text:
Talk:Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Origins in PCUSA, not PCUS
The PCUSA did exist at the time of the founding of the OPC. The OPC did not split from the Southern church, but from the Northern. That body had the PCUSA name from its founding until 1958, when it merged with the United Presbyterian Church in North America, forming the United Presbyterian Church (USA). This same body merged with the Southern church (PCUS) in 1983, at which time the united church reclaimed its original and historic name, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I just edited the box on the OPC and changed "separated from" from PCUS to PCUSA, and I was going to explain myself on the talk pages, but find I've been beaten to the punch. For those who are interested, allow me to cut and paste a discussion I had on a different page:

 * Coming out of the 19th century, American Presbyterians were split between Northern Presbyterians - known as the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) - and the Southern Presbyterians - known as the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). There were also other smaller Presbyterian denominations which had separated from the two big Presbyterian denominations for various reasons.

 * In 1936, conservatives left the PCUSA to form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

 * In 1958, the PCUSA merged with the smaller United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA) to form the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA)

 * In 1973, conservativs left the PCUS to found the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

 * The UPCUSA merged with the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) in 1983, and the new denomination took the old name of Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).

 * Adam_sk 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifics?
Can anyone elaborate on the specific issues that caused the OPC to split off? The description here is vague (emphasis mine): "In 1929, the Board of the seminary reorganized along more liberal lines, and began hiring professors who were significantly more friendly towards modernism and some forms of liberalism... Machen and a group of other conservatives objected to these changes ... Then, objecting to theological positions that he believed compromised the distinctives of the Reformed tradition, if not the basic tenets of Christianity itself, Machen pled his case before the General Assembly of the PCUSA..." I only have my early-21st century knowledge of what these terms mean, which may or may not be helpful in the context of an early-20th-century debate within a specific denomination. Later there are more specifics given (e.g., alcohol) but I'd love more. --Jfruh 02:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Find out what you can about the Auburn Affirmation, and the history of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions prior to its attachment to the Bible Presbyterian Church. Learn about the controversy that surrounded the anti-proselytizing movement in PCUSA foreign mission - the writings of Pearl S. Buck.  Machen's book, Christianity and Liberalism is important (it's online at http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/ and http://ccel.org/m/machen/liberalism/ ).  The books listed in this article are the best explanation; but these issues pretty much sum up the crisis.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I grew up the OPC, and I've heard from several people that the final straw before the OPC split off was a PCUSA resolution to acknowledge that the virgin birth story might be allegorical/illiteral. But I have no source.

 * The article on the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy goes into the events surrounding the formation of the OPC at great length.

 * Adam_sk 04:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Need Membership Data
Can someone post how many current members and churches the OPC has in North America and throughout the world? I am unable to find this data to post, unfortunately. Scunning 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for expansion of this article
I would like to see this article expanded considerably in many ways I find it insufficent. However as I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I am reluctant to edit this article myself, as I have obvious biases. --24.213.155.165

 * It's fine that you're an OPC member. Go ahead and make your revisions, but try to make them neutral in accord with WP:POV. If they aren't neutral enough, they can be fixed (or at worst, reverted). --Flex 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the OPC
It would be helpful if someone could summarise the theological issues raised in Paul Elliot's book, which has been described in various places online such as. DFH 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed, though I would suggest multiple sources should be used. The Trinity Foundation is very strict (too strict, IMHO) in what it defines as orthodoxy, and I don't think their publications should be the sole basis for a section on the current state of the OPC. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd have no objections for multiple sources to be used. I cited the Trinity Foundation only as an instance which brought the matter to my attention. btw.  I reside in England, and have no involvement with the OPC. DFH 18:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive OR
A large violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV has been inserted, and then re-inserted after being removed. It represents a lot of effort, but if there's any sourcing for the arguments, I fail to see it. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Agreed... I pass no judgement on the truth or untruth of the added material (I don't know enough to do so)... but, true or not, we can't include it unless someone can provide reliable sources to support it. That is fundamental policy here on Wikipedia (see our WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies for more).   Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. This is not original research. The OPC calls itself a largely white and conservative denomination. It has published a report stating the former, and it seems that all of their political statements clearly support the latter statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.170 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sections Containing Primarily or Entirely Unsourced Material
There seems to have been a lot of attention on the demographics section the last few days. This is a good thing, as the "racial" and "political" subsections now provide more citations than the rest of the sections in the article combine.

But there are still sections with absolutely no support whatsoever. I am not super familiar with this denomination. But maybe it is time for those who are to either delete or provide sources for the other sections.

