Talk:Pillar of Fire Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

This article was nominated for deletion on August 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Sinless Perfection? 2 Stable version 3 why such lavish attention to this church? 4 Deleting references 5 United Kingdom 6 Missions 7 Timeline 8 Unnecessary NYT puffery 9 School and church 10 This information may affect the entire article and how it's written, but it needs to be posted. 11 Header 12 Cranky messages 13 Hooray 14 Wikified theology 15 Selected coverage in periodicals

[edit] Sinless Perfection?

Where did anyone get the information on Pillar of Fire believing in sinless perfection? Their website statement of faith http://www.pillar.org/what_we_believe.shtml shows they do NOT believe in sinless perfection: "This grace does not make believers faultless nor prevent the possibility of their falling into sin." I'll make a change and let someone else change it back if you have verifiable reason to.

I quoted from the creed precisely because I couldn't summarize it. I'm really not familiar w/ Perfectionist theology: is it sorta like being in AA (you can be angelic for a time, but are liable to fall off the wagon)? (And it seems to me that every denomination is entitled to write their own creed, even if credunt quia absurdum est.) Billbrock 00:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here was the original test: I. We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as verbally inspired of God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life. II. We believe in one God, maker and preserver of all things, existing in three equal persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. III. We believe in the essential deity of Jesus Christ our Lord, and in His physical resurrection from the dead. IV. We believe that the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very eternal God. V. We believe in the fall of man and the universal depravity of the human race, and in the guilty and lost condition of all people everywhere outside Christ. VI. We believe in "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." VII. We believe in justification by faith and in Christian perfection, or entire sanctification, as a second definite work of grace. VIII. We believe in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body. IX. We believe in the premillennial return of Christ.

It was deleted several times for being "POV". But I just cut and paste it from the website. I think people assumed that since it was quoted in the first person, it was my own philosophy, or it I was a member of this religion trying to convert people. So it was deleted over and over. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the reference to "Christian perfection, or entire sanctification, as a second definite work of grace." All notable creeds deserve a fair restatement. Billbrock 18:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What website or work did you quote from? Your quote seems to be from Bellview College which also gave a link to the entire "Articles of Faith" for Pillar of Fire. Those articles for the college are a summary of the entire articles of Pillar of Fire. I think if you included those articles it would remove confusion. http://www.belleview-college.org/at/ArticlesOfReligion.pdf I don't know how to copy and paste from the protected pdf file, otherwise I would have included them here. But if you want to include articles (or statement of faith) at all, you should include these from Pillar. Otherwise you should leave out the summary, which is for the college, not Pillar. This document would also end any arguments or controversy about Christian Perfection vs. Sinless Perfection. JQuiring 21:12, 21 September 2006

[edit] Stable version

here is the last stable version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pillar_of_Fire_Church&oldid=63154355

[edit] why such lavish attention to this church?

They certainly seem interesting and all, but I don't get the extreme presence this church has on Wikipedia, with their own category, a separate category for their three radio stations, and many articles that seem written in a promotional POV. wikipediatrix 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting references

Your strategy seems to be to delete the references to the New York Times articles then claim that there are no references in the article and therefore it needs to be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Three obituaries in the NYT about three Church employees are not references, nor did your edit present them as such. The text in the article does not use them as citations to back up any of its information. It seems like an extremely desperate way to say "hey, look, we were mentioned in the New York Times!" even though they were mere obituaries, and not actual articles about the Church itself, which is the subject of the article. These obits would be valid for articles about the persons themselves. wikipediatrix 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The NYT articles validate the dates in the timeline which you said had no references. Your using very weak cicular logic to try and make your point.

Not going to argue with you. The way it's done in your edit does not follow Wikipedia style guidelines. If the NYT articles are supposed to be sourcing specific dates on the timeline (which wasn't at all evident - are we supposed to be psychic?), then provide specific source citations within the timeline that properly link to a properly formatted set of references. If you don't know to do that, use the John Mark Karr article as your example. Note how specific statements have citations that lead to the "Notes" section at the bottom. However, without providing links to the actual text of the articles, these NYT sources aren't really sourcing anything except on your say-so. wikipediatrix 15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you need to be a psychic to figure out that the 1984 reference in the timeline goes with the 1984 reference in the New York Times. I think again you are just arguing for the sake of a good argument. I think its called trolling.

Please sign your posts with four tildes. Nope, I'm just following Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Feel free to complain to a higher power if you think I am in error. wikipediatrix 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: wikipediatrix was banned from Wikipedia.

