Talk:Another Gospel/Archive 1

Cited by other books

Some of the books which are said to cite this one were published years before it. Has there been a mistake? Steve Dufour 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No. They are either later editions of those works, or this is a later edition of this book and it was published previously. I will check... Smee 19:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Got it. They are later editions of the other works that cite the book, that came out afterwards. Smee 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Is 2004 the correct date for the first publication of this book? Steve Dufour 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, but the citations have later publications in additonal formats. Smee 19:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

"Orthodox" vs. "mainstream" Christianity

When you use the expression "orthodox Christianity" it links to an article on the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. Protestants use the expression "mainstream Christianity". You could also say "traditional Christianity" to mean the same thing, that is churches which believe in the standard Christian teachings including Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox but excluding "cults" and "heretics". Steve Dufour 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless the book was written from an Eastern Orthodox point of view. Was it? Thanks. Steve Dufour 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• [1] - She pinpoints how the doctrines and practices of a dozen contemporary groups—as well as the New Age Movement—deviate from orthodox Christianity and shows how to reach out to cult members. Smee 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

With that information the meaning is clear to me, however some people might think the article was talking about the Eastern Church. Steve Dufour 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So which denomination is it referring to then? Smee 20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

As I understand it, the expression "orthodox Christianity" is being used here to refer to "mainstream Christianity", also known as "traditional Christianity", rather than to its more common meaning of "the Eastern Orthodox Churches". Steve Dufour 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I have corrected the article accordingly. Smee 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Roman Catholic Church

The charge of preaching Another Gospel is often lauched against the Roman Catholic Church by Protestant fundamentalists. I know this may sound controversial, but it is fairly common to hear Protestant pastors claim that the Catholic Church teaches another Gospel. [2] ADM (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notability and WP:NPOV problems?

It's not at all clear to me if this book is sufficiently notable to merit its own article. There have been many, many books written by evangelical Christian authors which have attacked other religious/spiritual groups with differing beliefs; what is it about this particular book that makes it so special?

Also, the article seems to me to not even be trying to convey a neutral or balanced viewpoint. Calling a non-mainstream group a "cult" is inherently a highly POV statement, and just because a religion disagrees with tenets of present-day mainstream Christianity does not automatically mean mainstream Christian belief is right and the other group is wrong. If this article is to remain at all, it needs to acknowledge that Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, and many others will have serious disagreements with it. Richwales (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

POV changes and unsourced additions

[3] = changes by Richwales (talk · contribs) introduced POV wording, and wholly unsourced material. Completely inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I went back and double-checked. I added back all the changes that were not either: 1) unsourced 2) WP:NOR violations, or 3) blatant POV pushing. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced addition

added explanation of what Regent College is; taken from the lede of the Regent College article = this edit by Richwales (talk · contribs) is inappropriate. Other Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS sources of info. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Making this page more NPOV

With all possible respect toward Cirt, I take issue with his claim that my recent edits were "blatant POV pushing" or "completely inappropriate". I was trying to make the article more neutral and encyclopedic, in part by making it more comprehensible to readers who may not share, understand, or even be aware of the evangelical Christian perspective of the book's author. In my view, keeping edits of this sort out of the article presents a greater risk of POV-pushing than making the changes.

I also feel intimidated by the tone of Cirt's recent comments on my talk page, which I consider to be excessive. Cirt and I evidently do disagree, not only on what should be in this article, but also on the interpretation of some WP standards and policies, but threatening to have someone blocked at this stage of the game is (IMO) premature and not conducive to constructive improvement of the article.

I would like to request a careful and reasoned discussion of these issues, preferably involving editors who have not been involved so far (and, in particular, editors other than Cirt and myself). I'll also stop my efforts to work on this article for the time being, in order to clear the air and provide room for such a conversation. Richwales (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

See above. Edits by Richwales (talk · contribs) to this page introduced wholly unsourced material, material violating WP:NOR, and material violating WP:NPOV. In light of the failed attempt by Richwales (talk · contribs) to get this page deleted, this smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You and I both clearly have strongly held opinions here. I feel you misunderstand my motivations and are overreacting — and I imagine you probably feel I'm distorting your views and have a hidden agenda — and I doubt either one of us is willing to simply back down and concede that he's 100% wrong and the other is 100% right. Again, I think it would be helpful if we could get some other people (more neutral than either you or I) involved in this discussion. What would you suggest as a good way to accomplish this? Should we try one of Wikipedia's various dispute resolution procedures? Should we ask editors in one or more projects to get involved? Richwales (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are disputing that you added and re-added wholly unsourced material to this article, multiple times? Cirt (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose asking the Religion wikiproject crowd for opinions re: whether it's appropriate for this article to be edited (and, if so, how to edit it) so as to make the evangelical viewpoint of the book plain (or plainer), but without thereby pushing either a pro- or anti-evangelical position — or whether the article is truly neutral and encyclopedic on this point as it currently stands. Comments?

(If we really, really want to know if non-evangelicals consider the current article to be NPOV w/r/t this point, we could probably ask the Scientology wikiproject people — though I would propose going there only as a very last resort!)