As far as I can tell, the demographics, governance, and missions sections are pretty good. They can still be improved, but they are well supported.

The Ecumenical Relations Section needs considerable work. But it is better than the Notable Members (no support), doctrine (massive quote, possible plagiarism), schism & continuity (no support), Machen & The Departure from the PCUSA (no support), and Background (very little support) sections.

If you have knowledge of this denomination, I would suggest that the time has come to either delete these sections or source the material. Maybe we should agree to give it until Feb. 5th and then delete the material?31.6.58.43 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should.
 * What's the hurry? The oldest unsourced material tags, dated January 2004, more than 10 years ago, are still in the article about George Orwell's wife Eileen: Current version.

The When not to use this template section of Citation needed guidance specifies:

 * As noted before, "WP:V does not require that citations be repeated through every sentence in a paragraph". What is the point in placing multiple Citation needed tags per sentence? That's just plain disruptive editing . 172.129.34.141 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I think the issue is that several posters required multiple citations per sentence in the demographics sentence. These standards need to apply equally throughout the entire article. It is not acceptable to pick and choose which sections require extensive documentation. There are several paragraphs and sections without any sources whatsoever. This either needs to be corrected or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.212 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 * This isn't drive by tagging. The editor explained his or her reasons in talk, and gave a reasonable date to correct this information by. It is time for people to stop trying to protect certain sections but not others. The same standards need to be applied throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.24.61 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Agreed. This is a valid concern. If one section needs multiple citations per sentence, then all sections do. It is not acceptable to have entire sections and paragraphs without any citations whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.130.175 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless of the content of this article, no, it is never appropriate to insert all of those cn tags in one sentence, in this article or any other. It's being disruptive to prove a point. A point which likely needs to be made, but that's not how; we've got a perfectly workable unreferenced section tag which says all that needs to be said about long pieces of unreferenced, unsourced data. That being said, it's certainly not a valid argument to say "well unsourced stuff has been sitting in article XYZ for years so it's acceptable if I add unsourced stuff to this article". No, that's not OK at all; the way to fix a problem (insufficiently sourced material on Wikipedia) is not to add more insufficiently sourced material on Wikipedia. Nothing whatsoever should be added to Wikipedia unless it can be reliably sourced. That's what WP:V and WP:RS say. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Finding sources

 * Here are some useful search links to help you all find cite-sources:

Users unable to edit the page while it is semi-protected may include the edit semi-protected template in an edit request. Please be sure that consensus concerns are addressed first. Thank you.

Doctrine
The citation for the doctrine section is not correct. The link does not support the material. There is a big quote that needs to be paraphrased. But more importantly, it is unclear where the quote comes from (as the citation is not correct). Could someone who is more familiar with the OPC's doctrine fix it? Mg3942 (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 * That entire section was verified 2 February 2014. The official doctrine cannot be changed or paraphrased by anyone except an official of OPC. The link is correct. There are 3 electronic formats of the booklet to choose from on that page. The PDF version is what I used to verify the article section. Look in PDF at Part II, section 1 for the article's first paragraph and section 2 for the doctrine part. The information is both cited and attributed, so it is not plagiarism as was suggested on Mattythewhite's talk page. Happy editing. ...172.129.34.141 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 * As a first step, could you change the link to go straight to the pdf then? As it currently stands, the link is incorrect. But if you switch it to the pdf, then the attribution would be right. Also, I don't believe the .pdf speaks of the OPC using the American revisions of the WCF. Could you please find an appropriate link for that?

 * Finally, I think you are mistaken about summarizing quotes. There have been lots of things written about the OPC by non-OPC oficials. Whenever possible, it is best to have third-party independent summaries of the OPC's doctrine. Check out Wikipedia's policy. I have quoted from some important sections of their official policy below:

 * Quotations are a good tool to comply with the no original research policy but must be used with care.

 * Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence). Wikipedia policy for proper attribution of quotes is found in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other guidelines are found in WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time, however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE).

 * Overusing quotations[edit]

 * Shortcut:
 * WP:QUOTEFARM
 * Main page: Non-free content
 * While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit.

