Jump to content

Talk:Bill Gothard: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Arbustoo (talk | contribs)
12,546 edits
→Thomas A. Hill: it was a quote
No edit summary
Line 83: Line 83:
[[User:JimMiller|JimMiller]] 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[[User:JimMiller|JimMiller]] 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
: Oil tycoon was a quote from the source. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
: Oil tycoon was a quote from the source. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

== Awful entry ==

I must say that this is an awful and pathetic entry. Not only are there several spelling errors, but this article is biased. Only a select few of Gothard's teachings are mentioned; ones that could spur controversy. Plus, trying to taint a man's reputation that has done so much good is just sickening. Those who have contributed to this entry should be ashamed of themselves. It's truly awful. --[[User:I gotta say it|I gotta say it]] 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:46, 17 April 2006

Controversy

Please see WP:NPOV. Gothard is a controversial figure, and much of that controversy centers around his authoritarian teaching, and how that has been applied or misapplied--most specifically under his direct authority and leadership. So the controversies belong to his biography, and not just the organization's article. Please do not remove information simply because it is critical or negative. If it is incorrect, please edit it, but do so in a way that adds detail rather than removes detail. Thanks. --Gandalf2000 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, your request that "any" edits be discussed first is absurd. That isn't how Wikipedia works and you know it.
Next, putting uncited (e.g. alleged) sex scandal information about a co-worker and Gothard's brother adds nothing to Gothard's entry. With your logic, we should include the names of every person who has attempted using his teachings and failed. If there is a place for those things, it is on his organization's web site; or better yet, on the individuals' pages and not Bill Gothard's.--Jason Gastrich 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, thank you for participating. Perhaps you should review the history of this article. Many controversial statements have been deleted without explanation. The controversial statements are substantiated, though I agree citations are thin. It would be better to add a [citation needed] template or do what I did with the sourceless acclamations and endorsements--move the content into the Talk page rather than deleting it. Please remember that it takes effort to summarize and add information to an article, and you're deleting other editors' work with very little respect.--Gandalf2000 06:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the controversial information back in, with citations. And please re-read my first statement. I did not ask for discussion of "any" edits first. I asked for discussion about removing content. Making factual corrections or style improvements, as well as adding material, is great.--Gandalf2000 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acclamations and endorsements

There are no sources listed for the endorsements below. When sources are provided, they can be moved to the article.

Bill Gothard is highly praised by such men as:

Merge?

See the AfD discussion [[1]] for a discussion of whether to merge or delete one of the articles.--Gandalf2000 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain why I deleted the link to [this] article (linked as "Investigative report of Gothard's Indianapolis Training Center"), it's because [this] other article explains that the charges in the former one are "false, unsubstantiated, and unfounded." Yes, I know that the latter link is from the Institute in Basic Life Principles, the organization charged, but an included PDF from the IBLP site is also there as a signed council resolution for what IBLP is saying. Furthermore, searching the [WTHR] (news station hosting the article) website for many of the key words in the "Dark Secrets" article (such as "Gothard") provides no results, meaning at least that it's not an article that they've continued to hold in their archives (it's also undated).

Hope this is a sufficient explanation for my actions ^^ (I'm still a newbie, so any corrections will be accepted kindly, yes they will!). Thanks, Weien 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to summarize and include links to both the WTHR article and the city council resolution, which together would provide balanced, NPOV.--Gandalf2000 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The MCO article indeed speaks from a rather fair viewpoint ^^. But linking to both the WTHR article and the resolution--doesn't the resolution kind of cancel out the WTHR? Or, with that point conceded, would they be presented as a pair, where "WTHR said such-and-such, and in response the city council said such-and-such?" One thought I have been chewing over (but have been too afraid to voice ^^) is possibly creating a "Gothard Controversies" article (linked to in the normal Bill Gothard article), for a tighter presentation of the hotter issues concerning both Gothard and IBLP. After all, from what I see, one of (if not the) main things that those two articles have in common (i.e. overlap) is the controveries and criticism (notice how the "controversies" section of the IBLP article kinda takes over XD). Then again, there are many in favor of deleting the Bill Gothard/IBLP articles altogether, so I think the last thing they want is another related article. Ideas?
Anyway, thanks both of you for your thoughts. Weien 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, I agree that this episode is a good illustration of the controversy(ies), and MCO summarizes the issues quite well.
To address your other point, I think these two articles are progressing quite well. There is a summary of issues on Gothard's page, relating to him as a central figure, and more details on the IBLP page. I think the normal editing process will take care of it, without any drastic reorganization or restructuring. Of course, if someone with a boatload of relevant information wants to add to the pages, that's great, and may justify overhaul, but I think the AfD and merge suggestions are completely unnecessary.--Gandalf2000 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough; though it might need at least a semi-significant amount of "the normal editing process" to make Bill Gothard look like less of a monster that everyone hates (rather than simply a controversial figure in the Christian world). At least, that's being said as almost every section in the article has something to say along the lines of his controversies and criticisms (including the summary). And correct me if I'm wrong, but the IBLP page seems to follow a similar pattern. On the bright side, the "See Also" section doesn't mention any scandals at all ;). Anyway, sorry about the rant... hopefully I'll be able to justify it by adding some relatively tame information to these pages in the future. And again, thanks for your replies (let me know if I'm getting out of line!). Weien 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thought--since the AfD discussion has been concluded, does that mean that the flags for merging are still inherent? Weien 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers

Whereas the vote is over and the article survived, it is time to discuss the two proposed mergers. Harvestdancer 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvestdancer, if we add substantially to both the Bill Gothard and IBLP pages (resulting in two related but distinct articles as opposed to two articles both focusing about the IBLP/Gothard controveries) in the mid-future, would that warrant that the two articles remain separate? Or would a merge still be in order regardless? But regarding the Forty-nine character virtues article, perhaps it could just go altogether, or work better as part of Character First! (a new article, see discussion at bottom of the article's talk page). Weien 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I and others argued in the AFD, both Gothard and the Institute are notable just as both Pat Robertson and the 700 Club are notable. However, I like the idea of merging the Forty-nine virtues article somewhere, either to Bill Gothard or Character First!--DDerby-(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping both the IBLP and Bill Gothard articles separate, although I am open to the Forty-nine character virtues being merged into IBLP.Dick Clark 17:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Gothard and Institute. Delete "virtues" article and put link on Gothard page for interested parties. The reader gets a better idea of the facts when the articles are contextually connected-- merged. There is not enough information to warrant separate articles and contain the same information. Arbustoo 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate Gothard and IBLP articles. Merge 49 character virtues into IBLP or delete and link to external source.--Gandalf2000 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Gothard and IBLP are essentially one and the same. Gothard has absolute control over IBLP, IBLP is based solely on Gothard's interpretation of Scripture, and outside of IBLP Gothard is not otherwise noteworthy. Quidam65 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megachurches?

What "megachurch" has Gothard pastored? How id this category applicable here? I'm removing the uncourced supposition. Dick Clark 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the biography section, "Since then the Basic Youth Conflicts grew and attendance averaged between 10,000 and 20,000."' Arbustoo 20:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are seminars or workshops, though, not "churches." These are very different things. A church has members who regularly attend worship, generally at a particular place of worhip, and has a hierarchy of pastoral staff (sometimes this does not hold true, although it almost certainly would for any "megachurch"). These seminars were not designed to take the place of the attendees' regular church activities, but rather to supplement them with relatively short, (usually) one-time workshops. Dick Clark 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the Institute is a church (which it does not appear to be), then it could be in the category. Since Gothard is a person, not a church, he should not be in the category. -Will Beback 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it more like a ''para''church organisation? Like Focus on the Family? Or does that designation fill more specific criteria?--EuropracBHIT 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
EuropracBHIT: I would say that assessment is pretty accurate. IBLP does not purport to be a "primary provider" of worship services, fellowship, etc., such as a "church" would. Rather, IBLP is an organization that provides training which is designed to supplement (not replace) the activities at the local church level. Dick Clark 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Hill

I edited the brief description of Mr. Hill. Previously, this article referred to him as an "oil tycoon", a term that generally refers to someone who owns oil fields or production companies or both. Mr. Hill is the retired chairman of a company that makes supplies for oil and gas pipelines. They are a manufacturing company, and therefore Mr. Hill is no more an oil tycoon than Bill Ford, Jr. (For the record, Mr. Hill is an acquaintance of mine. He lives in my neighborhood and I used to do contract work for his father-in-law, who co-founded the company we are talking about here.) - JimMiller 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oil tycoon was a quote from the source. Arbusto 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awful entry

I must say that this is an awful and pathetic entry. Not only are there several spelling errors, but this article is biased. Only a select few of Gothard's teachings are mentioned; ones that could spur controversy. Plus, trying to taint a man's reputation that has done so much good is just sickening. Those who have contributed to this entry should be ashamed of themselves. It's truly awful. --I gotta say it 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Gothard&oldid=48891624"