As for the question of a source for the statement that Regent College is a graduate school of Christian studies located in Vancouver, I would propose that this page from the school's own web site adequately substantiates this claim and would be acceptable as a source. Comments on this (either from Cirt or from anyone else)?

As for the question of an explanation of the book's title as being an allusion to Galatians 1:6, I will concede that I haven't been able (yet) to find a source explicitly spelling out this connection. This frustrates me to no end, because I strongly believe not only that this reference is common knowledge amongst the book's intended audience (as well as many of the book's detractors), but also that it's essential for the article to explain the use of this verse as the basis for the book's title for the benefit of readers who may be largely unfamiliar with the subject. Ironically, the fact that this is a piece of common knowledge to most readers of the book may make it that much less likely that any source (other than a hopelessly POV source intentionally ridiculing the book) can be found. I find myself very close to suggesting that this may be one of those exceedingly rare cases where we should invoke Wikipedia's "ignore all rules" policy (yes, I was surprised to learn that WP:IAR really is a policy!) and add the explanation on the basis of its obvious truth, even if it can't be formally verified. Again, I'd really like to see comments from other people here, so no one out there will get the idea that either Cirt or I could be trying to claim ownership of this page. Richwales (talk)

Unfortunately we stray towards WP:NOR if we only rely on primary sources as opposed to secondary sources for you to push across your POV into this article. Cirt (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to "push across my POV into this article". What I'm trying to do is to provide context for the reader (WP:PCR), in order to make the article more accessible to a general audience. In my view, the article (as it currently stands) is an "insider piece" that relies way too heavily on an assumption that the reader is familiar with (and perhaps even embraces) a mainstream/evangelical Christian perspective.

I certainly could take issue, from a neutrality standpoint, with the way the article currently talks about "cults" that "seem to meet people's needs", "strive for religious respectability", clash with "orthodox Christianity", have members whom readers of Another Gospel might feel impelled to "reach out to", etc. — but at the very least, there need to be some reference points provided for a reader who may not be conversant with this perspective and its particular set of tacit assumptions. I believe it's perfectly appropriate, and not at all POV-pushing, to want to add some rudimentary explanation for entities like Regent College, Zondervan, and the origin and connotations of the phrase "another gospel" — not as a means of belittling these things or biasing the reader against them, but with a view toward lifting the page up from its current condition (IMO, really not much more than an insider book review) and transforming it into an encyclopedia article.

Yes, I'll admit that I had (and perhaps still have) reservations about this article and its suitability for Wikipedia. However, the consensus was that the article should stay — and I accept that — and I'm remaining involved with the page not because I "don't like it" or am hoping to sabotage it, but because I want to improve it.

And this really shouldn't just be a debate between me and Cirt (he doesn't own this page, any more than I do), so I'm going to approach a few relevant projects and ask some more people to get involved. (Don't worry, I won't ask the Scientologists — at least, not yet.) Richwales (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Richwales (talk · contribs) - can you suggest any independent reliable secondary sources to support the claims you are making about this article's subject? Cirt (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some secondary sources which, taken as a whole, should substantiate my claim that (1) evangelicalism accepts implicitly that various religious movements (such as those described in Another Gospel) are bad, and (2) Another Gospel was targeted primarily to an evangelical audience: [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]. Also, [11] (this last one is not from an evangelical group; see [12] for more on their perspective concerning "cults").

I am not trying to promote a POV claim here that Another Gospel or evangelicalism is bad on account of the above view. I am simply saying that in order for average readers to properly understand the book and its significance in the appropriate context (again, WP:PCR), it is appropriate that they should be made aware — in a neutral fashion — of where the book is "coming from". To fail or refuse to acknowledge this in any way would make the current article an "insider piece" at best, and a piece of POV, pro-evangelical apologetic/polemic writing at worst. Richwales (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of the sources you suggest above, we should only use those that are directly about this book. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the source suggestion of Journal of Christian Nursing. I have added that review into the article. Curious that you are able to find these sources now, but were unable to do so during the AFD you nominated in a failed attempt to get rid of this page. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

I have requested a WP:3O. That should hopefully be sufficient, for now. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hold off, for the time being, on trying to bring in people from projects (in deference to the "third opinion" ground rule that they only want to get involved in disagreements involving exactly two editors).

I'm also going to hold off on any further comments of my own for now, until after we've had a third opinion (or after it becomes apparent that no third opinion is forthcoming). Please don't anyone misinterpret my failure to respond as meaning anything other than this. Richwales (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't provide a Third Opinion because I have prior history with one of the editors involved in this dispute, and my personal standards will not therefore allow me to do so, but I would like to suggest that it would be of considerable assistance to some other Third Opinion Wikipedian who might be considering taking this request if the dispute could be made quite a bit more specific and could focus on particular edits or texts, preferably identified by diffs. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Richwales (talk · contribs) complains about notability and neutrality of this page [13]
2. Richwales (talk · contribs) fails to get the page deleted at AFD, during which there was unanimous consent to Keep, aside from the nominator. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Gospel (book).
3. Richwales (talk · contribs) edits the page itself, adding poor sourcing, and violating site policy including WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. This goes up to and including an attempt to cite another Wikipedia article as a source. [14]
4. Richwales (talk · contribs) suggests some other sources [15] only one of which (Journal of Christian Nursing) is an appropriate review of the book and proper source. I promptly then added that source into the article. It is interesting to note that Richwales (talk · contribs) for some reason did not suggest these sources during the AFD, but did so now.