 * 209.99.2.229 (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 * (and 209.99.2.229) The doctrinal statement is already a summary. The attribution in the text is to the source entity, not a particular electronic format. The link page is best, especially for people who can't use the pdf format. If we link to a particular version of the pdf and they revise it with a different name, the link will be broken. I'm sorry I can't explain it better.
 * Happy editing. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see that the spurious "American revisions" part User:Mg3942 was talking about was added with this edit right before the massive removal of excess CN's happened. We need to put the word "were" back in and strike those unsupported additions back out:

The 2nd window is the corrected version ready for (triple-click) & copy/paste as new 1st paragraph in Doctrine section. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I respectfully disagree with those changes. The WCF contradicted some elements of Calvin's teachings (i.e. the Sabbath, ability of civil government to call church councils, etc.). The text needs to make it clear that the WCF was a particular evolution of Calvin's thought. Furthermore, the OPC does not hold to the original Westminster Confession. It holds to the Westminster Confession with the American revisions. Mg3942 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 * OK... so... what is your source for that? It does not appear to be blue sky. Your additions are not supported by the existing source and cannot remain otherwise. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of original research and synthesis
Here's a perfect example of what is being criticized and (rightfully) removed:
 * Neither the OPC website and nor the website of the office of the OPC historian indicates that a census has ever been conducted to determine the racial, political, or economic composition of the denomination.

This is a classic example of synthesis. Nothing at "historian.html" discusses any census regarding the composition of the denomination. The words "census", "racial", "political", and "economic" appear nowhere on that page; nowhere does that page make the assertion that such a census has not been made. The POV of the paragraph appears to be that some such survey should have been made; the synthesis is that the absence of mention of such a survey on that page indicates that no such survey has been made.

 * The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA has not been updated since 1974. The committee which authored the report was dissolved after submitting it to the General Assembly.

Again, noting the absence of something the editor thinks should have occurred ("has not been updated since 1974") is a violation of WP:NOR and an example of WP:SYNTH; if some third party reliable source had made the point of the absence of such a thing, it might be usable, but we can't point to the index and say "oh look so and so isn't there".

Removing the "synthesis" tag while a discussion is underway was completely inappropriate.

 * Such notions are quite at home in the Christian right, American fundamentalist circles, and in quarters of the Republican party.

Says who? Pure violation of WP:NOR and more to the point WP:NPOV.

 * The OPC has never petitioned the federal government to change its policies when a Republican has held the office of President of the United States

Who says it should?

 * In 2002, a prominent OPC minister...

As the edit summary said, this was removed appropriately under WP:BLPREMOVE.

It is 100% incumbent upon the editors adding stuff to articles to make sure the adhere to out policies of WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Find appropriate sources and then add the material; you can't add material and then hope someone eventually finds those sources. And WP:NPOV absolutely must be adhered to; your personal opinion of what this church should or shouldn't do has no relevance whatsoever. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection
I've requested full protection for this article. I'd protect it myself but I'm somewhat involved. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, the page is fully protected now. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the same edit warring continues, the article is likely to be completely protected again. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Status of undocumented workers, etc.
I have reverted this change - the DoE statement predates the OPC, and there is nothing in the source about "expressing opposition to the status of undocumented workers", whatever that means. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Twice I've attempted to change this line:

 * "In the early 2000s, the General Assembly commissioned a report that concluded that undocumented workers could not claim to be true Christians if they were not willing to 'repent' by either obtaining legal status or by returning to their countries of origin."

to this line:

 * "In the early 2000s, the General Assembly formed a study committee which in turn created a report that concluded that illegal aliens who have come to have a credible profession of faith in Christ should be willing to 'repent' and seek to remedy their unlawful immigration status."

and my edit has been reverted both times with the comment that it was an "unnecessary edit".

This is not an "unnecessary edit" for these reasons:
 * 1) To say that the GA "commissioned" this report is not accurate.  In Presbyterian polity, "commissioning" by a body means something specific, and would include greater weight than what actually happened.  The alternatively proposed language more accurately describes what happened, and is reflected in the original citation.
 * 2) The citation does not talk about undocumented workers.  It's about illegal aliens.

