Talk:Edge Church

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

POV check[edit]

With reference to the tag {{POV check}}, my concern is really about the language used, assertions are not expressed in a neutral way.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It sounds like someone giving a tribute; similar to when people are inducted into halls of fame.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 05:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. I took out the pov references to the man upstairs, but I'd say this should be AfD', it's of no consequences. +Fin 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it is simply a copy of this with a few rewordings. I'd maybe support deletion. I guess we have churchcruft to worry about now too...--cj | talk 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The church probably warrants an entry, but this is clearly written by someone sympathetic towards what many in Adelaide would view as an extreme organisation. Impartial and factual coverage is preferable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.212.135 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising that this page has no information at all on the Michael Guglielmucc scandal [1] This is quite a significant story and should probably be included in the page. 202.6.138.66 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is he a son of the founding pastor? Was he at the time a pastor himself at the church? If so add this in if not then although it is of interest it isn't really relevant to the article on the church. Ozdaren (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Edge Church.jpg[edit]

Image:Edge Church.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

I've added a section with references to the controversial life of former Edge Church pastor Michael Guglielmucci. Ozdaren (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that some of your language is far from neutral; phrases such as "exposed" and "web of lies and deceit" hardly seem seem like encyclopedic, neutrally worded language -- thus my rewrite. In this edit summary you accuse me of "deleting" ideas I disagree with; I'm unclear as to exactly what you mean by that. What ideas do you suppose I "disagree" with? What factual information did my edits remove? – Luna Santin (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given lack of response after three days, I've posted a request for another voice at Wikipedia:Third opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that you sought a 3O opinion for the article before any further debate was held between us. Before making a 3O request the issue should have been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. Since this issue had not come to a standstill your request was premature and may not have been helpful. Ozdaren (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Edge Church and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The text of the section should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. However, at this time all the links to the sources are broken, so in accordance with WP:GRAPEVINE I am acting immediately to blank the section until the links can either be rewritten to point to the print editions of those newspapers or until other online sources can be found. The current text can still be found in the edit history when that time arrives.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Santin it seems like you have not waited for me to come back to view these issues. One of the points in WP:Third_opinion is to give reasonable time. This should of course have applied to what transpired prior to making this request. Unfortunately I do not live on Wikipedia and may well take a few days to respond. I'm intrigued as to why an obscure article has provoked such a response. The original points made in the controversy section were totally cited. Your edits removed the financial aspect of the fraud undertaken by Guglielmucci. He was indeed exposed by the newspaper. His confessions only came about after it was made public in the media. After a simple search I have found more references (and even cached google searches for the originals). Ozdaren (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to insert the following text.

Controversies[edit]

It was reported in 2008 that Michael Guglielmucci, former Edge Church pastor and son of Edge Church founder Danny Guglielmucci, had fraudulently claimed he was dying of cancer.[1] During this time Guglielmucci received money from supporters who believed his illness was real. [2] Guglielmucci also released the hit song Healer, an anthem of faith for believers who were suffering from cancer.[3] Guglielmucci explained his actions as being a result of a long term addiction to pornography.[4]

  1. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/25/2345377.htm
  2. ^ http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/porn-pastor-unlikely-to-face-charges/story-e6frea83-1111117460461
  3. ^ http://www.theage.com.au/national/thats-sir-conman-to-you-copper-2008s-bizarre-rap-sheet-20081115-67pd.html
  4. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/24/2344811.htm

Proposal
So from my perspective 3 1/2 days have gone by and there has been no reply. I will wait one more day and insert the above text. Ozdaren (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes needed:
  • There's nothing in your sources (or in the Edge Church article as it stands) which proves that MG was a "former Edge Church pastor." I've made a hard search in both free and paid sources trying to find something that corroborates that assertion. Per this search there was apparently at one time an article, "Cancer-faking pastor tells all" 25 Aug 2008, which denied that he had been a "paid staff member" at Edge Church for the last eight years before the scandal, but that article is no longer available and "staff member" does not necessarily imply that he was a "pastor." (The text of that or a related article with the same assertion is repeated here but a link to that source will almost certainly violate Wikipedia's rules about linking to sites which violate copyright.) That phrase should be removed until a usable reliable source can be found for it.
  • Add this citation to the first sentence (it supports the word "fraudulently," which is otherwise unsupported):
<ref>{{Cite news | last = Wheatley | first = Kim | title = Go to police, church tells lying pastor; praise to the fraud | pages = 1-2 | newspaper = The Advertiser | location = Adelaide | date = 22 August 2008 | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>
That article says on page 1, "Mr. Gugliemucci confessed his two-year fraudulent cancer battle..."
That's all I have in regard to your suggested inclusion. I hope this helps. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (Typo corrections made at 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC). — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK))[reply]

Cheers. I found another one with the word fraud in there as well. The interesting thing about all of this is originally I had actually deleted the unsourced claims many edits ago. I added a version back in as I thought there were enough citations to support this. Ozdaren (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Truthforme, 29 December 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

  • Edge Church Controversy

Hello, please remove "Yellow Monkey's" revision here: [2] which states "Protected Edge Church: vandalism" and renew this revision [3] which was undone by 'Ozdaren' here [4]. 'Ozdaren' stated on the same reference just stated that the reason for undoing revision number 393958939 was due to "Vandalism. Pseudo reference to magistrate's court." Correctly, Ozdaren observed the reference was wrong - however the correct reference for the specific transcript of the court case in question which was included in revision number 393958939 is "AMC-09-4608", or the penalty number for the defendant who won the case is "AMC-09-4608/1". Please contact the Adelaide Magistrate's court on (08) 8204 2444 to confirm the validity of these references, and please allow revision number 393958939 to be restored in relation to the 'controversy' section, second paragraph, with the now updated and correct reference to court case number. Ps, I would recommend the removal of the references to the church being a 'cult' or 'cultic behaviour' but the rest of the text as sits is accurate. Sincere Regards, have a nice day.

Truthforme (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This revision is overly negative, poorly sourced, and not directly about the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a tabloid that sets out to defame its subjects. ThemFromSpace 14:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Membership[edit]

The entry under membership states (with reference) that the Reynella church has a 'database' of 3400 people. In my view, a database of people does not suffice as evidence of membership of a specific church - as a database could well include a number of people who use, or who had at one time used the site facilities but are not associated with the church's religious movement in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.121.226 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. However it is referenced from a 3rd party article (although I hazard a guess that the reporter of that piece probably just looked it up on the church's website). Ozdaren (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Guglielmucci[edit]

Just a note that the article comes across as bias, with the statement "Guglielmucci received money from supporters", without qualification that his father (Danny) had to wrong his sins, and issue a public statement that the church would provide refunds to any persons who had made a donation 110.33.120.196 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also, that all funds received, even if not requested, would be forwarded to a Christian charity 110.33.120.196 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edge_Church&oldid=1196415795"