Cirt (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Given TransporterMan (talk · contribs)'s comments and those of Cirt (talk · contribs), I'll speak up again in order to explain the situation more clearly from my point of view.

I did complain about this page and did nominate it for deletion on the basis that (in my opinion) the subject was non-notable and the article was irredeemably POV. I was overruled, and I accept this. Since the page is going to remain, I want to see it made more neutral and encyclopedic, including making the subject matter more accessible to a general audience. I'm acting above board here, and I respectfully request that other editors assume my good faith and stop insinuating that my earlier AFD request implies that I surely must now be acting on some ulterior motive or hidden agenda to vandalize this page.

I will also freely acknowledge (as indicated on my user page) that I am a believing, practising member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a "Mormon"). My own religious beliefs may make me more sensitive than some to possible bias in this article — something which, indeed, may be desirable in an editor in order for the article to be fair and neutral. Again, I am not operating under any sort of covert mission to sabotage this article.

My original set of edits (to which Cirt objected) are here. My main "issues" with the page — things which I was attempting in good faith to improve — include the following:

• In general, the page fails to acknowledge that Another Gospel was written from a mainstream or evangelical Christian perspective. I believe it is essential to make this explicitly clear — not as a means of pushing an anti-evangelical POV, but rather with a view toward providing context for the reader and transforming an "insider piece" into an encyclopedia article accessible to a general audience.

• Certain insider references in the article need to be explained in a balanced manner for an "outsider" audience. For example, readers may not be aware of the significance of the book's title (the Apostle Paul described heresies within early Christianity as "another gospel", and as a result, the intended audience of the book will instantly recognize it as a "counter-cult" work). Also, it is appropriate to briefly describe Regent College (an institution possibly familiar to many evangelicals, but not generally known to others) in order to understand the context and significance of saying that Another Gospel is included in its curriculum. I would also suggest (though I did not do so earlier) that a brief parenthetical comment explaining what Zondervan is would be helpful to the general audience — again, not with a view to belittle or marginalize this or other evangelical Christian institutions or beliefs, but rather to make the material on the page more readily accessible to everyone who might read it.

• The way the article currently talks about "cults" (a pejorative term in and of itself) which "seem to meet people's needs", "strive for religious respectability", clash with "orthodox Christianity", and have members whom readers of Another Gospel might feel a desire or need to "reach out to" is (in my view) heavily POV. These phrases could be included as direct quotes (assuming they are) — and/or neutral wording could be added to make it plain that these phrases reflect the viewpoint of the author and those who share her religious faith — but, in my view, they cannot simply be stated in the (expected to be neutral) voice of Wikipedia itself.

• Certain phrases need to be modified for greater neutrality. For example, "orthodox Christianity" implies that a certain variety of Christian faith is correct and others are not — which is why I attempted to replace it with "mainstream or evangelical Christianity". Note, too, that members of the Eastern Orthodox Church would take special exception to Protestants of any variety staking a claim on this phrase as referring to themselves; the NPOV principle really demands that the term either be replaced with something else, or else quoted and respectfully flagged as representing the author's opinion.

I will concede that I could have done a better job of providing sources for my material, but I take exception to the accusation that my edits constituted crude blundering or malicious vandalism and deserved to be rebuked with what I perceived as a level of brusque, contemptuous ferocity that I have rarely seen in the close to five years I've been contributing to Wikipedia.

I hope the above will be helpful to someone who is willing to come here and offer a "third opinion". Richwales (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We cannot rewrite or add in things to this article to suit the POV of Richwales (talk · contribs). And most certainly not, if this is not supported by secondary WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion: I would say give Richwales a chance, allow him 2 weeks to add a , or a source. If he fails to do so it 2 weeks then it goes back to Cirts version. I think everyone deserves a chance, you both are passionate editors just looking for the best for this article. Richwales if you fail to provide a or any source your work will be reverted (may I recommend you add multiple sources). I hope I got this right and good luck. Any questions ask me okay. House1090 (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing this third opinion. Of all the above new sources suggested by Richwales (talk · contribs), I only saw one that was suitable - Journal of Christian Nursing. I have already added that source into the article. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would ment just let him look for reliable source and if he finds them disscuss it here before an edit war breaks out okay. The talk page is a great place to discuss and come up with compromises. I would like to remind tou guys to assume good faith and be civil. House1090 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh in that case I fully agree with you. Thank you very much. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm working on a draft revision of the article (in my personal namespace) and should hopefully have it ready for comments in a day or two. Richwales (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If Richwales (talk · contribs) means this User:Richwales/Drafts/Another Gospel - that appears to just be his POV material pushed in, with absolutely no sources to back it up. Cirt (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not done yet. I'm still working on it. Please be patient. Richwales (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we can discuss here. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(Over?)using a single source

I'm concerned about the extent to which the page is currently using and reusing a single source (this page from Zondervan's web site). As best I can tell, this one source is currently cited in six different places within the first half of the article.

