff changes will open a whole new can of worms where editors can include whatever they can find regarding any staff change in the church's history, just because it had been reported somewhere. Thats why I labelled it Trivia. Zhanzhao (talk)|

Change in Management Board

Shouldn't it be mentioned? link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Refer to City Harvest Community Services Association

There is difference between a church and a social/community service-based organization. The church is a place where people come to worship whereas the community organization is responsible for providing social services to the needy people. Under "Affiliate Organizations" section of CHC wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Harvest_Church#City_Harvest_Community_Services_Association.5B23.5D), the information about City Harvest Community Services Association should be referred to another wiki entry named City Harvest Community Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Harvest_Community_Services_Association) instead of "flaunting" the brief description about this organization which is not related to the church in terms of the services provided. Kimberry352 (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions and objections re Religious Commodifications in Asia

La goutte de plui, firstly, you added the wrong hyperlink of the citation. The URL of the book you added is not linked to Joy Tong author of the book named Religious commodifications in Asia: marketing gods. The author is Pattana Kitiarsa. The wrong publisher that you added was Psychology Press. It does not match to the book information in the URL. The publisher of the book from the URL is Routledge (2008).
Secondly, have you read this book? If yes, which page and paragraph can testify and show the evidence that like other megachurches, City Harvest Church employed McDonald-like strategies? Is City Harvest Church mentioned in that specific book? To cite the quote from the book, the page and paragraph should be required. Can you show where the statement (that you added just now: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=City_Harvest_Church&action=historysubmit&diff=446996619&oldid=446991891) is from the book exactly? If mere information about the book is taken from the web page about the book merely, it might be likely to show bias against specific megachurch and not other megachurch like New Creation Church and Faith Community Baptist Church. Kimberry352 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Forget to add: The statement needs to be verified if it is true that the unique megachurch, City Harvest Church, sells "God" the way McDonald attracts the consumers with popular food, but not other unique megachurches. I do not know whether you have read the book Religious commodifications in Asia: marketing gods but it would be nice if you can provide the proper hyperlink for referring which specific page can make the statement verifiable. If not, it might add more weight to bias.Kimberry352 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Um can you look at the url? It's chapter 9, page 186. The study's author is by Joyce Tong, in a book authored or edited by Pattana Kitiarsa. The chapter before the CHC chapter was "merchanizing Hinduism" by Vineeta Sinha. You could like , read my citation. You could like, go to Google Books -- because there it is, clear as day. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 11:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

does it also apply to mega churches in Singapore?Kimberry352 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

the problem is that there is no book preview for extended chapter of the book (I.e. Chapter 9 page 186). I wonder if La goutte de plui (wiki user) has found a way to get the chapter for us to see? The concern is about the questionable selection of the mega church like City Harvest Church but not other mega churches like New Creation Church and Faith Community Baptist Church in Singapore, Asia. Without seeing the information from the chapter under the book preview (from the citation) due to Google Book's limitation, we do not know if the quote (added by La goutte de plui - wiki user) comes from the author's own opinion. Imagine that if many groups of people form strong voice in common against McDonald religion (morphorised as CHC) with the reputable media (eg newspaper and TVs) regardless of whether the author of the book influenced them or not, the statement about the link between McDonald alike-religion and CHC would become a consensus.

The CHC chapter linked to McDonald-like business seems quite biased and lacks support from reputable other sources like reliable media. It is more of controversy. Second cent. Kimberry352 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The chapter is about megachurches in general. CHC is a case study. It means to look at megachurches in America too, but CHC is looked in depth as an example. It actually goes quite in depth on the church's history and business model, and I plan to add other material from it. You can also probably log in from NUS or go to your local library. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is an academic source. It also has been cited by 7 other academic sources. Try using Google Scholar? Furthermore, I don't know why you oppose books and academic sources, which are clearly preferable than this newsy WP:RECENTISM that's been pushed based on silly newsbites. [2] elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a question. Does this quote carry a weigh of acamedic research? 220.255.1.84 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Kimberry352 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you familiar with Google Scholar? The article itself has been cited by seven other academics, etc. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you are NUS undergraduate or graduate and have worked with research papers or thesis. The book carries Acamedic research involving cases studies. However, Wikipedia is not for case studies and acamedic research (see WP:NOTCASE). Since I think you believe in the endorsement of Google Scholars for every book, you need to scrinticse whether the information come from point of views of different scholars based on research. Unless the commercial and reputable media like TVs and newspapers magnifies the hypothesis(and of course conclusion), the credibility and reliability of the quote you took from the specific book Religious commodifications in Asia: marketing gods is questionable. Kimberry352 (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, your argument is....interesting. I am not an NUS graduate -- I go to one of the top colleges in the US, actually. (Not to be elitist or anything....but since Singaporeans love rankings so much.) The actual book if you read it is pretty reasonable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In fact, television and commercial media make poorer sources at times because of WP:RECENTISM and Wikipedia:Systemic bias. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1. In fact, there are different levels of reliability provided by commercial media. What if The Straits Times is unreliable? Can this type of media be used for the appropriate source? Btw, the context and credibility of the quote should be scrunitised if they are actually based on original research with acamedics. As for the book named Religious commodifications in Asia: marketing gods, it is the result of the acamedic research with acamedic sources which might not be able to tell whether the they come from the researchers' opinions or analysis based on observations. I want to ask you a question - have you read the entire content of the cited chapter of that book you cited for the "controversial" quotation? And one more question: do you think original research should be used for "proof" to support "reliable" quotation as you added [[3]]?

2. How about the true author of the cited book and the true author of the cited chapter? The citation [[4]] you added at first sounded as if its author (Jay Tong) and publisher (Psychology Press) are not matched to those author (Pattana Kitiarsa) and publisher (Routledge) from [[5]] which you added that citation together with "biased" quotation. I wonder if different chapters carry different original authors but the same editor of that book is Pattana Kitiarsa...? Don't tell me that that the book is made up of several acamedic (original?) research papers. Will be appreciated if you have read that book entirely and correct my statement number #2.

3. You aruge that based on the quotation from the book, the cited chapter is about the case study for City Harvest Church. But.... Like other case studies let it be social, economy or political, the important question should be directed to you: Can the case study based on the cited chapter be universally reliable and trusted?? The credibility of the quotation is really questionable because it seems to carry an amount of academic studies on the selected (specialization) megachurch but not other megachurches. I want to ask you if we wonder whether New Creation Church (NCC) and Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) also follow "McDonald religion" as City Harvest Church. The problem is why the researcher/author of the cited chapter has chosen specialization instead of generalization to study Christian church as case study. Although it is original academic research with its questionable stand, it has discrimination against the selected entity instead of other entities of the same type.

The problem lies on the rule of inference. Firstly, let's say - if CHC is like Disney/McDonald church, then CHC is a megachurch. Assuming that megachurches are in common, secondly, CHC, FCBC and NCC are megachurches. And so lastly, CHC, FCBC and NCC are like Disney/McDonald churches. But there is a contradiction? The problem is between hypothesis and conclusion. That is why I ask you if you have read the whole content of the cited chapter. Also asked you why you selected the only page No.189 of the cited chapter? I wonder if you know that the cited chapter is actually academic research and case study? Even if the academic research has academic sources, the question should be placed on the biases and original research.