--Rhankins (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)--Rhankins (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Racial Demographics
A discussion over the inclusion of material on the demography and politics of the OPC which has been the cause of tendentious editing. In particular OR relating to an image from the OPC website. SPACKlick (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of the 5 edits being discussed;
 * 1 Pennsylvania and California are the states where the OPC churches are numerically the strongest. vs Pennsylvania and California are the states with the highest number of congregants.
 * 2 Keep/Remove of Neither the OPC website and nor the website of the office of the OPC historian indicates that a census has ever been conducted to determine the racial, political, or economic composition of the denomination.
 * 3  in the early 1970s the General Assembly commissioned (and officially received) a report vs In the early 1970s the General Assembly commissioned a report
 * 4 Keep/Remove Section discussing Racial demography based on a Photograph as a source
 * 5 Keep/Remove of Such notions are quite at home in the Christian right, American fundamentalist circles, and in quarters of the Republican party.
 * 6 Keep/Remove of "The OPC does not juridically discriminate against any racial or ethnic groups." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsa54 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTA BENE: I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOT CHANGE THE TEXT WHILE THE SURVEY IS IN PROCESS. THAT WAY EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON. ONCE A CONSENSUS EMERGES, THEN WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. I DO NOT MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE BY THIS. I JUST THINK THE DELETIONS ARE GETTING WAY OUT OF HAND. LET'S FIND A CONSENSUS FIRST, AND THEN MAKE CHANGES. BUT WE CAN'T HIT A MOVING TARGET. I AM SORRY IF I INSERTED AN OLDER VERSION. BUT ST. ANSELM MADE SO MANY INTERMEDIATE EDITS THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESTORE WHAT WE HAD A FEW DAYS AGO. Adamduker (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Remove All - Discussion in detail below but essentially there are violations of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:EDITORIAL SPACKlick (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove as original research. '[The below]' conversation is getting a bit out of hand.  I read the first half, skimmed over the second half, and read the final comments '[below]'.  It looks like one editor is engaging in original research and another is removing the unsourced material.  This is not contentious, and the removal of the information should be upheld.  Unless a reliable source states something outright, such as The New York Times writing an article about this church that states the demographics, we do not report on it.  Inferring facts from a photograph is the very definition of original research, and it is a misuse of primary sources.  This has nothing to do with the truth of the matter, and what the IP editor says may indeed be true.  However, it is not encyclopedic.  I suggest that the IP editor read WP:TRUTH, which is admittedly just an essay and thus not official policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC) copied from lower in discussion(and edited for context) by SPACKlick (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Original remains below
 * Remove 2, 4, 5, and 6 as original research; 3(b), since "receiving" (as opposed to "adopting") a report is not particularly significant; no particular opinion about 1. StAnselm (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Keep it." This is not original research. The source proves the sentence's claim. The picture was published by the denomination itself. This is a reliable source. Summarizing a picture is no different than summarizing an article by the New York times. "The picture displays . . . " is the same thing as "the NY Times article argues . . . " The picture was included in an article published by the OPC to describe what occurred their General Assembly. I do not think it is any worse to say that the picture displays a vast majority of white people than it is to say that the picture displays people standing outside. Neither statements count as OR, as far as I am concerned. Adamduker (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please Do Not Remove. This is not original research. What is more, it seems as though SPACKlick is biased against this one particular section. This is a very short article. If he is being truly fair, why doesn't he take 5 minutes and apply the same standard throughout the rest of the article? He claims he doesn't have time. But he has wasted hours unfairly contending that his view is the "consensus" on this, and deleting information before others have a chance to discuss and address his concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.102 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete sentence about the OPC not "juridically discriminating." That is editorializing. If anything, the best you could say is that "The OPC claims not to juridically discriminate . . . ". As for the other stuff, I do not think the photo is original research. I don't see how you can argue against the other stuff (no survey, etc. on OR grounds). For the part about all those things fitting into right wing movements, I think that is a matter where you should ask for a citation and let others fill in the gaps. It is not something that requires an immediate deletion. Katsa54 (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think 2, 3, and 4 are fine. Maybe you can ask for more citations on 1, 5 and 6. None of this is an emergency that requires immediate removal. Ask for citations and give editors time to fill in the gaps. What's the rush? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.226.135 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. 192.64.5.136 (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Ask for citations for 1, 6, and maybe 5. This section appears to have been around for only a month, and it has been constantly deleted and re-inserted. People haven't had the chance to improve it yet. Give people a chance to update the page. There is no hurry here. 216.166.7.85 (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it all. Not original research. Ask for citations and then be patient. 37.175.154.109 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Folks, Wikpedia is not a democracy, and this isn't a vote. Ballot box stuffing is not going to help keep original research, synthesis, opinion, unsourced content and unreliable sources in the article.  Ruby   Murray  19:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "This is a Survey." Ruby, this is a survey to establish a consensus. The only person who is ballot stuffing is on your side (voting for others). Consensus is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamduker (talk • contribs)
 * Um, excuse me, but we do not have any reason to consider single purpose accounts like these IP editors with few or no other edits other than to this talk page. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Nor is it a dictatorship, Ruby Murray. You are blocking people who disagree with you and thumbing your nose at the beginnings of a consensus. Mg3942 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove all unsourced, OR, or POV, regardless of how many people want to put in unsourced original research and non-neutral POV. Consensus cannot override WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Who determines what is OR? There are legitimately two sides to this debate. The question is: who is right? That is where consensus comes in.Mg3942 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. The community has defined original research, and the sort of synthesis that has been repeatedly inserted into this article are a clear and obvious violation of WP:NOR. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to you, but isn't clear to others. Mg3942 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the experienced editors here have noticed a certain lack of clarity among some editors as to what constitutes original research. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove 2, 4, 5, and 6 as original research, and per jpgordon above, consensus cannot override WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I'm not much bothered about 1, as it's not a particularly contentious assertion, and a reference might plausibly be found for a quantitative claim like that. I'll offer no opinion about 3 either for now. There are more instances of original research and synthesis elsewhere in the currently frozen version of the article, which haven't made it into this survey, but those are best left to a separate discussion.   Ruby   Murray  12:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Section currently Reads; Nevertheless, decades after the report was released the OPC remains an overwhelmingly white denomination. The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA is no longer persuasive considering the fact that the OPC has now been a distinct denomination for over 80 years (and the American Civil War ended almost 150 years ago). There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies, which reflects the fact that there are very few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination. And in many (if not most) of the previous meetings of the General Assembly, only whites were present as delegates.

