Talk:University Bible Fellowship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reference #5 NPOV violation

Reference #5 is a link to an article submitted on Freedom of Mind's website by presumably a former member of University Bible Fellowship. The article is a description of the individual's own biased statements and opinion, without any verifiable evidence of the validity of the claims. The article does not belong as a reference, as it violates Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy, just as an article that does the opposite and praises one's experience in the organization would also violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thus the reference is in violation and should be removed.

Abraham100 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Abraham100

Obviously you do not understand WP:NPOV. In particular, please read the section WP:NPOV#Bias in sources. --JBL (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:NPOV#Bias in sources which states: "...Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources..." My questions are: (1) How is a neutral point of view being achieved by this reference? (2) Where is the bias being balanced? (3) What constitutes it as a reliable source? Otherwise it should be removed, as it presents itself as an opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham100 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Restoring the link pending fuller discussion. Meters (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing this reference and the page:

(1)(2) The article as a whole has a large controversies section and very limited information about the actual ministry of the group. This reference does not appear to be balancing the viewpoint. (3) The Freedom of Mind reference is considered defunct by Freedom of Mind itself and cannot be found through a search on the site. The reference is found at http://old.freedomofmind.com/Info/infoDet.php?id=543 and therefore should not be used to support the statements present, especially a statement like ″As of 2016...″ as this is not a part of the active site. Jake428 (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that the Freedom of Mind reference is not defunct. It is part of their active site. The fact that Steven Hassan has an active listing gives an important viewpoint to this article, since he is a nation-wide, well-known figure. This is the link from his website that goes to the group database (yes is has the word "old" in it, but it is his active database) https://freedomofmind.com/group-information/ Bkarcher (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The ″As of 2016...″ is a bit odd here. Can it be changed to just read "Currently, "? Bkarcher (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bkarcher: It's not practical to keep an article constantly up to date. That's why we specify when the information was current as of. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"The article as a whole has a large controversies section and very limited information about the actual ministry of the group." True, but this reflects the actual information available to the public. In this sense, the article is an accurate reflection of the info we have. Bkarcher (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"My questions are: (1) How is a neutral point of view being achieved by this reference? (2) Where is the bias being balanced? (3) What constitutes it as a reliable source? Otherwise it should be removed, as it presents itself as an opinion piece." This is a valid point given the question "Are the findings reported on the Freedom of Mind website based on (interview) techniques that have been validated using valid scientific instruments?" (Apparently Freedom of Mind has only very recently realized that such approaches are de rigueur in social science research.) Given this, it is fair to question the contents of this page and, for that matter, much if not all of the content on the Freedom of Mind website. Scientifically speaking, Freedom of Mind is a collection of opinion pieces because the claims made have not been rigorously researched and supported using standard scientific methods long accepted and employed in social science research . DrBill (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

@Abraham100: @Jake428: @DrBill: There is no interesting discussion to be had as long as the proponents of this position consist of WP:SPAs who do not understand or seek to understand our policies. Spend a month or two editing articles about topics with which you do not have this kind of personal connection, demonstrate that you have the ability to use sources correctly to improve articles, etc., and then possibly other editors will take you seriously. --JBL (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@JBL: The inference that there is a "personal connection" to this page is made, but no evidence is provided to support this claim. When unsubstantiated claims like this are made, it reveals bias, and such bias is a violation of the NPOV policy. DrBill (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no interesting discussion to be had as long as the proponents of this position consist of WP:SPAs who do not understand or seek to understand our policies. Spend a month or two editing articles about topics with which you do not have this kind of personal connection, demonstrate that you have the ability to use sources correctly to improve articles, etc., and then possibly other editors will take you seriously. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@JBL: Please respond to original comment: "The inference that there is a 'personal connection' to this page is made, but no evidence is provided to support this claim. When unsubstantiated claims like this are made, it reveals bias, and such bias is a violation of the NPOV policy."

DrBill (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Refence #5 Broken

Reference number 5 of the article is a link to an article called "Freedom of Mind." Clicking on that link results in a 404 error. The link is broken and should therefore be removed. Naraganseth (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I checked the reference number 5 for Freedom of Mind as well and see it is a dead link. It should be removed out of standard maintenance.

--Jake428 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, the references should not be removed when the links go dead. Instead, the references should be updated to archived copies of the links. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Reference 22 is broken.

There is a 404 error message for reference 22. It should be removed according to WP:INACCURATE. Neutrepov (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this reference should be removed. Naraganseth (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Repaired. Archive-url and archive-date added to the citation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Refence #10 Broken

The link of Reference 10 is broken; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.25.125 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed. Looks like they moved the link on their site. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

About the word acquired

(restored from DLee612 Talk page)