Wikipedia is not intended to be a place for academic research and case studies for wiki entries.Kimberry352 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have an idea why Elle suddenly wanted to add the controversial quotation of the cited chapter that has some issues - bias, credibility, vertification, structure of original research, degree of academic studies applied, and common relation between the quotation of the cited chapter and the strong form of the consensus from the real-life non-Wiki society/community. If she insists that the cited quote should be kept in CHC wiki entry, I propose that it should be under the Controversy section. This is because if the end of the main/brief summary comes with the cited quotation [[6]], it seems to have a bias unless the church is branded officially (as in socially, commercially and governmentally declared) as Disney/McDonald church. If agree with this proposal or no reply for one week from today 29 August, I shall move the cited quote from the main summary to Controversy section. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a controversy section violates NPOV

FYI. Some responses:

1. . I am not at all done with using that source. I intend to incorporate a lot of material from it. I also intend to incorporate lots of other sources. Google scholar "City Harvest Church" please.
2. . As to whether "it is the result of the acamedic research with acamedic sources which might not be able to tell whether the they come from the researchers' opinions or analysis based on observations" You could like, look at the papers that cite the work. You could take a look at how it is used. I have only done the basic summary of the work. McDonaldization is not a new concept. It is used as a widespread analogy in the social sciences.
3. . Please use some proper English -- it is kind of annoying to read misplaced function words.
4. . The work has been peer reviewed by 7 other researchers -- if it was controversial, it would encounter rebuttal articles.
5. . The book is a compilation of different articles on religious commodification in Asia. Religious commodification in the United States has been extensively studied. You can google the term "religious commodification" to find that is not at all, a new term.
6. . On what basis do you say it is questionable? You should cite some evidence or your personal attacks on the authors will be removed per WP:BLP.
7. . The question here is not whether it is reliable -- read the definition of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You are really asking whether is neutral. This is a different matter altogether. Sources are expected to have some biases -- even the New York Times has bias.
8. . "it seems to have a bias unless the church is branded officially (as in socially, commercially and governmentally declared) as Disney/McDonald church" My god, this is a curious position you hold. I am saying "a case study analysed CHC as being X". The article itself does not hold that view. Even if the official position were so, we would report it as a government/commercial position. Please read WP:NPOV.
9. . CHC is the most famous megachurch, and the pastor the most controversial. That's probably why it was chosen. I don't know why you suspect the source simply because it did not analyse every megachurch in Asia. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In case, should we approach the wiki experts for the advices to do with the controversial quotation cited by you? Forgot to ask you.. I would like to know if you actually have already read the cited chapter entirely before adding the quotation as the citation in the wiki entry? Kimberry352 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and even if I didn't that wouldn't change anything. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

don't you mind to scan the whole cited chapter with the citations (bibliography) and email to me? Btw, I wonder if you know McDonald/Disney religion is a controversial topic. I believe you have made a bold move to include biased view (from the cited quotation of the original research) in the Wiki entry. Even if you attempt to neutralize the point of view of the quotation, it cannot change the fact that the quotation has its own stand - bias. It would be better if the quotation is placed under the Controvesry section. Kimberry352 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move the controversial quote from the main summary to the Controversy section

Founded in 1989 by Kong Hee,[2] the church officially bases its values on Charismatic and Pentecostal teachings, with emphases on such "doctrines" as "the Great Commandment", "the Great Commission" and "the Cultural Mandate". [3] However, the CHC has faced controversy in the public and the press over its perceived extravagance. It also has also faced accusations of "selling God" from critics of both academic and laymen, having been analysed as pursuing religious marketing analogous to a brand. CHC was used as an academic case study by a Purdue University and National University of Singapore sociology researcher Joy Tong on "religious commodification in Asia", as an example of "McDonaldization of religion". [4] -- as added by Elle [[7]] in the main summary of the wiki entry.

--> the flow from the start of the main summary to the end of the summary sounds that it gives CHC a bad taste at first impression. The word "However" leads to a contradiction which sounds bad for the main summary unless the cited quotation is proved with strong reliable consensus at real life community, social and national level.

My thought was about proposing to shift the quotation (in underline and italics as above) from the main summary of the wiki entry to the Controvesry Section [[8]] because this quotation has its own stand (partiality of its point of view) despite it comes from the original academic research book. Kimberry352 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a controversy section is against POV. See WP:NPOV. They should be integrated into the article. I am quoting the POV of the author -- I am not representing the author's assertions as fact. Your demand for endorsement at the "community, social and national level" is not required -- see again, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry it looks like I need to clarify what endorsement at the community, social and national level means. For example, NKF scandal sparked concerns from community and government. This leads to the fact. Another example is that CHC faces fund probe on misusing its donations from the congratation, prompting the concerns from the community and government. Both of these examples received well known news through reputable media like Channel News Asia and The Straits Times. The facts can be vertified by the reliable sources without the original research. Do you get it? what is the link between CHC and other megachurches in common? McDonald/Disney churches? Is a case study okay to be included? Kimberry352 (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhhhhh....why don't you ask RSN? They've already replied to you that the source is okay I believe. I am tired of repeating myself. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

oh sorry for trouble and wasting your precious time. In my view, there is a credibility issue for the academic research that focused in specialization as part of the case studies without looking to other megachurches. Selecting the case study from the original research leads to the conclusion which may have to be supported by reliable sources from the external. Thesis and case studies should not be used as tools for reliable sources. However, there is inadequate consensus to resolve the issue of the controverisal quote from the case study, part of the original research in the academic university research book. I guess we should leave the cited quotation behind until next editors will look into this issue.

Meanwhile, do you think it is a good way to move the cited quote from the main summary to the Controversy section? Kimberry352 (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a misunderstanding about the policy?

Policy stated by kimberry: "Wikipedia is not intended to be a place for academic research and case studies for wiki entries." by WP:NOTCASE -- Kimberry352 (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

When we say this, it means we don't want articles on aetherometry or on "bleeding edge" research on new scientific topics unless it has undergone more extensive peer review; however, academic studies on existing topics is a different matter altogether. For example, many of our articles on genetics (such as hidden stop)s or the epidermal growth factor receptor use such studies. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

okay, if it is okay to use academic research, then how about the difference between original research and other academic research with reputable sources as reliable source?Kimberry352 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to clarify your misunderstanding? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were admin so you could tell the difference between both? Kimberry352 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You obviously question what I say. Ask another editor. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To other editors: the concern is --- Is it appropriate to use case studies and academic research as reliable sources with good credibility and vertification in the Wiki entries? It was revealed that the cited quotation [[9]] comes from the academic research in joint with two universities based on the case study. [[10]] pls advise on using case studies and academic research while writing the statements as example by Elle (see the link of the cited quotation) appropriately. thanks. Kimberry352 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Kimberry352. There is WP:WEIGHT given to this academic study. Why does a wikipedia article need to be based on this study? It seems the points are based on the opinion of the researcher. We should be giving facts, and not the insights and conclusion of a single person. ~John, 14 Sep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.55.241.10 (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We are using a secondary source, see WP:SECONDARY. We cite facts from primary sources, interpretations from secondary sources. This is natural. You could find another reliable secondary source that discusses the church, if you like, and add that to the article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about the point view of Joy Tong who works on the case study on the selected megachurch which can make it unfair to other megachurches in the local community. The problem is that there is no regular checking and verification if many megachurches share common traits in the local community. Kimberry352 (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