The Source does not support this in any way and I think it therefore violates WP:OR, I will remove it now and hope to see a discussion of its inclusion here before it is reverted. SPACKlick (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply:

Then feel free to challenge it. But you are not free to delete this whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Repeated reversions claiming there is no reason to delete do not change the point that

 * Adding unsourced material to articles is vandalism
 * Making claims not made by the sources, even if you feel they can be calculated from the sources, is Original Research and thus breaches WP Policy
 * The way this process should work is An Edit is Made, That edited is reverted as controversial, The controversy is discussed on the talk page You have failed to get to step three and are engaging in an edit war Explicitly forbidden by wikipedia.
 * I have justified my removal of your content, none of your sources make the claims you are making in this article. Not one of them says there is no census, not one of them discusses racial demography of the OPC. Until you have those sources, the content cannot stay in the article.SPACKlick (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply:

There are no violations in this. I have changed the wording to make it conform 100% to Wikipedia rules. One is allowed to make such statements on Wikipedia so long as they insert appropriate language (i.e. "suggests"). The photo that I linked clearly shows a denomination that is almost entirely white.

If you will to challenge or rewrite a section, please do so. But you are not free simply to continue to delete it whole cloth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * There are violations of the original research policy, I am challenging the inclusion of any of the material until sources can be provided. Until the material is sourced it should not be in the article. I'm looking to see if I can find sources for your claims, but I can't find any. If you have sources, please provide them, until that point it cannot remain.
 * As for the photo clearly suggesting something, you cannot determine race of the involved parties from that photo, merely their external pigmentation. And not clearly for several of them, but even if you COULD determine it, that still wouldn't be enough for your claim. You need to find a source that makes the claim. You are misunderstanding wikipedia policies.SPACKlick (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply:

This simply isn't true. You are not "challenging" this information. You are deleting this. You can insert a link asking for additional citations. But for instance, you have deleted the first paragraph of the political section, despite the fact that it is just a lead in to the next paragraph, which is much larger and contains all of the support.

Again, feel free to rewrite or improve sections. But you are not free to delete this whole cloth. This is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional Reply:

The paragraph you quoted earlier has been rewritten. You could have rewritten it yourself instead of deleting it. Feel free to make similar changes to other paragraphs or sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

One (More) Additional Reply to SPACKlick:

You have been warned by Wikipedia before for doing this exact same thing. It seems that you have a history of wrongly deleting valid information and engaging in edit wars. For instance, earlier this month Wikipedia told you the following:

'''Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Marriage penalty. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.'''

Please stop doing the same thing to this page. There are ways to edit and improve pages without vandalizing them. You have started an edit war. I am not an edit warrior. I am interested in working with anyone to find ways to improve this page. But deleting things just because you don't like them will not be tolerated. 78.31.47.43 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Issue a Marriage Penalty was resolved Amicably by an Editor discussing his edits reasonably on a talk page, we were both warned for edit warring, it is true. But note you are equally guilty of edit warring in this case.

 * Let's look at the disputed sections;

No one has never conducted a census to determine the racial, political, or economic compositions of the denomination. Nevertheless, there is much evidence that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is an overwhelmingly white and politically conservative denomination:
 * There is no source for either of these two claims. Until one is provided it is vandalism to put it back into the article.