[edit] United Kingdom

I posted the following paragraph relating to the UK mission in the article, which Richard Norton deleted:

The Pillar of Fire Church in London was established 1904, by Alma White when she was accompanied by her two sons to conduct gospel meetings in Camberwell, South London^{[citation needed]}. The mission was set up as a Charitable Trust by Deed dated 19 September 1992, and was registered as a charity in December 1992 (Charity No. 1015529). In 2002, the Charities Commission received a complaint. Following the damaging findings of an Inquiry, the UK mission lost charitable status and was removed from the register on 16 January 2003^[1].

I have this to say:

If you are working to have the article retained, you cannot pick or choose which factual information to include in it just because it makes your church look ugly and, well, un-churchlike. The paragraph I inserted was completely factual and supported by a reference link from a very reliable source. Please do not remove it unless there is a good reason. The only reason I see is that it does not belong to your organisation as it claims it does, or if it can be refuted. If it is part of the church, I'm afraid it is fair game. If not, or if you wish to refute any of it, please supply appropriate proof. Ohconfucius 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not disputing it at all, I am not a church member or religous at all, my interest is purely geographical. My apologies. Your info must have been inserted during the time when I was reverting the deletion of the New York Times references and your additions were accidently deleted, I should have been more careful. I usually don't like reverting, but I couldn't find the references from the New York Times. Do you accept my apology? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like my apology was not accepted, so I retract it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missions

May I ask why each of this church's international Missions are given their own detailed section, and made to look bigger and more important than they are?

Take a look at the source link for the Pillar of Fire's India Mission, for example: [1]. This is clearly a Mission and it says so. But a Mission is no big deal. Wikipedia says that with Missions:

"Church" should be understood in the widest sense, as an organization of believers. It is not a building. Many churches start by meeting in houses."

Missions are no big deal. Lots of churches, large and tiny, do them. My parents' church has missions all over the country but when you actually go to the address, it's just some guy's apartment and regular services aren't even held. It sounds impressive on paper (and in a Wikipedia article), of course, that's show biz. But Missions are only a big deal to those who seek to make them sound like a big deal.

Given this, I will reduce the undue weight that the current writing style of the article places on these missions. wikipediatrix 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

The mile-long timeline here is quite gratuitous, and there's little precedent for such timelines for Churches such as this. User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restored it with no explanation. Given that unsourced material may be removed from any article at any time, I'd love to hear why this editor is so adamant that it stay in its current unsourced and bloated form. wikipediatrix 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary NYT puffery

Can anyone explain why the list of alleged (unclickable) items in the "Selected coverage in the New York Times and Time" is now approaching the length of the article itself? What possible purpose does this list serve, except perhaps to puff up the article? I can find no other article about a comparable church that goes to such overzealous lengths to prove, well, whatever it is that this list is supposed to prove. My earlier queries about this have largely gone unanswered. wikipediatrix 15:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You complained there were no references after you deleted the exisitng references, now you are complaining that there are too many references. It seems you are never satisfied. You are just trolling for attention and disruption. Couldn't your time be put to better use doing useful research for Wikipedia instead of just complaining? Other complaints were that the New York Times is a local paper covering a local church. Now I am adding references from other sources, as are others. The work is being done to quell your complaints, remember there is a vote for deletion which you supported. Its now our job to add as much relevant material as possible to the article and expand it even further. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more specific, then: when I said "references" I meant clickable ones, verifiable ones, and ones that were specifically attached to specific claims in the article via ref tags. wikipediatrix 15:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the references need to be verifiable. Shazbot85^Talk 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times is verifiable. I am almost 100% certain that the New York Times really exists, I see it once in a while on a park bench. If you want ways to waste your time, why don't you use Google to find contradicting facts and use that to challange the facts presented. That would be something useful. I could use a good fact checker working for me. Its very hard to find a diligent, resourceful and intelligent fact checker. I get the feeling you haven't even done a Google search on the topic and read what you found. If I remember earlier you could not find the connection between the school and the church, despite it being the very first link that Google gave. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. A good article shouldn't have to expect its readers to do further research on Google. It needs more references that are clickable ones, verifiable ones, and ones specifically attached to specific claims in the article via ref tags. wikipediatrix 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am completely baffled as to the issue with references to the New York Times, when I have seen complaints that the Church is non-notable; that it's not referenced anywhere; that the references in the New York Times because they're only obituaries. I used a tool called ProQuest, which is available through my library system online and provides a fully searchable database of articles from The New York Times going back to 1851, very little of which is available in public domain internet searches. While one or two items are short mentions, most are substantial articles covered in the main section of the newspaper. I encourage any of you who have been bitching and moaning that the references are unclickable to make a genuine effort to try to obtain access to these materials, which provide a fascinating look at the Church and its leaders, including involvement with the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Given the focus of the New York Times on New York City and the world (and very little in between), a church in tiny Zarephath, New Jersey, 45 miles from Times Square in Midtown Manhattan, might as well be in "Arkansas, North Dakota, or New Mexico" as far as its editors were concerned. Additional items from Time magazine were added, including an obituary of Alma White that discusses the church and her work, a publication with an even more selective choice of deceased than even the New York Times. These all seem quite notable to me, who only bumped into this because of my participation in Wikiproject: New Jersey. Given that the church was at its peak some 75 years ago, the lack of Google hits is not surprising, and the fact that the percieved paucity of clickable references is used as an excuse to debase the quality of the article is a sign of extreme narrowmindedness. I find the allegations that the "list of alleged (unclickable) items" makes them any less valuable to be a demonstration of extremely poor faith (in every sense of the word) and an entirely offensive allegation. There is absolutely no requirement that sources be "clickable" to make them verifiable. Every New York Times reference has been viewed, read in its entirety, verified, and the title of the article, date and page were provided. Every issue that has been raised has been responded to. It's amazing what some people will do when they have decided that an article must be deleted, regardless of the ample, verifiable facts provided, as requested. Alansohn 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