I also have concerns about the value of this source (it's basically just a summary or mini-review) and its neutrality (it is, after all, part of an online store site run by or for the publisher of the book in question). Especially if this one item is being relied upon so heavily as the primary or sole source for so many things in the article, I would hope we could improve on the quality by finding more sources (from diverse places) to fill out and balance the page's foundation.

I think I may also have some other general concerns regarding sourcing for this page, but I'd like to start with this. Richwales (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Do you doubt the veracity of any statements in the article that this source is supporting? Why? What other sources can you provide to dispute this? Cirt (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said several times, I doubt the neutrality of the material in question. Much of it is extremely controversial, and yet I feel it is being reported in the current article as if it were a set of objective facts. I don't doubt that the Zondervan e-commerce page does in fact say the things it's being cited as saying, but I do believe many of the things being said are one-sided (and, if left to stand by themselves, constitute blatant POV-pushing even if they are backed up by a friendly source or sources).

Regarding this particular source, if it weren't coming from a major publisher (Zondervan), I would challenge it as a self-published source. And especially given the highly contentious nature of the subject matter — material from or about the Christian countercult movement, its targets, or any other religious-based apologetic / polemic undertaking is inherently controversial basically by definition — we have a right and a duty to insist on a balanced spectrum of sources, both sympathetic and hostile to the subject.

The subject of this article, BTW, needs to be understood in the larger context of evangelicalism and the Christian countercult movement. A statement or source may easily be relevant even if it discusses the "countercult" issue generally, but not necessarily the book Another Gospel in particular. One of the things I am working on in my proposed reworking of this page is to add something (with sources, don't worry!) explaining the connection between this book and the Christian countercult movement in general.

And as I understand WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, I (a person challenging the verifiability and/or neutrality of material) do not have to bear the sole burden of proving my case. WP:V does not say that any challenge to material is out of order unless it's immediately substantiated by sources provided by the challenger. I will try my best to find additional sources representing as many views on this topic as I can, but you and other editors need to be doing that too.

Finally, we really, really need to get more editors involved with this page ASAP. I am going to continue working on my proposed revision (the draft in my namespace), and we (lots of people, not just you and I) can discuss these things in more detail. But I feel it's crucial to get more people (from many different positions — evangelicals, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox, and possibly even Scientologists) discussing this page and trying to reach a broad consensus. Richwales (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Richwales (talk · contribs) fails to address my above request, fails to be specific in his complaints, and fails to back up his claims with sources. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Not a forum

Evidently this page has problems with users understanding that article talk pages are intended to suggest sources to improve the article, not as message boards to discuss and put forth personal opinions about the article. Therefore, template added:

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Regent College

In the "Reception" section of the article, I propose to add the following parenthetical comment after the name of Regent College —

• (a graduate school of Christian studies affiliated with the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada)

— with the following as sources:

• "Honouring our elders: Dr. James Houston, founder of Regent College", BC Christian News, June 2001.
• "Regent College", descriptive page on the University of British Columbia's student services web site.
• Regent College: An International Graduate School of Christian Studies, front page of Regent College's web site.

The last source is a self-published primary source, but I believe it is acceptable under WP:SELFPUB because the page is about the school itself, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the Another Gospel article is not based primarily on sources such as this.

The reason I want to add the above is that I believe it is important to provide some explanation of Regent College in furtherance of WP:PCR.

Comments? Richwales (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• No objection. I'd go for "Regent College, an international graduate school of Christian studies affiliated with the University of British Columbia", citing source 2. I think the "international" would add value, and the "Vancouver, Canada" bit is redundant (we have wikilinks). --JN466 08:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. [16]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Two additions

I expanded on the idea of using quotes for the description (last paragraph of the "Contents" section), in order to denote clearly what the source (as opposed to Wikipedia itself) is saying and promote NPOV.

I also added a statement from the book defining cults in a theological sense (a group with a "prophet" giving an extra-Biblical message). Since we're supposed to give preference to reliable secondary sources, I took this excerpt from a quote of Another Gospel in Gomes's book, Unmasking the Cults.

Richwales (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is way too much quoting. That is pushing it a bit too far with that one primary source. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the following sentence is POV if it's not included in a quoted form — The author relates key historical controversies within each group or movement as they strive for religious respectability. That sentence probably isn't really necessary anyway, and the best way around the POV question would be simply to take it out. If you feel it just has to stay, then at a minimum, the last part of the sentence (the part most objectionable on NPOV grounds) should be replaced by the following exact quote (in quote marks) from the publisher's page: "aims for religious respectability." Richwales (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, removed that sentence, per above complaint, [17]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Orthodox" Christianity

The original reference to "orthodox Christianity" is indeed POV. Unfortunately, removing the word "orthodox" and changing the wording to say simply "Christianity" is just as POV, because different groups have widely differing views on what "Christianity" is. (Mormons, SDA's, and several other subjects of Tucker's book object strenuously when evangelicals try to classify them as not being "Christians".)