The racial composition of delegates to recent OPC General Assemblies suggests that the OPC remains an overwhelmingly white denomination decades after the official report was released. There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies, which reflects the fact that there are very few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination.|1
 * This constitutes Original Research as you are interpreting the picture and is again, against Wikipedia policies. You are not only interpreting the races of the people in the picture but then drawing a conclusion from that interpretation.

The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA has not been updated since the 1970s, even though the OPC has now been a distinct denomination for over 80 years and the American Civil War ended almost 150 years ago.
 * Ignoring the poor writing of referring to "the report" which hasn't been the subject of a sentence this paragraph, this also makes an interpretation not found in any source.

There is no evidence that any Orthodox Presbyterian minister or elder played any role whatsoever in advancing any liberal or progressive cause, such as the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s or equal pay legislation. Historically, the OPC has only made political statements that have coincided with right wing policies, such as opposition to homosexuals serving their country, women serving in combat roles, the status of undocumented workers, opposition to the Department of Education, and the anti-abortion movement.
 * You cannot claim there is no evidence just because you don't have any, you would need to find a source that makes the claim.

So despite the fact that the OPC has never surveyed its members to determine political demographics, the vast majority of OPC members can be described as either conservative, Republican, libertarian, or even theonomic.
 * No problem with the main of this sentence but the first clause is Also original research, and should be removed. I've edited this content several times to reflect that and you've reverted every time, please justify the inclusion of the above questioned pieces of content before adding them back into the article.SPACKlick (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the only instance in which people have complained that you are vandalizing their pages. If you want to ask for citations on the page itself, go for it. There is an easy function to do this. But you are subverting the normal editing process via your deletions.78.31.47.43 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are free to ask for additional citations and change the wording of certain sentences. This is part of the normal edit process. I have already made some changes based on your comments above. But you are not engaging in the normal edit process. You are engaging in an edit war and vandalism.

It is remarkable that you have such problems with this section, but not with others in this article. You seem to have other motivations here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * You are incorrect, Standard process is Bold, Revert, Discuss You are failing to follow it by re-adding material you have been shown is against policy. Adding unsourced material to Wikipedia is vandalism. An Editor has no onus to fix everything on a page, these are the edits I saw, reviewed, researched, found to be unsourced and removed. You have yet to provide sources for any of the claims. Please cease edit warring and either

You have been asked several times to provide sources, both in edit comments and on this page. You have failed to do so, therefore you are adding material that violates policy to pages. I will be adding Citation needed tags to all the material and if it doesn't have sources soon will remove again.SPACKlick (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide sources for your claims so they can be added to the article
 * Stop putting unsourced claims in the article.

You have been warned several times. I have now reported you for vandalism and engaging in an edit war. You have violated the bold part of the BRD process. Wikipedia has already labelled this page a "start class." But it can't be improved unless you stop deleting things for no good reason. Feel free to change the language without deleting whole ideas, or to add a "citation needed" link when you think something needs to be better supported. But you should not feel free to continue to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There you go. Welcome to the world of responsible editing. Now, let's get down to brass tacts:

Re: the second paragraph of the race sectionL The first sentence is an introduction which leads into the second. You need to delete your objections there and focus them on the second sentence. The photo certainly shows that the overwhelming majority of OPC GA delegates are white. I cannot agree with your objection to this. The denomination has published a photo of leaders that contains less than 1% non-white people. The GA is a representative body, drawing ministers and elders from presbyteries all over the country. Therefore, this is not a controversial statement. But perhaps you can help me construct a sentence that can clarify this. I will wait 15 minutes for you to respond, and then I will move the link to the photo from the end of the sentence to right after the comma.

Sound good?78.31.47.43 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As for your issue with citation #11, I cited the OPC webpage that lists all of their official reports. Clearly, the race report has not been updated since 1974. Again, I will give you 15 minutes to delete or clarify your objection, and then I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As for your issue with the lead in paragraph, I provide the evidence in the next two sections. I will be deleting your "citation needed" objection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * The below was drafted before your previous three edits but I think needed to be said.
 * I haven't violated Bold, you were bold, I was revert. You'll note since your last warning I haven't reverted, instead following your suggestion (which makes the article less encyclopedic) to add, and  tags. Also worth noting, as per WP:Vandalism;