where is the secondary source as stated? It is based on the Joy Tong's research and her interpretations, opinions. And these are not facts, but as you said, interpretations. An wikipedia article should just stick to facts. If you like, you should start a Wikipedia article on Joy Tong's research. John316! (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Joy Tong talking about herself is a primary source. Joy Tong's academic work synthesizing the views, opinions and facts gathered by others is a secondary source. Jpatokal (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

this is john316. I did not login as I cant retrieve my password, so here is another account. So what is the secondary source? How do you verify that Joy has the opinions of others? How do you prove that her point of view is not bias? And to have so many paragraphs based on her study and reseach is surly not factual? This is an article on CHC, and not on what her research is. If this book is of such importance, please then create an wikipedia article for it. J0hn 0316 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Extra tidbits (which Joy Tong [NUS academic student of the original research] might not be aware): Look at the New Creation Church who will move to the new building that has entertainment, retail, civic and cultural zones. Not forgetting, New Creation Church members always say "Amen!" every time Joseph Prince says the end of the impactful statement with an exclamation. Kimberry352 (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We look forward to your contributions to the New Creation Church article. Jpatokal (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You might have opened a can of worms here with this suggestion.... Zhanzhao (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And to CHC members deleting mention of the study in entirety: I regret to inform you that it's a reliable secondary source and thus fully admissible as content for this article. Now, you are welcome to dispute the wording of the section and to add sourced opposing viewpoints, but repeated wholesale deletion is vandalism, not a suitable response. Jpatokal (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

An outside view of this dispute

@Kimberry352: I almost never edit articles about religion, and I don't edit Singapore articles at all. But I nevertheless want to offer my perspective on this matter: With the greatest possible respect for your views, I'm sorry to have to tell you that it's my opinion that you're really "reaching" here. To mention just one example, WP:NOTCASE means that we don't write or present or structure our articles as if they were case studies. It does not mean, as you seem to be suggesting, that we're not permitted to use "academic research involving case studies". If your apparent interpretation were broadly applied, we'd have to delete a great deal of perfectly acceptable sources and content from Wikipedia.

I took the time to carefully read author Joy Tong Kooi Chin's chapter about City Harvest Church in Religious Commodifications in Asia, or rather the approximately three-fourths of that essay that's available to me via Google Books. ( The rest is probably available via Amazon, but I haven't checked, or haven't checked yet. ) After doing so, I completely understand that many people, and probably all of the church's supporters, must consider the author's analysis to be very unfair. Despite that, it's nevertheless wholly relevant and wholly admissible as a source for inclusion in this article.

Because this dispute is likely to be of considerable importance to many or most of the people who follow this article, and because disputes or conflicts between a rationalist-scientific outlook and a faith-based perspective interest me, I've thought quite a lot about this matter since I first noticed it. For these same reasons I've also presented some further thoughts about it below, in collapsed form, that you and other editors may find useful, even if you happen to object to any of the reasoning or conclusions that it includes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

More about Kimberry352's objection to Joy Tong Kooi Chin chapter from Religious Commodifications in Asia

Okay, Kimberry352, I'll address this is primarily to you, mostly because it just seems convenient to do so. But what follows is directly related to the dispute over inclusion of the Joy Tong Kooi Chin source, and should be of interest to others for that reason, as well. I'd first like to assure you, though, that I fully understand how very offended many people ( and certainly most church supporters ) probably are by the author's apparent suggestion that church leadership might subscribe to principles that result in the treatment of religion as a "commodity" to be "sold". When the proposition is expressed in those particular words, it does seem to imply an unseemly or even cynical approach to church-building on the part of church leaders that would naturally anger those who support them. Or at least it could be construed as evidence of an overly pragmatic approach, implying that church leaders believed the "end" they have in mind justifies such "means". But is it possible that the founder or leadership of City Harvest Church operates from the calculating or cynical motives that I imagine Joy Tong Kooi Chin probably attributes to them? Sure it is. And it's also possible that they're driven by only the most noble and altruistic motives. I'm not personally impressed that the founder claims university graduate degrees from an organization that I can't view as legitimate, after carefully reviewing the question. But it's clear that none of us really has enough evidence to form hard conclusions, and my guess would be that you probably consider the the criticism in this source to be grossly unfair, and perhaps in extremely poor taste, as well. If I'm correct about this... well, I hope you'll not take offense at the suggestion that it might help to remember that although the four principal narratives we have of Christianity's founder tell us he was subject to criticism that was harsher and more unfair by far, there's no record of his ever having tried to keep a critic from being heard. But let's get more specific, here. Joy Tong Kooi Chin describes megachurches in general, and this one in particular, as operating under "the inclusive and innovative combination of rational structure" and a marketing-based orientation that he calls "the consumer ethic". What on earth does he mean by that very abstract and academic language? ... Well, his rather ambiguous phrase "rational structure" certainly needs some explanation. My translation is that he seems to be saying megachurches become megachurches because their founders and leadership employ what might best be called a "systems approach" or a "systems analysis and design" approach to church-building. That is, the author thinks leaders of what are destined to become megachurches first consider the goals they want to achieve, and then design the church as if it were a collection of inputs, processes, and outputs for reaching those goals. They try to design relevant factors such as the outreach by which they increase membership, the programs and activities they provide for attendees, their revenue generation methods, and every aspect of church operation, really, to efficiently achieve those goals. Notice, please, that when a church's leadership uses this very pragmatic approach, it does not necessarily mean those leaders believe it defines what a church is. They do not necessarily believe the church is "a system". It could just mean they find that thinking about it as if it were a single system of inputs, processes, resources, and outputs can help them achieve the goals they've set for the organization they're trying to build. Now, I've read sociology pretty extensively for over twenty-five years, and I can tell you that sociologists usually miss that point. They also tend to strongly disapprove when systems thinking is used to influence groups engaged in any of the areas of human experience that sociology traditionally studies, such as religion. ( Most feel the same way when systems thinking is applied to politics, to mention another example. ) They especially dislike it that, in its most rarefied form, at least, the approach considers people as just another "input" into the system, which is itself seen as an organic whole, or sometimes as a single "machine". The system itself tends to take center stage in the mind of anyone using this approach, supplanting individuals and groups in attention and importance, at least temporarily, while adjustments are considered to the parameters that influence how the system operates. Sociologists also dislike the high degree of standardization that often results when systems thinking is applied to influence groups of people. I think it does have to be admitted, for example, that the approach can move an organization that fully embraces it toward a more narrowly-focused body of "messages" or "themes" chosen not because they speak to the intellectual curiosity that scientists and academics naturally prefer, but rather chosen for their potential to influence the emotions of the broadest swath of people who hear them. Although sociologists usually view that narrowing with suspicion, as being superficial or even manipulative, more sympathetic observers might describe it with words like "targeted", "clear", or "straightforward". Whether it's superficial and manipulative, or merely pragmatic and sensible is certainly a very arguable question, and one in which one's position is probably much influenced by personal temperament. Certainly not everyone wants or even values the in-depth intellectual reasoning and critical discourse that sociologists and other academics typically demand before they'll feel any motivation to change their attitudes or behavior. Most people probably don't want or value that, in fact, and that "most people" certainly includes most church leaders and the people they hope to influence. Most leaders of Christian fundamentalist churches, at least, would probably argue in favor of this systems approach, this approach that Joy Tong Kooi Chin calls a "rational structure" and a "consumer ethic" orientation to church design. They certainly wouldn't do so using the terminology he uses to describe and frame the discussion, however. As I've said, I do understand that they'd likely find that terminology very offensive. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I'm certain that many highly-respected religious leaders would say that using this approach is simply an intelligent way of thinking, a practical, pragmatic tool to help them accomplish the Christian mission they've committed their lives to. I suppose some might also quote Jesus' admonition, "be ye as wise as serpents", to answer allegations that it creates churches that are based on a superficial or manipulative program. But others would absolutely deny that there's anything in the least manipulative about it, saying instead that it gives most people what they truly need. And other leaders, still, who support the approach would probably suggest that if sociologists don't like it, they can stay away, or maybe join a church that offers a more intellectual tradition and message, that accepts a broader range of beliefs, and that validates a more personally-subjective experience of the Holy. Churches in the Anglican Communion come to mind as a prominent example, and there's a host of others that meet those criteria. If that's what someone wants, he's not going to be very happy in a church like City Harvest, anyway, or probably in any megachurch, where there's usually a strong emphasis on compliance with very specific doctrinal and lifestyle norms, and less appreciation for intellectual curiosity and personally subjective religious experience. To reply to any of this, please post below this line, or outside of this "collapsed" content, if you'd rather, instead of interleaving any of your own remarks between the paragraphs I've written above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, whoever has been marking so many wholly appropriate threads as "closed" and "not a forum" needs to stop that. A few of the early ones merited that, but the majority that have been so-marked did not.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, put a sock in it. Because the last time I've tagged one was about a year ago! Please get your facts correct before you comment again. Capisce? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for the full document of Joy Tong's case study with full list of citations "Religious Commodifications in Asia"