Simply dropping "orthodox" is also a problem because, in fact, the phrase "deviate from orthodox Christianity" comes directly from the source (Another Gospel's page on Zondervan's e-commerce web site) — so saying that various groups' "practices and beliefs are compared and contrasted with those of Christianity" is, strictly speaking, an unsourced statement.

We need to come up with a way of handling this that remains true to the wording of the sources — since the exact phrase "orthodox Christianity" is used (some would say misused, but whatever) not only in the Zondervan ad page, but also in numerous places all through Tucker's book itself — while at the same time making it plain to the general reader that (1) Tucker is not using this phrase to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and (2) Wikipedia itself is not taking sides by embracing any specific religion as being the authentic and true faith.

If it were up to me, I would handle this by (1) honouring WP:RS and WP:NOR by sticking to exact quotes from the existing source (the Zondervan ad page), and/or from the front flap of the book itself (the primary source upon which the Zondervan ad page is based); (2) preserving WP:NPOV by marking the exact quotes as quotes (with quotation marks); and (3) promoting WP:PCR by including a footnote alerting the reader that the phrase "orthodox Christianity", in this context, should not be confused with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Possibly something like the following preliminary draft proposal:

The book explains how "alternative religious movements appear to meet people's needs"; how their founders' "alleged revelations spawned historical heresies"; "highlights important controversies within each movement as it aims for religious respectability"; describes how the doctrines and practices of these groups "deviate from orthodox Christianity"; and "shows how to reach out to cult members".[1][2]

--------

1. ^ Another Gospel, quotes from front flap.

2. ^ The phrase "orthodox Christianity", in this context, should not be confused with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Perhaps Cirt or someone else will have a better idea for improving this part of the article in keeping with WP policies and a proper treatment of the subject. Comments, anyone? Richwales (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done = quoted from the source, publisher website itself, per above suggestion. [18] Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The portions of that paragraph (in the opening sentence) about how the groups discussed "seem to meet people's needs" and "strive for religious respectability" are just as POV as the assertion that they "deviate from orthodox Christianity", and these comments should also be quoted as in the source (and explicitly marked as quotes via quote marks). Also, the part about "reaching out" to members of these groups is already included in the existing quote, making the statement in the first sentence of the paragraph superfluous.

I still say that the mention of "orthodox Christianity" — despite now being part of a direct quote — needs to be qualified or footnoted in some way for purposes of WP:PCR. I agree, of course, that a citation to a reliable source confirming the existence of ambiguity and concern over what various people mean by "orthodox Christianity" would be highly desirable. Do people feel that a general source of this type (not necessarily one referring specifically to the use of the term by Ruth Tucker in Another Gospel) would be acceptable? I'm concerned that an extremely narrow source focussing explicitly on this issue in this book is unlikely to exist: friendly sources would probably overlook the matter because they themselves would likely use "orthodox Christianity" in the same way, and (without making any suggestion of a new deletion debate) I suspect Another Gospel is simply not notable enough outside the Christian countercult movement for there to be any hostile or neutral sources at all that would be bothering to take the time to critique this book's use of "orthodox Christianity" as meaning something different from Eastern Orthodoxy. Richwales (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, even more quoting directly from cited source, see [19]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Richwales, I think some information explaining the concept of "orthodox" as the authors use it would be good. I don't think you'll find other sources discussing their particular use of the term, but you could probably find some other authors that use the term in the similar way. Often its intended to be something that focuses on the commonality in mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Eastern thought, e.g. the Nicene Creed. At least that's the sense I understand authors like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton using it. So you could probably find a quote from one of them illustrating the term. And although this book is not notable enough to have received third-party commentary, there's plenty on Lewis and Chesterton, so someone somewhere probably addresses their use of the term "orthodox". This author seems (not having read this book) to be on the moderate wing of the counter-cult movement, which accepts Catholic and Eastern churches and the bulk of historic Protestantism (whether Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican or so on) as "orthodox". There is also a more extreme wing that rejects e.g. the historic Catholic and Eastern churches as non-"orthodox" "cults", and even historic Protestantism they theologically disagree with (an Armininian and a Calvinst might each consider the other to have "another gospel"). So on that basis, I think this author is using it in a similar way to Lewis and Chesterton. --SJK (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