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.
 * I have been attempting to improve this article by removing unsourced content I could not find sources to support. By definition, not vandalism. You however have been adding original research to the article repeatedly without providing sources when asked on the talk page and in edit summaries. You have also claimed I have an agenda andmade other claims aout me in violation of WP:PA. Please find your sources. Unless they are found, as per WP Policies I will be removing the article content which is unsourced

 * In response to your last three edits. 1) No need to be condescending, you are not editing following WP Policies. 2) It's Brass Tacks not Brass Tacts but the edits
 * First Sentence Second Paragraph of Racial. Claims that something is suggested but not to whom it suggest. Violates WP policy. Also makes an unsourced claim about the demographic make up of OPC without a source making that claim.
 * The Photo does not certainly show anything, to claim that is to INTERPRET it making the claim [WP:OR]] which is not allowed in articles. Please find a Reliable Source making the claim about the demographics of OPC. They have a published photo, it may not contain all of the leaders and the photo doesn't tell you the race of the individuals within it. You are interpreting it, I cannot be any clearer. Also 15 minutes is excessively quick to expect a response on Wikipedia.I'm not interested at this point in constructing a sentence as nothing in the paragraph is sourced to a reliable source. Find a source, I'll help construct a sentence, without a source it's WP:OR and should be deleted.
 * The page lists some reports, it doesn't claim it's all the reports, it doesn't claim that there isn't an updated report somewhere, you're making an interpretation. Please read WP:OR and WP:NOR
 * As for the Citaion needed you're deleting, I don't know what you mean by lead in paragraph. Could you clarify? SPACKlick (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show me how ANYONE could reasonably see a single black person in that photo. This is not a controversial or unsupported statement. There are only two faces in that entire photo that *might* be considered non-white.

The page lists OPC GA reports. This is a reasonable statement. If you can find a single OPC GA report not listed on the website, I will be happy to remove that sentence.

Have you read the rest of this article?!?!?! There are whole sentences, paragraphs, and even sections WITHOUT A SINGLE CITATION!!!! Plenty of naive sentences and claims. So why are you focussing such undue attention here? I am glad that you have taken the first step towards becoming a responsible editor, but you need to focus on removing the huge planks in this article before what may or may not be tiny splinters in this one section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Remember no editor is obliged to fix any specific problem. Just because it's bad elsewhere doesn't mean you can add a little bad here.
 * with respect to the photo, you are missing the point that interpreting the photo constitutes WP:OR and therefore your conclusions cannot be included unless they are published. Inclusion on Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not on truth. If you believe that image counts as a Reliable source for the conclusion that the leadership of OPC is not demographically diverse, feel free to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and ask there but I'm confident you'll get the same response.
 * As for the reports, the page doesn't make the slaim you are making, you are interpreting the claim from the source. This means you haven't sourced the claim. You are misunderstanding the WP:NOR policy and should read it in full.
 * I will be re-adding the relevant citation tags to the article. Please do not remove them until there is either a consensus here or at the noticeboard that the sources provided are reliable or until you have a reliable source for the claims SPACKlick (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not original research. You have already been reported for vandalism and starting an edit war. You have violated BRD on several occasions. I have already made countless revisions to satisfy your objections. This is now the best written and documented section in the entire article.

I have invited you to make reasonable changes to the language itself. Your previous response clearly shows that you have a bias here. If you continue to behave this way, you will likely be banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * AS I have said before, the language isn't, for the most part, the issue. It's the fact the the content is not sourced to another source that makes the claim. if reading policy on reliable sources and policy on original research hasn't shown you that the sources provided don't meet wikipedias criteria for good sources then I don't know how else to discuss this. I may suggest you read this article about citing things you feel are uncontroversial. Anyway, I've marked this discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to request assistance from a more experienced editor. SPACKlick (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is blatant vandalism. You are demanding a link that the denomination has existed for over 80 years and that the Civil War ended almost 150 years ago. You are editing in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm very much NOT demanding that, you'll notice that neither of those claims has come up in this discussion, or had a Citation Needed tag added to it. I think it's unencyclopeidc language but I don't mind either way on that one. You however are refusing to find sources that make your claims. Did you read the article I linked?SPACKlick (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You did indeed demand that in a previous attempt. You are being ridiculously unreasonable. I have provided links to show that the OPC has not updated its race report since 1974. The report (which I linked to) concludes by saying the committee was dissolved. And I have provided proof of the GA as a body that represents OP leadership. You are not editing in good faith. I would like to spend time making this entire article better. There is zero support for entire paragraphs and sections. In contrast, the demographics sections I have added are very well supported. I have cooperated and made many changes, despite the fact that you were violating BRD. But you continue to seek to sabotage this section through new means. As a result, the main parts of this article continue to be in need of major help, while we waste time working through your bizarre objections. This is vandalism, and you need to stop.