This source of the full document is not accessible due to restriction in Google e-books, Amazon e-book browser. It would be nice if anyone can upload the full document for the Fair Use for Wikipedia. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Can anyone from NUS access to online NUS past thesis database and download Joy Tong's case study "Religious Commodifications in Asia" for Fair Use for Wikipedia? It is crucial to review Joy Tong's case study. Thanks. Kimberry352 (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"megachurches in Singapore"

After reading this article and other articles by the Straits Times, I will take your advice Kimberry, to heart, and will draft an article covering all of the megachurches, possibly ones outside Singapore too. Our current megachurch article is not sufficient, apparently. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• It is okay. I am afraid this might invite more problems created by new and existing Wiki users if Joy Tong's case study and other original research about megachurchs' bizarre ways / controversies are included in Megachurches in Singapore and oversea megachurches wiki entries. Quotes from academic studies are challenged to be verified. Kimberry352 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Slow but persistent edit warring by members of the church

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

• Gentlemen, let's make a few things very clear around here...

1. Please refrain from editing this article page if you are a member of the church or any of its direct or indirect associates. This is to prevent anyone of you from violating WP:Conflict of interest on Wikipedia.
2. Please do not remove or revert properly sourced contents or texts which you find that are not to your liking, everyone knows that no human being is perfect. Similarly, no church is perfect despite all the facade that's being put up. Should you want to remove them, follow the proper channels and do things the right way on Wikipedia. You are encouraged to be bold but not reckless.
3. Please provide the neccessary basis for removing properly sourced content or text (READ this policy → WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence), doing so repeatedly without discussing things properly despite being told not to can and will lead to you being BLOCKED or BANNED from Wikipedia.

• That is all. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually am not against members of the church editing, PROVIDED they can keep their edits neutral and avoid COI. Which seems to be the main problem here. Thats just my personal opinion though. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strange, looks to me that those are the exact two things that doesn't seem to exist in the mind of the offenders: 1.) Being neutral; & 2.) Conflict of interest. Otherwise, why the need to protect the article page? What they're doing here is nothing short of hurting the project of Wikipedia! Seriously, religious folks are known to be some of the most mulish people on the face of this planet, more wars have started because of them than anything other thing on earth, including edit warring! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats a bit too much of a stereotype though. These are alway those who are over enthusiastic in any group, but they are th ones who create most of the problems. Its unfortunate that the more level-minded ones do not control them. But when the 2nd group wants to, your strict intepretation of COI would prevent them from balancing the more extreme edits (since the latter too are part of the church). Keeping all of these people out is an option, but lets be practical, the nature of Wikipedia makes it difficult. Then there are those on the other extreme like Ahnan and the like who was editwarring from the anti- religious angle, though he only targeted the charismatic cicles. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I beg to differ, Ahnan was a big mistake his dad should have smeared on the wall, nothing more than an anti-establishment parrot, his biggest mistake was to turn on TR, an old Chinese saying sums it best: "a mountain can never hold two tigers." As for the moderate folks, they should've just done what you said they should but they didn't, they let the cuckoos run loose and tarnished their beloved Sanctimonium. What kind of people does that? Yes, COI is a Wiki policy but it doesn't mean that it is so inflexible to the extent that one cannot correct a percieved mistake here on Wikipedia, and otherwise what is this discussion page good for? Hitler spoke a lot of bullshit (both good and bad), and the German people never stopped him from entering politics, see what happened? Most people's fascination with the underdog are born out of sympathy but where sympathy ends, their sense of reality failed to kick in! Their heads has failed them! And if you read into the bible, what does it say about trees and branches that failed? And even if they've read the part and decided that's just the bible then their heads has failed them again! Only blind followers does that and by not doing anything to stop the cuckoos from running amok, they have unwittingly and inevitably shown to the whole wide world what kind of idiosyncrasies they are willing to put up with! And since they have forsaken that, COI duly applies! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I felt its not right to think that the members or even me are trying to delete "ugly" statements in the article. I looked through the history, apparently the whole section on the Church's controversies about the investment and the fund probe had been sitting there for months. So what about this har?

As for me, I simply dont understand why are we dedicating paragraphs in this Wikipedia article to a study by Tong? Just how many "According to Tong" are there in this article? And no one had truly answered Kimberry352's concern.