SJK - good points, and possibly an accurate analysis of what is going on, but we as Wikipedians cannot come to that conclusion ourselves as to what the author has said - or use sources to interpret that that themselves have not commented on this book - as unfortunately that would be a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to quote the authors using a term such as "orthodox Christianity", it must either be clear from the context what the authors mean the term to use (e.g. if the term is universally understood, or if they themselves give a definition), or else we must be able to define the term as they use it. Its not immediately clear what "orthodox Christianity" means, since the term has many different definitions. If they themselves don't define it, and there are no third party sources discussing their use of the particular term, we need to either (1) refer to third party sources that discuss the range of meanings the term is used in generally, and identify one of those meanings with that of these authors, or (2) strike all mention of the phrase "orthodox Christianity" from our discussion of this work. If as your argument that (1) violates WP:NOR or WP:SYNTHESIS holds, then I feel (2) is our only other option. On the other hand, one could take a more liberal interpretation of those policies, say one which focuses more on the spirit than the letter; or even invoke yet another of our policies, WP:IGNORE. Otherwise, I think (2) must be adopted. --SJK (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that adding a link to the existing "orthodox Christianity" disambiguation page in a "See also" section might suffice to give the reader a neutral basis for understanding the term and its inherent ambiguities. It might possibly also be justifiable to wikilink the phrase within the quote itself: yes, I know we are generally discouraged from adding links within quotes, but linking to what is clearly a disambiguation page is not imposing an inappropriate outside interpretation in this case. If anything, by not giving the reader any guidance for finding out what Tucker means by "orthodox Christianity", we would be unhelpful, and possibly even contributing to confusion if some readers were to start wondering if the reference might be to Eastern Orthodoxy (which I trust we editors all understand is obviously not the case).

Omitting entirely the portion of the quote that uses the phrase "orthodox Christianity" would be a mistake because Tucker's theological objections to the teachings of the groups in question is at the core of the reason for her book. Indeed, this is almost certainly why the book is entitled Another Gospel (this phrase is instantly identifiable by the intended readership as an allusion to the Apostle Paul's condemnation of first-century heresies in his New Testament writings — an observation which, to be sure, we haven't been able to make in the article because a suitable source hasn't been located yet). Failing to mention that one of the things Tucker does in Another Gospel is to explain her disagreements with the beliefs of the groups she is denouncing — albeit mentioning this in a neutral fashion that doesn't make it sound like Wikipedia is endorsing or tacitly accepting her POV — would seriously unbalance this article.

I agree with SJK that finding, and citing, secondary sources which discuss the term "orthodox Christianity" in the context of the Christian countercult movement in general — without necessarily restricting ourselves exclusively to sources treating this phrase in this one book alone — would be perfectly appropriate here, and would not constitute "POV pushing" or violate the intent of WP:NOR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Richwales (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Would prefer removal to violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Secondary sources have not discussed the term usage in the context of how it is used in this book. That would just be the POV of the individual Wikipedian that would be supposing to add it in to this article. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. Per suggestion from third-party editor SJK (talk · contribs). See [20]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated the phrase "rather than in terms of belief or by any standard of orthodoxy". This use of "orthodoxy" is not ambiguous or problematic in the same way that the phrase "orthodox Christianity" is. And Tucker's theological quarrel with the groups in question needs to be clearly understood; we would be misrepresenting Another Gospel if we were to convey the impression to the reader that the author's objections were principally about authoritarianism, lifestyle, aggressive recruiting tactics, and such. Richwales (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections to the reinstatement. Cirt (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Classification of groups

This section could be a little more clear:

Another Gospel focuses on groups active since the 1960's. It covers a wide range of groups and individuals, including Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, the Unification Church, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Worldwide Church of God, Mormonism, the Children of God, the Hare Krishnas, the Unity Church, Silva Mind Control, Erhard Seminars Training, and the Church of Scientology. In addition, less active groups are also analyzed, including Rosicrucianism and Swedenborgianism.

Most of the groups have been active before the 1960s, in the case of the Mormons before the 1860s. And why are the last two singled out? As far as I know they are still around. Borock (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The cited secondary source (a product description page for Another Gospel on the web site of the publisher, Zondervan) says the book is a comprehensive survey of alternative religions, "including the new groups since the 1960s". It doesn't say the book "focuses on groups active since the 1960s" — so it would appear that this statement is not only not true, but (more importantly for our purposes) it is not verifiable from the cited source.

This source says that "Appendices describe lesser-known cults, such as Swedenborgianism and Rosicrucianism". So, the article text saying "less active groups are also analyzed" might be more properly worded as "lesser-known groups are also described" or something similar. I would caution that the word "cults" — used freely in Another Gospel, as well as by Zondervan, because of their POV — should be avoided in this article (per WP:NPOV) except where very clearly marked as quoted material or as someone's opinion — so the existing word "groups" in the article should stay.

The specific list of "groups and individuals" listed in this section doesn't occur anywhere in the Zondervan ad page, as best I can tell. The actual table of contents from the book itself shows chapters for the following twelve groups (in the following order): Mormonism; Seventh-day Adventism; Jehovah's Witnesses; Christian Science; New Thought and Unity; the Worldwide Church of God; the Way International; the Children of God; the Unification Church; Hare Krishnas; Bahá'ís; and Scientology. Although Wikipedia policy calls for articles to be supported principally via secondary sources, WP:PSTS does permit a limited use of primary sources "only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge" — an exception which would reasonably seem to allow the inclusion of a list taken directly from the table of contents. I would therefore support replacing the current list with what the book's table of contents says (citing the book itself as the source).