References do, of course, have to be verifiable, but surely anything ever published in the New York Times can be verified, online or otherwise. Any metropolitan or university library in the USA should have most if not all of the Times issues on microfilm, microfiche, or online, and last I checked the NYT morgue was still available for research purposes. Lest we forget, WP:REF does not require that references be clickable, merely verifiable. RossPatterson 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School and church

As I recall, the school affiliated itself with a completely different church on its' information page. Shazbot85^Talk 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "The school never makes the claim of affiliation with the church". You do seem to love going around in circles, so here is the same information for the second time. I will save it in my cut and paste buffer for when you ask for it for the the third time:

Our school partners with a local church, Coastside Community Church. We are a dual ministry -- a church and a school -- with collaborative leadership, complimentary functions, and shared facilities. Our vision is for harmonious growth of church and school with each ministry strengthening and helping the other. Our school and church belong to a group of national and international ministries founded and directed by the Pillar of Fire, International. The Pillar of Fire provides us with oversight, advice, and material support, and gives us opportunities to participate in congregational, educational, media, and missions ministries around the world. The Pillar of Fire is an evangelical Christian organization that emphasizes personal faith in Jesus Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that results in lives devoted to Christian purity and service. The name for the organization is based in the biblical account of God leading his people with a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:21-22). We believe that God continues to lead His people through all life's circumstances. The Pillar of Fire is headquartered in Zarephath, New Jersey. It has six congregations in the United States, five Christian schools, an accredited Christian college, three radio stations, various publications, and missions/partner ministries overseas in England, India, Malawi, Liberia, Nigeria, and Costa Rica.

Right. So what's up with this "Coastside Community Church" stuff? This is a church that belongs to another church? And if Coastside is the subsidiary to Pillar of Fire, where does the school figure into this? wikipediatrix 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it does, I think he reads things however he wants to. Shazbot85^Talk 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This information may affect the entire article and how it's written, but it needs to be posted.

Pillar of Fire does not consider itself to be a church; they consider themselves to be a denomination. There are several churches around the world that do not use the Pillar of Fire name, but are affiliated with the Pillar of Fire denomination. To answer your question, Coastside Community Church and Alma Heights Christian Academy are both affiliated with the denomination. Included in that denomination are churches in England, India, Malawi, Liberia, Nigeria, and Costa Rica, and six in the United States. Also part of the denomination are privates schools in Los Angeles, CA; Pacifica, CA; Zarephath, NJ; Westminster, CO; and Cincinnati, OH. Maybe this should be started as a new section, but this should be written into the article. The article makes it seem like Pillar of Fire is only a single church with external missions when in reality it is a denomination with many independent churches and schools.

-- jquiring 22:45, 25 September 2006 (PST)

[edit] Header

How come the header to the article becomes dodgy every few edits. The christianity template now causes a big space in the article. Can anyone fix it? And just a reminder, please dont feed the trolls. It just encourages them more. Its for their own health.