J0hn 0316 (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you review the article history and this Talk page and its archives, you will see that the "controversial" statements about investments etc have indeed been disputed, toned down and outright deleted many, many times. Jpatokal (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Cherrypicking by church members

I recently caught a church member cherrypicking from this source by conveniently omitting all of the unfavourable details in that article and attempting to portray the church as somehow being genuinely open or reformatory. The Straits Times author, Siew Hua, would not agree that his/her words were "contrary to Joy Tong's study" at all -- in fact, he/she alluded to "corporate crisis management". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• This has undoubtedly made my case of preventing the editing of this page by church members all the more valid and providing us with more bullets to shoot them with, we don't like to do such things but they've obviously left us no choice since they've handed us both the gun and the bullets now. For CHC members reading this, please note that Murphy's law is dead on, "what will go wrong, will go wrong!" The more you try to hide by whitewashing fact, the more people would want to dig deeper. In the end, CHC folks are only completing more of their own self-prophesies for us to see. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of that content from that Straits Times article should be included, with time, as it is a very useful source on developments in CHC. It appears that there's a lot that CHC members would wish to cover up ... elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• look for the development of CHC happenings through third parties like The Straits Times in future. This could verify Joy Tong's statement from original research. The age of original research matters. Kimberry352 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Who removed Benny Hinn's association with CHC section?

The source about this section is credible since the reporter from TNP observed the differences of thoughts between CHC members and netizens about Benny Hinn's invitation to CHC.

"Association with healing evangelist Benny Hinn

City Harvest Church has on a number of occasions hosted healing evangelist Benny Hinn to conduct miracle healing sessions.[37][38] While some Singaporeans criticized the invitations due to Hinn's controversial reputation, the church dismissed the criticism.[39]"

^ "Harvest Times - Issue 25". City Harvest Church. April 2005. Retrieved 2011-02-21.

^ "EVENTS CALENDAR". City Harvest Church. January 2007. Retrieved 2011-02-21.

^ Hanqing, Liew, "Visit by hotshot US reverend draws flak on the Net", The New Paper, 10 October 2008

Since the TNP article was credible and its new centre is reputable, this section could be kept.Kimberry352 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I consolidated that section into the section on culture. We shouldn't have a "controversies" section. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the previous edit conflicts were regarding UNDUE issues as the "anti-charismatics" were grabbing huge chunks of irrelqvent (to CHC) info from BH's page and dumping it here to buff up the previous controversy subsection. Mention about BH should stay, just need to be careful about making the "association" more than it seems. AFAIK this guy was only a guest speaker, though a frequent one. As i recall abt 2 years back, some editors seemed to want to imply more, i.e. Mentioning it in the lead and having the BH section make up close to 30% of the old article (back then). Zhanzhao (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Benny Hinn is a very controversial healing evangelist. Some people love him for his healing ability while the rest hate him for his financial frauds. I am not sure how many times CHC invited him to his congregation until now. But I can feel that netizens especially from Singapore criticize him for not only his financial fraud but also his association to CHC. Is this called a cultural problem? I believe next time CHC will face more controversies over Benny Hinn's invitation to its services. Using the word "association" may be biased, however, CHC has a history of inviting him to its services many times. (see CHC past events in CHC official web page, I think). It is fine if Singaporeans forget about Benny Hinn's controversial invitation to CHC reported by TNP long ago. But what about people including netizens outside Singapore? Americans love him for his healing abilities and hate him for his controversies. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

---

• Is Benny's association with CHC part of culture section, considered as a cultural issue? It is more of controversy than culture. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fails verification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: IP editor 174.99.127.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has requested to blank out his own statement here but according to WP:REDACT, striking it out would be more appropriate, he is BLOCKED now for his disruptive editing behaviour.

The following paragraph is not supported by its sources: According to informants to Tong, disciplinary actions are taken by church leaders to "punish uncooperative attitudes" as an "effective way of regulating its huge membership". One informant was formally censured for "her disagreement" with the church's programme of "miraculous healing", especially when it on a number of occasions hosted controversial healing evangelist Benny Hinn to conduct miracle healing sessions. In the public eye, while some Singaporeans criticized the invitations due to Hinn's controversial reputation, the church dismissed the criticism.
The sources do not confirm anything about anyone being censured, Singaporeans criticizing the invitation to Hinn, or the church dismissing criticism. I have no idea whether the information is true or not, but if anyone challenges my adding a "fails verification" tag, you must provide quotations from the sources that explicitly confirm the paragraph. Otherwise continuing to remove the tags is vandalized removal of legitimate tags; I'll report it to WP:ANI and you will be blocked for vandalism. 174.99.127.49 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, try reading the previous citation of Tong? I didn't add it for the umpteenth time since she already had been cited in the preceding paragraph. Oh the TNP source also mentions the Singaporeans' criticism and the church's dismissal of the criticism. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The occupation of the informant mentioned in Joy Tong's paragraph above is questioned. Student from the School of Theology (SOT)? Or just being netizen who criticizes against Benny Hinn? The problem is to say without the verfication that the student from SOT painted the image of Benny Hinn as bad in front of CHC and his bible school (SOT) coursemates since CHC established the relationship with Benny Hinn. Original research really needs secondary opinions from published news for verfication. The paragraph written by Joy Tong would be deemed as "reliable" if and only if secondary sources such as published news e.g. TNP or ST (Straits Times) that can verify Joy Tong's claim with the endorsement (literally approvement) of Singaporeans including aunties and uncles on newspapers. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your criterion is a little ridiculous. Original research is welcomed in secondary sources, just not in Wikipedia articles. Even Wikinews writers are allowed to use anonymous informants as sources, this is part of the process of journalism and scholarly research. There exists a separate verification step for that process. The scholarly article was after all, peer-reviewed.

When you say "Original research really needs secondary opinions from published news for verfication." you should realise that Joy Tong is already a secondary source. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• You should realize that Joy Tong's case study is an original research. There is no other original research upcoming to challenge Joy Tong's original research to meet if the paragraphs from Joy Tong are reliable or contradicted. Secondary sources require verification for their truth values. For example, what sources to prove that a horse has eight legs? Kimberry352 (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not citing Tong as truth. I quote that it's coming from her every time I make a statement based on her investigation. This is how it worked with the Watergate scandal too. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The happenings of the Watergate scandal were based on media reports and biography books. Joy Tong's case study is a one-man original research which is no less than academic research. I suppose original research should not be used without additional verification for the citations of primary and secondary sources. To what extent is Joy Tong's "investigation" based on supporting evidences? I cannot comment on it but I stress that her investigation needs to be proved by additional supporting evidences. I.e. Netizens and SOT students are distinctly different so two kinds of groups' thoughts on Benny Hinn's association with CHC should be documented and verified by third party such as TNP. TNP article dated Oct 2008 only reported on netizens. Kimberry352 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think you realise that the Watergate scandal was uncovered by investigative reporting from an anonymous source Deep Throat. The identity of this source would not be uncovered till decades later. The New Paper is a tabloid. An academic source is far superior. I don't get your prejudice against scientific publications? Please read Wikipedia:Original research. Original research is encouraged in secondary sources. That's what secondary sources are supposed to do. Original research is not allowed by Wikipedia editors -- that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Tong is already a secondary source, not a primary one. Supporting sources are nice, but are not required for Tong's citations to be kept. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

---

TNP article dated on Oct 2008 documented comments from netizens about Benny Hinn's association with CHC. It would be nice if Joy Tong have included judgement from SOT students regarding the link between Benny Hinn and CHC. However, it may seem there are insufficient supporting sources to prove Joy Tong's statement. I suppose since Joy Tong was from NUS, hopefully other students from various universities including NUS to undertake original research about megachurches to support or contradict Joy Tong's statement in future. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