@Bkarcher I noticed there were a couple of changes regarding the word "acquired". You guys look like arguing about from grammar's point of view. But that is not the point. Like I mentioned above talk, it is a matter of NPOV. Bkarcher you added a statement like "The ECFA reports that the group has amassed $13,907,906 as of the end of 2019." at the revision of 13:07, Jan 23, 2021. You used a stronger word "amassed". You definitely violated NPOV: WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch. You tried to put your biased opinion to give bad impression. Can you tell me what the problem is to use "reported" which is neutral word? If you didn't have any intention, please revert it to "reported" to avoid edit war. You may not want me to change the negative reaction references saying "they claimed...." Dlee612 (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The word "acquired" has no bias, either negative or positive. Changing "acquired" to "reported" does nothing to move the article to NPOV and adds no value. Bkarcher (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is biased when it is used for churches. If it is used for people, it would be ok because they have acquired something through their efforts. But if you say, "A church has acquired 1M in net assets." you somehow want to say the church tried to do something to acquire that. You used "amassed" initially. I am suspicious that's why you want to keep using "acquired". Please revert it to "reported" which is a neutral word for the Financial data of church organization. Dlee612 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Net assets include non-cash items. "Assets often include cash, investments, property and equipment (less accumulated depreciation), receivables and other assets." [1]. So yes, churches did something to acquire (or obtain or amass or gain or receive--pick any word) such assets. Bkarcher (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Now, you disclosed you had intention to use the word to say that this group did something to acquire(or amass) such assets. Please do not just claim but add reliable sources based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Otherwise it is your biased opinion which should be avoided. Dlee612 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Dlee612, why are you opposed to the word "acquire"? if you want a reliable source for the word acquire, here it is: acquire : "to come into possession or control of often by unspecified means; example: acquire property". This is the common term used when talking about assets. Non-profit groups can and do acquire real estate, computers, cars, etc. We do not know how the assets were obtained. This is as neutral as you can get. Bkarcher (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Bkarcher, you misunderstood what I said. I didn't ask you to explain the meaning of the word. Why am I opposed to the word? It is because you used "amassed" initially. I think that you wanted to say that UBF did something bad or illegal to amass that much amount. Otherwise why did you choose the word? I know you know English well. So what I asked is that if you want to say UBF did something to acquire or amass it, you should provide reliable sources of what they did something bad to amass it. You claim that "acquire" is neutral but in this context you have intention and it gives readers negative impression. That's why I am strongly against to use it. Please do not add your opinion. Just use plain and neutral word "reported" based on WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch. Dlee612 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither the word amassed nor the word acquired gives any indication that the group "did something bad or illegal", and neither did I ever imply such a thing. By using the ECFA references, I indicate the opposite--that the group adheres to the non-profit standards set by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, and has acquired the $13 million USD in net assets by legitimate means governed by the ECFA. Bkarcher (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The word "amassed" or "acquired" can have negative implication when you use for the churches' financials. If you didn't have any intention or implication, there is no reason for you to be opposed to the word "reported." You should show purely the reported numbers without any indication if they are legitimate or not. You have a COI so you don't need to add unnecessary implication. Please just show the reported number with the literally neutral word "reported" Dlee612 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

None of this makes sense. Under no circumstances does the word acquired imply anything negative for anyone, churches included. You might want to WP:LETITGO, realize the improvements I made, and focus on making constructive edits if you believe the article is so negative. Bkarcher (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Bkarcher (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

About reference #18

Reference #18 is a site written in German language. It is listed along with references #16 and #17 which are talking about cult groups and bad comments. So I am assuming the content of the reference #18 is also similar one. However, I am not able to understand what it is exactly talking about and can't verify if it is a reliable source. So it should be removed until they provide an English translation page so that readers can understand and verify it based on Verifiability and Reliable sources. This is an English article. If I add references written with other languages like Korean, Indian or Chinese, people may criticize me because it wouldn't be fair and would make the article unreliable. What do people think about it? C.Fred, can you make any comments on it? Dlee612 (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a search results page, so we should definitely refine the link to point to a specific site. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Changed to a specific link to publication from 1991. Bkarcher (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Since this group is not an American/English group but a Korean group founded in Seoul with world-wide locations, I contend that the German reference is relevant. Here is an English translation of the PDF: EZW - A Report From A Mother Bkarcher (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This group is not a Korean group but an international group. This article is an English Wikipedia. If you really want, you can use it for the German Wikipedia. For this English article, the translated version can be referenced. But this reference should be at the last sentence along with references 16,17,20 and 21 because this report is about ex-member's experience reported by her mom not from the organization. Dlee612 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ref 18 is in the correct place. The sentence reads "The group has been documented by various religious watchdog organizations", and the referenced publication demonstrates that the Evangelical Center for World Survey is one of those organizations. Bkarcher (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Reference #21 is broken

It redirects to a parking site. It should be removed unless we can restore. C.Fred, do you think it can be restored? Dlee612 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Resolved Link changed to Wikipedia article Churches That Abuse Bkarcher (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, the link is to the Wikipedia article about the book, Churches That Abuse, that is cited. —C.Fred (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and fix. I thought Wikipedia articles in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose: WP:RSPRIMARY. Anyhow if it can be used here, I believe that the reference #3 in that article should be mentioned to verify this reference. It is about objection to the research methods used by the author. I am going to do search more if there are another experts to object to the research. That being said, the person who objected is Ruth Tucker, former professor at Calvin Theological Seminary so I think she is reliable. If the book is in controversy, we should mention about it. If you have no objection, I will add to this article. Dlee612 (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Tucker controversy has no place in this article. If anything, it would be in the Churches That Abuse article. If you are challenging Ref 3 then it would be helpful to open a new section about Ref 3. Must we put up with UBF members challenging every reference every few years? These things have already stood the test of time. Other references have also been challenged recently already. Bkarcher (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)