Richwales (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, Removed descriptors of groups in first paragraph, changed to just straight, simple list format. [21]. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That edit didn't address the issue of the specific list in question being unsourced w/r/t the cited source (the publisher's page). I've replaced the long list with a new version that closely matches (and is sourced to) the actual table of contents of the book. See my earlier comments for a justification for using a primary source in this situation. Richwales (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"See also" section

I've added a "See also" section to this article, with links to the Christian countercult movement, occultism, orthodox Christianity, prophets, and the sola scriptura doctrine. These cannot currently be added to the article body per WP:MOSLINK, but are appropriate additions to the article per WP:SEEALSO. Richwales (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed a bit of POV-pushing out of it. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the qualification I had put on the sola scriptura link (and which you removed) was not POV-pushing. The phrase "belief in the Bible as the only infallible source of Christian teaching" is a fair summary paraphrase of what sola scriptura means. WP:SEEALSO says that when putting a link into a "See also" section, we "should provide a brief annotation ... when the meaning of the term may not be generally known" — a condition which certainly applies to a Latin phrase like this which is not commonly used or understood. And even if we disagree regarding the neutrality of this annotation, that does not automatically mean it constituted "POV pushing" (see WP:POVPUSH and note, BTW, that we are all advised to use this term with great care). If you feel that an explanation of sola scriptura is not in fact called for, or that a more neutral explanation can be had than what I proposed — or that I'm misreading WP:SEEALSO and/or WP:POVPUSH — then, please, let's discuss the issues in more detail. Richwales (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Richwales, I agree with you that "belief in the Bible as the only infallible source of Christian teaching" is a fair summary of "sola scriptura". Cirt, what particular POV are you accusing Richwales of pushing in that edit? His annotation seems quite neutral. And I also agree, that per WP:SEEALSO, WP:PCR, it is best we give a brief summary of unfamiliar terms before using them. --SJK (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added it back, per above. See [22]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: NPOV and article Another Gospel

Question raised by an editor about WP:NPOV and this article. 00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Please do not have threaded discussions in your individual subsection. Please only do that in the subsection, Further discussion. 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comments from Cirt

Summary of recent actions

1. 16 May 2009 - Richwales (talk · contribs) complains about notability and neutrality of this page [23]
2. 21 January 2010 - Richwales (talk · contribs) fails to get the page deleted at AFD, during which there was unanimous consent to Keep, aside from the nominator. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Gospel (book).
3. 2 February 2010 - Richwales (talk · contribs) edits the page itself, adding poor sourcing, and violating site policy including WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. This goes up to and including an attempt to cite another Wikipedia article as a source. [24]
4. 2 February 2010 - Richwales (talk · contribs) suggests some other sources [25] only one of which (Journal of Christian Nursing) is an appropriate review of the book and proper source. I promptly then added that source into the article. It is interesting to note that Richwales (talk · contribs) for some reason did not suggest these sources during the AFD, but did after the AFD was subsequently closed as Keep.

Cirt (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Going forward

• Every single sentence in this article is appropriately sourced.
• The changes Richwales (talk · contribs) wishes to make are not supported by sources.
• The claims Richwales (talk · contribs) has made about this article are not supported by sources.
• Going forward, sources should be proposed if changes are going to be made to the article - barring that, we cannot make random changes based on the POV of individual editors. We should instead rely on proper sourcing, which already exists in this article.

Cirt (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Richwales

1. I am attempting, in good faith, to improve this article. It is currently, in my belief, a heavily POV "insider" piece — not much more than a friendly book review — which requires significant work in order to provide proper context for general readers, make clear (in a balanced fashion) its connection to and role in the Christian countercult movement, and treat the subject fairly and neutrally without making Wikipedia itself imply by omission that the book's viewpoint is correct and uncontroversial.
2. I admit I've had concerns about the appropriateness of this page and did seek to have it deleted. But since I was overruled and the article is going to stay, I want to make it as good a Wikipedia page as possible. I am not trying to sabotage or vandalize the page and am distressed at the continuing implication that I must somehow be acting in an ulterior or disingenuous way.
3. I am working on a proposed draft revision of the page in my user namespace. This draft is not finished yet; I have been working on it for less than a day and still need to do a lot of work hunting down good-quality sources to cite. Hence, it's premature to say at this point that I'm not even trying to substantiate my concerns.
4. Although I accept my obligation to come up with sources to support my proposed improvements, I do feel it worth noting that WP:BURDEN does not say that any challenge to existing material is out of order unless immediately substantiated by sources provided by the challenger himself.
5. My position is (I believe) fairly well, and reasonably carefully, explained in my comments included earlier in this talk page (prior to this RFC call). I hope people will take the time to read that material.