By all means, more sources are welcome. Joy Tong is btw, now a researcher at Purdue University. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm the problem here seems to be that a lot of content is being based on one singular source (in this case JT's paper). We could of course provide alternative views to what the paper claims, provided we have sources meet wiki standards. But that might lead to bloating the whole article. In any case, some parts of the article do seem overly detailed at the moment so copyediting for length and summarizing is unavoidable. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have no idea if Joy Tong's academic case study can be used for CHC wiki entry despite it is an original research. See the archived clarification on the reliable source [[11]] under Reliable sources Noticeboard Archive. Kimberry352 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand policy. Have you read Wikipedia:Original research? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• You have referred me to WP:OR before. Original research have quotes to be challenged for proof and verification. If used wrongly, then there is a misunderstanding about the policy, I doubt every original research is welcome to Wikipedia. Can 15 years old original research still be used as same as 5 years old original research? Btw, I suppose it is fine to quote the statement according to the author of single original research as long as it has been verified. So far, never hear about bizarre description about CHC from third parties until secondary sources prove or contradict Joy Tong's statements. Kimberry352 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Enough is enough, the article page is now a protected page, off limits to all newly registered editor(s) as well as anonymous IP editor(s) alike. If CHC members cannot comply with simple rules and instructions of Wikipedia, we will make them comply, after all this is Wikipedia, CHC does not own this article page! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Close discussion?

Is this discussion going to be closed?It seems we cannot fully reach an amicable decision to rewrite the parts according to controversial Joy Tong's case study. Well, it is ok to leave them intact til the next editors will look into them for verifications. Kimberry352 (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

clarification on Joy Tong's parts for verification

I don't think you realise that the Watergate scandal was uncovered by investigative reporting from an anonymous source Deep Throat. The identity of this source would not be uncovered till decades later. The New Paper is a tabloid. An academic source is far superior. I don't get your prejudice against scientific publications? Please read Wikipedia:Original research. Original research is encouraged in secondary sources. That's what secondary sources are supposed to do. Original research is not allowed by Wikipedia editors -- that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Tong is already a secondary source, not a primary one. Supporting sources are nice, but are not required for Tong's citations to be kept. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

---> I am sorry, can u simplify your post, Elle? Yes, original research known as academic studies need to be proved by secondary sources. If not, then there is a misunderstanding. I ask you: are reputable media reports are considered as secondary sources? Not every original research does not mean they are proved. Take an example of Joy Tong's case study. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no this is not what original research is. Tong's study is a secondary source. It can be contradicted or supported by other sources. But as a secondary source it does not require "proving" by other secondary sources for inclusion. It would be very good of course. From WP:OR: The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. Are you saying Joy Tong's study was not a reliable, published source? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fund Probe - simplify meaning?

~~In April 2011, the Straits Times reported that though CHC was "under a cloud", it was "forging ahead with sunny new plans", using "corporate savvy and a new narrative" to present a "positive face to its congregation". The Straits Times noted that the "beleaguered church" in measures akin to "corporate crisis management", encouraged cell leaders to "keep open lines of communication to members with any questions about the probe" and to "talk openly or address complaints." Calls to the pastoral staff of the Church were also welcomed for answers to any inquiries one might have. [58]~~
==> it does not carry the controversial tone. Is this what says based on The Straits Times? This paragraph seems that the church wants to clarify on alleged misused fund matters. Don't know about the outcome of the fund probe until the police investigation on CHC completed and media report will be released.Kimberry352 (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Suggest to change from too many quotes to non-quotes.... Kimberry352 (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Does look messy, might as well have quoted the whole thing instead of what it looks like now. Not absolutely necessary to remove all of the quotes though. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Elle, can u re-paraphrase the paragraph and converting from quotes to non-quotes? Kimberry352 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Jpatokal, I think this paragraph may not be relevant to the fund probe section as the church seems to attempt clarifying to its members on the probe. Moreover, i find it too disordered to quote too many words according to The Straits Times. If don't want to palargrise, then either remove irrelevant paragraph as described above or re-phrase this paragraph. Kimberry352 (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

First version of rephrased paragraph

According to The Straits Times article dated 2 April 2011, CHC actively undertook the plans on restoring its positive reputation through public relations and cell group system despite it was still "under a cloud". The church, which the public might have negative opinions of due to alleged fund probe acted by police, encouraged its cell leaders and church pastors to be more open clarifying with members on the questions and inquries about the fund probe.

How is it? Btw, I think the paragraph regardless of its original or rephrased version, it seems still irrelevant to the fund probe section until the police investigation is completed and the media report is released. Moreover, the paragraph is more like CHC's promoting alleviation. Kimberry352 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a barely comprehensible ungrammatical mess. And I don't understand why you think it's irrelevant to the fund probe, since it's obviously about measures taken by CHC in direct response to the probe. Jpatokal (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oh... So this is what CHC attempted to take measures to prevent its reputation from being damaged further? We cannot tell when the investigation on fund issues will be completed. Church services are normal as usual. I thought what CHC encouraged its cell group leaders and pastors to clear out misunderstanding about alleged fund probe was irrelevant. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Btw, there are too many quote characters in this paragraph. It's like lifting phrases from The Straits Times article dated 2 April 2011 too many times. It is quite disordered. It will be better if you can re-phrase (summarize) this paragraph with the citation. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Second version of re-phrased paragraph

• On 2 April 2011, The Straits Times article reported that CHC actively planned to improve its image and reputation in the congregation and public through corporate crisis management and working with cell group leaders and pastors though it was still under police investigation. The church encouraged the cell leaders and pastors to talk with members and public openly, clarifying about inquires about the fund probe.
  

Kimberry352 (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) --> Is this paragraph approved? If nobody shares his/her views on this version, I will replace the previous version with this version soon. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight for single article by Joy Tong