[edit] Cranky messages

This is a post that Alansohn made to my talk page [2]. Since it contains personal attacks and insults, I've removed it and am transplanting it here where it really belongs anyway:

I am completely baffled as to the issue with references to the New York Times, when I have seen complaints that the Church is non-notable; that it's not referenced anywhere; that the references in the New York Times because they're only obituaries. I used a tool called ProQuest, which is available through my library system online and provides a fully searchable database of articles from The New York Times going back to 1851, very little of which is available in public domain internet searches. While one or two items are short mentions, most are substantial articles covered in the main section of the newspaper. I encourage any of you who have been bitching and moaning that the references are unclickable to make a genuine effort to try to obtain access to these materials, which provide a fascinating look at the Church and its leaders, including involvement with the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Given the focus of the New York Times on New York City and the world (and very little in between), a church in tiny Zarephath, New Jersey, 45 miles from Times Square in Midtown Manhattan, might as well be in "Arkansas, North Dakota, or New Mexico" as far as its editors were concerned. Additional items from Time magazine were added, including an obituary of Alma White that discusses the church and her work, a publication with an even more selective choice of deceased than even the New York Times. These all seem quite notable to me, who only bumped into this because of my participation in Wikiproject: New Jersey. Given that the church was at its peak some 75 years ago, the lack of Google hits is not surprising, and the fact that the percieved paucity of clickable references is used as an excuse to debase the quality of the article is a sign of extreme narrowmindedness. I find the allegations that the "list of alleged (unclickable) items" makes them any less valuable to be a demonstration of extremely poor faith (in every sense of the word) and an entirely offensive allegation. There is absolutely no requirement that sources be "clickable" to make them verifiable. Every New York Times reference has been viewed, read in its entirety, verified, and the title of the article, date and page were provided. Every issue that has been raised has been responded to. It's amazing what some people will do when they have decided that an article must be deleted, regardless of the ample, verifiable facts provided, as requested. Alansohn 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you spent less time making sinister accusations about the motives of other editors, more progress might be made. Sorry you think this is all "an excuse to debase the quality of the article", blah blah blah, "extreme narrowmindedness", blah blah, "amazing what some people will do when they have decided that an article must be deleted", yeah yeah, you've got it all figured out. And after such statements, you even have the nerve to accuse anyone else of bad faith! Take a deep breath and come back and try again, only be nice. wikipediatrix 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to your claim of a "list of alleged (unclickable) items". How is "alleged" a demonstration of good faith? I've done plenty of work to improve this article and address the many real quality control issues that existed with the article as it stood before the AfD. How is your claim-of-the-hour regarding New York Times references (that there are too few; that the references in the New York Times because they're only obituaries; they don't qualify because the church is too local; that you can't click on them; that there are too many) a demonstration of good faith? If it fails to meet genuine Wikipedia notability, POV, style guidelines (not ones you're concocting, e.g., unclickable references), please let us know in clear detail so that we can stop this process once and for all and allow other articles to get the attention they deserve. Alansohn 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said unclickable references violated style guidelines. I simply said it would be helpful if some were provided. If it seems like my complaints have changed often, it's because this article's content has changed often - that's so obvious I shouldn't even have to explain it. When I said there were too few references, there were only three. When I said they were only obituaries, that's because, at the time, they were. When I said there were too many, that's because by then the list had bloated into its present state and still conveys very little useful information to the reader. wikipediatrix 20:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're satisfied that the articles provided demonstrate notability, even if they're non-clickable. Are there any remaining concerns regarding notability, or can the article stand as it is, as far as you're concerned? Alansohn 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There you go again. I never said the articles provided demonstrate notability. I simply said it doesn't violate style guidelines to include them. Meanwhile, you could address my "Timeline" section earlier on this page. wikipediatrix 20:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your delete vote stated "per nom, fails to establish notability". So is there an issue regarding notability from your perspective; yes or no? If yes, state the issue so that it can be addressed. If not, please consider changing your vote. The timeline has been partially updated; more sources will be provided for each point on the timeline. Alansohn 22:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hooray

The size of the article has now doubled! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Where would it be if I hadn't put it up for deletion?! Hehe. Shazbot85^Talk 03:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikified theology

I have tried to rewrite the theology section in neutral fashion. The long sentence is less than ideal, but I believe it's an improvement over citing the PFC's credo. Encyclopedias have styles. Billbrock 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course (it ironically occurs to me post-facto), my summary of the POF creed is unsourced. Billbrock 16:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks great, much more encyclopedic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; we atheists are always happy to summarize any denomination's theology! Billbrock 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This version is a vast improvement over merely cut-and-pasting their tenets point by point. wikipediatrix 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected coverage in periodicals

What is the point of this section? It is overly bloated and is not a source for the article from what I can see. Is there any real purpose in listing 20 or so articles written about a subject? 5 would establish notability... The fact that the links, and further reading section is nearly as long as the article is fairly daft. That section should be culled down to something more reasonable and expansion to this article should take the form of actual article text.--Isotope23 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)