Richwales (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Slight clarification on my point #4 above: The reason I pointed out that a challenge to existing material doesn't need to be immediately backed up with sources is to counter the claim (made earlier in the talk page) that I was abusing this talk page and trying to use it as a discussion forum on the article's topic. In my opinion, I was in fact using the talk page correctly, with a view toward improving the text of the article by pointing out things which I believe(d) need(ed) to be fixed. Richwales (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is best to do the source research first, and then argue only those points that your sources support. --JN466 02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comments from House1090

I think that wikipedia is a place were everyones contributions are very gladly taken but, if your going to add something you need to be able to back it up, with a source, a reliable source. You cant go around adding your POV on artcles. I agree with User:Cirt, but if the other user can find a reliable source he should add it here and then you guys and can discuss whether its reliable enough to be in an encyclopedia. House1090 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jayen466

We can't say that the book is written from an "evangelical" perspective, or that the publisher is an "evangelical" publisher, as Richwales tried to do earlier, unless there are sources saying so. So Cirt is right to resist you there, Rich. You can't change the text and leave the old sources in place. (I've added a little on the author and publisher, sourced to the publisher's website.) My comment on the article as a whole would be that it makes thin sources go a long way; once we're reduced to listing books that have merely cited another book, or listing individual university courses that have added the book to their reading list, we are operating at the very limit of what we can reasonably ask sources to do for us. JN466 01:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) N.B. The publisher's Christian allegiance is evident from their mission statement: [26]. --JN466 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is very good work by Cirt. --JN466 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Peter Jackson

At a quick look through, the only serious fault I can see is the reference to orthodox Christianity. This is POV. "orthodox" is a value judgment, an opinion. Every single form of Christianity claims to be orthodox, and pretty well all reject at least some others as unorthodox. NPOV means not taking sides in such disputes, that is, not using terms like "orthodox" without adding an "according to". Peter jackson (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Update: - Removed "orthodox" per comment above in RFC by Peter Jackson, see [27]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to close the RFC? — I believe the editing process for this page is back on track — through the constructive efforts and hard work of many people (which is, of course, as it should be). There will obviously continue to be ongoing discussions about ways to improve the content further, but it appears to me now that this can be accomplished in a regular fashion and that this page no longer requires extraordinary attention or oversight to any greater degree than the average Wikipedia article does. While it certainly couldn't hurt to get even more editors interested in and improving this page, I propose that it may be OK now to close the formal RFC and allow work here to continue normally. What do others think? Richwales (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose closing the RFC at this point in time. It is apparent that Richwales (talk · contribs) still has further complaints about the article. Not to mention that the RFC has only been open for one day. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK by me. If there is a consensus that this page would benefit from a continued degree of extra visibility, I don't have a problem with keeping the RFC open for now. Richwales (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As per my other comments below, I oppose quoting their use of the term "orthodox" unless we can explain in the article what they mean by it, per WP:PCR. Its a very broad and confusing term, and how can we quote the usage of such a term without giving the reader the means to explain how it is meant in the context of the quote?

I think we must choose one of the following:

1. find a definition of "orthodox" in this book to quote
2. find another source that specifically discusses what this book means by "orthodox"
3. find another source, which while not specifically discussing this book, discusses the range of meanings of the term, and then decide to apply one of them to this book
4. remove all references (including direct quotes) to the term

Options (1) and (2) are obviously the best, but I'm not sure the sources or quotes needed actually exist.

Some will argue (3) violates WP:NOR or WP:SYNTHESIS, but I would argue we can be flexible in interpreting those policies, or even invoke WP:IAR.

Otherwise, if (3) is opposed, then in my view the alternative is (4), which is to remove all uses of the term. --SJK (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Closing of RFC

To my understanding, this issue has now been resolved to the satisfaction of involved editors. Does anyone disagree with that statement? If not, can we declare the RFC closed? --SJK (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to closing this RFC — though I'm not going to demand that it should be closed if others still want to keep it open. Note, in any case, that the original problem (as far as I was/am concerned) was never about specific disagreements with content, but rather about whether we had an environment that would allow constructive handling (in an atmosphere assuming good faith) of disagreements about content. I think there are still some things left to be done on this page, but that is not (in and of itself) a reason to keep an RFC open. We all need to remember that no one owns this or any other article, and there is no deadline for final completion of this or any other article. Richwales (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose closing of the RFC. It has only been open for one week. Per the normal RFC processes, a bot will come by to close it after a period of inactivity. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Listing university courses and other books that cite this one

In my view, listing individual university courses that have included this book on their reading lists, as well as listing other works citing it, is puffery, and something we do not usually do. Some books have hundreds of citations, and it's just not good sense to list them all. Moreover, in Ankerberg for example the citation is simply a reference to the title and author as part of a single footnote that lists several dozen works. Propose removal. --JN466 15:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. If these items need to be mentioned at all, then summarize into a brief sentence supported by the citations: e.g., "The book has been cited in other scholarly works and in university coursework." I don't see any need to even summarize, however, unless as a counterpoint to its notability being seriously questioned elsewhere. • Astynax ^talk 16:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed. [28] --JN466 16:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Another Gospel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*1 image, 17 citations. Smee 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)