I am not a member of the church. We should remember that this is Wikipedia, and treatment of even controversial subjects should not be in a sensational way. One editor is pushing this article excessively, even elevating it to the initial section. We need uninvolved editors to clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchertoo (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about giving excessive weight to minority viewpoints. As far as I can see, Tong's study simply documents church practices that seem factual, like this: "CHC requires its members "to commit themselves to the church's teachings" by attending "equipping class" regularly, where the church has emphasised "the reward of offering" and tithe to compel its higher-income members to give prolifically and "lavishly". Does this sentence express a viewpoint? If yes, can you explain what that view is, what are the opposing viewpoints, and can you restore "due weight" by providing sources for them? Jpatokal (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And as an aside, if you are not a member of the church, what are the "our religious views" that you refer to here and why do you consider mentioning the Tong article a "dangerous attack"? Jpatokal (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• it may be hard to say if there is a minority who opposes the viewpoint of Joy Tong.. For e.g. SOT students will be punished if they fail to address all pastors proper titles. I imagine if there are hundreds of thousands of demonstrators against CHC style, then it will show there is a majority of the viewpoint as long as the media reports document the incidents. Original research or academic studies like Joy Tong's thesis from NUS. I believe Joy Tong who was* from NUS has done her thesis on the selected case study about CHC instead of all megachurches despite her thesis scope is about megachurch selling God in Asia. Quotes and statements from Joy Tong's case study are challenged by additional evidences (econdary and primary sources) if they are proved or contradicted. Not forgetting we cannot access to Joy Tong's full view of Religious commodification in Asia paper and its citations. It would be nice to review the credibility and verifiability of Joy Tong's case study and its cited works. Kimberry352 (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I just read that about five times and I still honestly have no idea what on earth you are trying to say; alas, I suspect that you didn't even try to read what I wrote, since you certainly don't seem to be replying. Let me repeat my three simple questions: 1) Does the sentence I quoted express a viewpoint, 2) If yes, can you explain what that view is, and 3) what are the opposing viewpoints? Jpatokal (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hm... No.. What did you say to me previously? Btw, have you read the entire document by Joy Tong? For opposing viewpoints about the differences of CHC's and its opponents' articles, there is currently no witness in reputable media reports. As for SOT students being punished for not addressing all pastors proper titles, Joy Tong's statement has an issue - verification. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that there is undue weight given to this secondary source. Personally as a reader, I do not understand why this article has repeatedly quoted from this secondary source, is there any similar instances in Wiki that does this? Meaning that one secondary source and the viewpoints from it are repeated used throughout the article? And in response to Jpatokal , "CHC requires its members "to commit themselves to the church's teachings" by attending "equipping class" regularly, where the church has emphasised "the reward of offering" and tithe to compel its higher-income members to give prolifically and "lavishly". You asked if this statement is a viewpoint. When Joy Tong uses words like "compel", "prolifically" and "lavishly", it is no longer just a fact, because these words are not objective. How can one come to a conclusion that the members are "compelled"? And how is this statement verified? Secondly, Joy Tong based many of her conclusions on "informants", and do these informant represent the views of the majority of the people in the church, if not, then can we say that this is undue weight given to a viewpoint? 02:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustine07 (talk • contribs)

Actually Faustine07 does bring up a valid concern about the over-reliance of one source for substantial, and as we have seen from the past few weeks, controversial and debatable content for this article. The problem is actally that JT's study itself has been quite low profile until it was used here, which possibly explains why there has been few sources to contradict it. Arguably its not as bad as WP:FRINGE since its a scholastic dissertion/study, but then again, when cases like Hwang Woo-suk are possible, its best to be cautious about singular sourcing. Not saying that we should not use them, just that we should handle with care. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, its not about what she said, its how we use it for citations on the article page that matters more. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The paper is not that "low profile" -- while not a high-impact thesis like say Watson and Crick's, it has already been cited twice as a reference in other publications. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11453174424325401880&as_sdt=5,47&sciodt=0,47&hl=en

Its low profile in the sense that its quite hard to get hits or references to her article on google when I search by the study name. (I kept getting another hit for a book that has a similar title....damn you google "autocorrect".... And I dont see much discussion about her paper outside of here. But thats not the key point here. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

the point remains that this a just a single article that a editor is pushing excessively for her own reasons.

SOT students required to address all pastors proper titles or else face disciplinary action?

"Students in The School of Theology (formerly known as City Harvest Bible Training Centre) are also required to "address all pastors by their proper titles whenever they meet...failure to do so will bring about disciplinary action."[34]"
--> Hmm.... I find Joy Tong's statement (see above) amusing....but is that so? It is hard to say if it is true or not. Secondary sources should be needed to verify the opinions of SOT students documented by the singular academic case study conducted by Joy Tong. This statement is from SOT students' opinions, I suppose. But does this rule still act as relevant law to SOT today according to Joy Tong's case study? No? I believe SOT students should identify any code of conduct in their Terms and Conditions (something like that) paper. If media reports like TNP and ST magnify the problem faced by SOT students, then Joy Tong's statement will be double-verified as credible. Otherwise, the credibility of Joy Tong's statement is really questioned. Primary source should marry secondary source for double vertification if original research from the scratch is really wanted for this wiki entry. Kimberry352 (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's quoted directly from SOT's Rules and Regulations sec 6.5.5, which are available online: [12]. Jpatokal (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Right, now there's no mincing of words when it is cited in the article page, unless CHC starts to reword them to make themselve look better at a later time or date. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, that is what I am looking for the law set by SOT. It means this rule comes from the official SOT website. No doubt Joy Tong's specific statement is double-verified. Kimberry352 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• The SOT site is a primary source. Joy Tong (as a secondary source) then comments on the SOT site and gives her interpretation. This is to avoid making OR statements (our own interpretations) about the handbook. Do you see how this works? ;-) elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Is there any confirmed reports that SOT students have ever faced disciplinary actions from SOT teachers? Hm... It would be credible enough to cite this if TNP/ST together with SPF can confirm this. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Repetitive use of Joy Tong

How many times are there used: "according to Joy Tong", "based on Joy Tong", "Joy Tong's studies say", etc with Joy Tong? Using this way too many times may give CHC wiki entry more weight compared to other megachurches like NCC, FCBC, LHC, VFC, etc... I think as long as the statements from Joy Tong are rephrased or quoted, it should be enough to cite them with citation tags instead of saying "according to Joy Tong" too many times. (Note: despite Joy Tong's case study talks about megachurches generally, this case study focuses on CHC only instead of other megachurches which I am sure they act like McDonald/Disney churches same as CHC.) Kimberry352 (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can I remove repetitive "Joy Tong" words ("According to Joy Tong", "Based on Joy Tong", "Joy Tong's study finds out", etc - only name) except first and necessary "Joy Tong" words -- to minimize the dominance of Joy Tong's case study on CHC wiki entry? Kimberry352 (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Repeated usage of such is beginning to give the CHC members an excuse that her independently researched article is WP:UNDUE, concur your motion to tighten the wordings or to reword them altogether. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed that Elle used repeated usage of "Joy Tong" to argue the views on emphasized CHC topics. I suggest the subsequent sentences with "Joy Tong" should be reworded. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Look at the paragraphs below and count how many times of usage of Joy Tong with "according to", "study observe", etc... (see repeated use of Joy Tong in blue color, underline and bold.)Kimberry352 (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Teachings on tithes, worship and discipline
CHC requires its members "to commit themselves to the church's teachings" by attending "equipping class" regularly, where the church has emphasised "the reward of offering" and tithe to compel its higher-income members to give prolifically and "lavishly". The church has "severe teachings" against gossip and slander which according to Tong has been used to prohibit members from talking about negative feelings or reservations held felt against church leaders or church policies;[4] one such prohibition was outlined in an article called "Gossip — Satan's lethal weapon" in the CHC publication Harvest Times.[30] According to Tong, peer pressure and church leaders' supervision of church groups promote an atmosphere of conformity. A "proper" way of worship and "proper" responses to sermons, e.g. echoing a unified "Yeah!" when the speaker says something remarkable, are taught.
According to informants to Tong, disciplinary actions are taken by church leaders to "punish uncooperative attitudes" as an "effective way of regulating its huge membership". One informant was formally censured for "her disagreement" with the church's programme of "miraculous healing", especially when it on a number of occasions hosted controversial healing evangelist Benny Hinn to conduct miracle healing sessions.[31][32] In the public eye, while some Singaporeans criticized the invitations due to Hinn's controversial reputation, the church dismissed the criticism.[33]
Students in The School of Theology (formerly known as City Harvest Bible Training Centre) are also required to "address all pastors by their proper titles whenever they meet...failure to do so will bring about disciplinary action."[34]

