Talk:Agape International Spiritual Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justification for page[edit]

This is one of the biggest churches within the New Thought denomination. I think that justifies it having its own page. Mythica07 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have source for this information that meets WP:RS guidelines? If so please add, otherwise the source that seems to show this is a link to Answers.com, which then just reproduces the wikipedia artilce on megachurches. For instance an LA Times article, USA Today article, KABC, etc. I ask because the other sources listed do not seem to verify the info, other than a source that looks to be an advertisement for a product by the church founder. Thanks. Aboutmovies 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone has since added an article by USA Today. That, added to the Larry King reference (and the fact that the head minister is prominently featured in The Secret) ought to settle any doubts. Thanks. Mythica07 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The church is notable as it has had coverage from USA Today & CNN, but there needs to be a reliable source for the claim about being one of the biggest. I did not see that in the USA Today article, and it certainly was not in the footnote provided for that claim in the article. Aboutmovies 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then we have two options:
1. Remove that claim.
2. As we do have sources (such as the USA Today article) that state that the church has over a thousand members (some sources, albeit dubiously, claim that membership is as high as 8,000), we could feasibly accept that unless Los Angeles (hardly famous for being a church-going region of the country) has a lot of churches with over 1,000 members then by default Agape is "one of the biggest churches" in LA. In other words, any church in any region with over a thousand members is usually "one of the biggest" in that region. This is why they are referred to as megachurches. With regard to the claim that it is one of the biggest New Thought churches in the world, again, any New Thought church with a congregation of more than 1000 is by default "one of the biggest" in the New Thought genre because most New Thought churches are very, very small. There is one near my house that has, literally, 12 members. I know of another one nearby with about 100 members. It seems that the average New Thought church (most of them being Unity Churches) have a congregation of about 100 to 300 members.
Take your pick. Speaking for myself, I have no agenda in this. Just stating what to me seems to be the obvious. Mythica07 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only agenda is removing claims that are not sourced from all artilces, so I would have to go with option #1 as option two delves into WP:OR. Aboutmovies 06:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research to write that a megachurch of a given region is "one of the biggest" of that given region? I thought that by default a megachurch would be one of the biggest churches in its given region, hence the term "megachurch." It appears to me that you would not be satisfied with the statement "one of the biggest churches in LA" unless we find an article that says exactly those words. To that, I think we should remember that Wikipedia articles are not intended to be verbatim transcriptions of newspaper articles. They are merely meant to sum up information found in reliable sources. The USA Today article is a reliable source. The description found in the USA Today article grants that this church is a "megachurch." At worst, I don't thin it's Original Research to say that this megachurch is one of the biggest churches in LA. It may, however, be simply a redundant and unnecessary statement. Thanks. Mythica07 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the guideline on Original Research from the first sentence:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements(emphasis added), or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

So, it's my opinion, it's wikipedia policy (note: unlike many others, this is a policy and not a guideline). Not to mention if it is so obvious, then there would be an easy place to find a reference from a reliable source. There are many megachurches out there, and in a city the size of LA there are probably quite a few. But saying one of the biggest is at this point OR and NPOV. Writing from a neutral point of view is the other main policy of Wikipedia. Here is an excerpt to demostarte the problem with the statement:

Let the facts speak for themselves Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.

Attributing and substantiating biased statements Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.

So, what needs to happen is a reliable, third party source needs to be found that gives the information, preferably in a format that says Agape has 10,000 members and is the third largest church in Los Angeles County. Then write that. Without that, the statement (like any statement such as company X is the largest company in Texas) needs to be removed. If that information can be found, then it can be cited and stay. But what I have found is this:
  • Sa-Rang Community Church
  • Coast Hills Community Church
  • Set Free Christian Fellowship
  • Crossroads Christian Church
  • Calvary Chapel
  • Seacoast Grace Church
  • Calvary Chapel Golden Springs
  • Calvary Chapel
  • Water of Life
  • Grace Korean Church
  • First Evangelical Free Church
  • Eastside Christian Church
    • All of these megachurches are larger in size to Agape according to this site used in the megachurches article. And I only went through the letter F. So more than half the alphabet remains, and at least 11 churches in the LA area are larger. If you would like to continue going through them and then say Agape is the ## largest church in the LA area, then that would work. But need same for the New Thought portion too. Aboutmovies 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it was really necessary to copy and paste entire portions of that page on Original Research. I am aware of what OR is. A link would have sufficed. At any rate, simple solution: if you don't like the statement, then remove it. Please leave me alone now. This is hardly a majorly interesting topic for me. Thanks. Mythica07 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read and were aware of WP:OR (which I linked to before) then you would not have made the arguement you made before I copied the section "I don't thin it's Original Research to say that this megachurch is one of the biggest churches in LA". Therefore it was necessary to reiterate the point. Aboutmovies 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you removed the statement. Can we drop this now? However, I repeat: in order to say that it is one of the biggest churches, you did not need to find a source that says exactly those words. Please don't respond, though. I'm tired of this topic and it's not that interesting to me. Mythica07 08:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agape / Member Church of United Church of Religious Science[edit]

The article does not mention that The Agape International Spiritual Center started as a member church of The United Church of Religious Science founded by Ernest Holmes and is now an independent church. Moreover, it should be mentioned that Michael is a licensed and ordained Minister from United Church of Religious Science. The article should have blue links to Ernest Holmes, United Church of Religious Science and Science of Mind. This is just my thought about it keeping this straight and accurate for posterity sake.

Universal life monestaries[edit]

Rev. Dr Jesse J. martin? ... Jedimasterquanyin (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agape affiliates[edit]

Hello! There is an Agape affiliate in Irvine, CA called SoulCenter OC. 2600:1700:8490:25D0:9159:32F2:E9A:E2E7 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agape_International_Spiritual_Center&oldid=1218012832"