Transformative and conspicuous lifestyle
Tong's study observed that people "are encouraged to spend money on appearance and lifestyle" as part of a "subjective identification" to "distinguish the church's members from others". This distinction "inevitably involves various kinds of consumption". In a service in 2005, a pastor gave an anecdote about his bringing his mother-in-law to Disneyland, giving her a ticket to an Esplanade concert, and pushing her dress style to become more fashionable. He concluded with the question, "Am I not changing her life?", and pushed his "mission" to transform older church members' dress styles to thunderous applause from CHC's young audience. She argues CHC has pushed its members into buying into "a corporate image" that involves acquiring certain goods are both "functional" and at the same time a symbol for the "conspicuous display of style or taste". By following these transformations church members could see CHC's "promise of a new [church-given] life" fulfilled.[4]

Views on wealth, freedom and success
Success and freedom, according to Tong's study, are the two most outstanding values that are not merely "advocated to back up the church's agenda" but are "presented as virtues in themselves", often using quotations from Bible verses in the process. According to church doctrine, "God's abundant love" has both material and spiritual payoffs. "Conspicuous success", i.e. being prosperous, is presented as a desirable goal of the congregation. One informant who responded to Tong gave his explanation of church doctrine as follows: God wants us all to be successful in all aspects of our lives...I don't see [why] Christians should live a poor, pitiful, and suffered life...it is not victory that is questionable, but failure...success is good testimony. Of course people want to join successful people. Is it sensible to join a group of losers?[4]
Hard work is exhorted as important for the church members' success, but "equally important" is to give generous offerings, in order to receive "divine blessing"; by giving to God as much as possible in their tithe, members can "reap the fruits of their investment as higher returns". According to the Straits Times, these messages are part of a belief in a "prosperity gospel" endemic to CHC. Tong cites that plenty of messages have been based on the concept of a prosperity gospel, reinforcing the idea with testimonies of successful businesses, successful relationships and successful academics. By equating worldly gains with the blessings of God, CHC validates the values of its middle class congregation who are "keen [on] accumulating material and cultural assets" as part of their identity.[4]
CHC's teachings are quick to encourage empowerment and a "forward-looking mentality", avoiding the conservative themes of "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" frequently found in other churches. According to Tong, while the church authorities deserve full submission, CHC's teachings promote freedom from legalism and traditionalism; individualism and "differentiated taste" are embraced. The message to be "True to Yourself" is frequently delivered. Kong Hee explained that the church does not give its religious opinions on consumer tastes such music, clothing, housing or cars: "These are not issues of right or wrong, sin or righteousness. They are simply matters of personal preference!"[35] Such a message is "liberating and comforting" for a congregation part of a consumer society. According to Tong, Kong has thus unwittingly given spiritual endorsement for consumer culture and "liberal and trendy Christianity".[4]

---> Is it appropriate to use the usage of Joy Tong to point out the statements too many times? E.g. According to Joy Tong, Joy Tong cites that, etc... This makes weight heavier. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is for neutrality reasons: I cannot represent Tong as gospel truth; if my statement is an analysis or a viewpoint rather than a fact, then I should quote it as an analysis or a viewpoint. Note that she is often balanced out by "according to an article in the Straits Times" and so forth. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Joy Tong will soon not only be the only source. I have requested The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion -- specifically the chapter New Research on Megachurches Non-Denominationalism and Sectarianism by interlibrary loan to help write both this article and articles on megachurches in Singapore (and megachurches in general). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am afraid you might make a mess for CHC wiki entry because you might not be certain which sources you should use for generality(?) or specialization(?). If the chapter "The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion" covers the megachurches generally, you should go to Megachurch wiki entry for generality. By the way, I find it strange why The Straits Times article "Rise of new churches" dated 21 July 2002 failed to be mentioned in NCC and FCBC wiki entries. I know you argue that this article should be included in CHC wiki entry for being prosperity gospel church. However, I wonder why you selected CHC wiki entry to do a "makeover". NCC and FCBC wiki entries never say that they are prosperity gospel church though The Straits Times article claimed they are prosperity gospel. Kimberry352 (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's because the articles haven't been updated yet, and the churches are smaller. But you bet -- those articles need to updated too. Btw, I am not sure if you know how policy works on Wikipedia. I have been here since 2004 -- the "breadth versus depth" is why we have subarticles. Articles should reference each other. Should an article on telophase completely neglect cytokinesis? Why are you so adamant against including new sources? Are you actually afraid of what they might say? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• can you indent your post by 1? Btw, I feel NCC and FCBC should not be mentioned as prosperity gospel churches in CHC wiki entry. It should be mentioned in local megachurches wiki entry if you still insist to add it.. NCC and FCBC have nothing with CHC topic. Kimberry352 (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

---

back to topic!

subsequent usage of Joy Tong should be removed as there are too many times to use Joy Tong to refer statements. Excessive usage of Joy Tong may lead to "heavy weight" and split thoughts.Kimberry352 (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis on certain topics - is it necessary?

Another question I have about the article is, there is certain emphasis given to topics like tithing, giving, conspicuous lifestyle, wealth and success. Personally, I do not understand the purpose on the emphasis on these topics. Why are these teachings particularly emphasized on? Are these all that the church teaches, if not, then should someone come in to add in other points of view to balance the article? Faustine07 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappriopriate to label CHC as prospesity gosepl church together with NCC and FCBC?

According to the Straits Times, these messages are part of a belief in a "prosperity gospel" endemic not only to CHC but other megachurches like New Creation Church (NCC) and Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC).[35]
--> If insisting to include this article in CHC wiki entry, how about considering NCC and FCBC wiki entry? I understand Elle argued this article is from reputable media centre so it should be included in CHC wiki entry but I don't see why she failed to include this in NCC and FCBC wiki entry. Kimberry352 (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Additional: I find it strange why The Straits Times article "Rise of new churches" dated 21 July 2002 failed to be mentioned in NCC and FCBC wiki entries. I know Elle argues that this article should be included in CHC wiki entry for being prosperity gospel church. However, I wonder why she selected CHC wiki entry to do a "makeover". NCC and FCBC wiki entries never say that they are prosperity gospel church though The Straits Times article claimed they are prosperity gospel.

You are welcome to improve the NCC and FCBC articles by adding the article there. Jpatokal (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, it's because I haven't had time yet. And those mentions are perfectly appropriate -- it's like mentioning Robespierre without talking about Louis de Saint-Just. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• well, Elle, hope you should be more active in contributing this source to not only megachurches in Singapore but also specific megachurches' entries according to the source. I don't see any mention of prosperity gospel in NCC and FCBC (specific megachurches) wiki entries. In my view, it is not appropriate to say they are prosperity gospel churches. But you insists to add this in CHC wiki entry. By the way, Elle, I feel CHC is more towards single original research by Joy Tong. There have not been upcoming original research to prove or show counterexample related to megachurches - not only in general but also specific... Kimberry352 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)