In fact, your edits are even deleting one of the citations that I have added to satisfy your issue with the OPC being a representative body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * 78.31.47.43, I hope you understand that edit warring isn't considered vandalism. Adding unsourced content, however, is, if the user has been warned about it. Both are a form of disruptive editing.

 * However, in this case it appears that you two are quarreling over unsourced content. According to the verifiability policy, it says:

"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

- Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy

 * Any sort of unsourced material may be removed, although in theory it's better off if you either 1. Tagged the unsourced content with the  template or 2. Find a citation to support it. Google's your friend here.

 * Also, 78.31.47.43, your AIV report was declined. K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You are deleting citations just so you can say a citation is needed!!! This is your last warning. If you continue to do this to this section, I will apply the exact same standard to the rest of the article, adding "citation need" throughout the entire thing. Is that really what you want, or do you want to be a bit more reasonable here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is as much sourcing in this section than in all of the other sections of the article COMBINED. Do you really want to vandalize the only decently written and supported section in the entire article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 * As far as the "suggests" issue, I don't think this needs to be tagged. I realize that some don't like this section because it demonstrates realities that some people would rather not be broadcasted. But this sentence is very reasonable. The second clause is the logical consequence of the first clause, which is sufficiently sourced.

 * Regarding the census thing, the previous statement was fine. But I changed it to be beyond reproach. I think we can all leave it alone now. It seems like there was some bad blood between the two editors, but I can't see why there is a problem at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.203.242 (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I still have a problem with two of the inclusions in the racial and demographics section

Neither the OPC website and nor the website of the office of the OPC historian indicates that a census has ever been conducted to determine the racial, political, or economic composition of the denomination.
 * This doesn't seem to add anything, neither of those pages says they don't believe in dragons. It's a 1 sentence paragraph and the sentence is Stating a weird negative. I think it should be removed.

There are very few minorities present in any of the official photos of recent General Assemblies. Since the General Assembly is a representative body drawn from ministers and elders throughout denomination, the fact that there are so few minorities present at the General Assembly suggests that there are few non-whites in leadership positions in the denomination.
 * My problems with this section are much the same as before

 * There is no source for the racial profile of people pictured making a claim about their racial profile OR
 * There is no source which suggests anything about the make-up of the assembly as a whole.
 * There is no secondary source to suggest that issues of racial demography are notable wrt this denomination.
 * All in all, I'd rather find a secondary source for this issue but I have looked and can find nothing. Probably also needs to be removed wholesale.SPACKlick (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Several other people continue to disagree with you, SPACKlick, and I don't think it is right for you to continue to delete these sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg3942 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 * It is the quality of reasoning, not number of people holding a position, that matters. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (WP:PRIMARY) The unsourced material that began to be added 20 December 2013, and modifications since, still fail WP:NOR (WP:SYNTH) and WP:RS. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 * First of Mg3942, please do not delete other users contributions to a talk page, however spurious you find their reasoning to be. Secondly, the above point still stands, there is no source for the claim. You are interpreting and analysing the sources. I have searched for secondary sources and can find none. Therefore there is no justification for keeping the material in the article. If you can find a secondary source discussing the demography of the OPC then we can re-work the section in but as it stands you have no source showing either of the two sections above, you are yourself interpreting it from a picture and a lack of evidence making it a clear violation of WP:NOR

The section is better documented than any other in this article. As has already pointed out, this article is start class. Removing material or obstructing other's ability to add to it is vandalism. If you wish to bring in an impartial editor to mediate our disagreement, be my guest. Otherwise, please respect the BRD process and other people's hard work. You are free to ask for more citations, but you are not free to continue to selectively delete material in only certain sections that you would rather not be published.

 * An article being start class means its quality needs improving, it's not an excuse to keep adding unsourced material. I have brought several impartial editors and all of them have either removed the unsourced material or called your reasoning specious. By all definitions the comments on the racial make up of the picture from the OPC website are WP:OR because you are interpreting facts about their race which are not present in the source.
 * Also, when undoing changes, please only undo those changes you object to rather than other changes made in the same edit. I'll try to break changes into different edits to make this easier. SPACKlick (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't want to get into a big thing here, as it seems that there is a lot of bad blood. I will just add this: It seems very clear from the selective outrage about alleged citation and editorializing issues that there is a group of people who would like this information to be hidden from the public. If this were not the case, they would make just as big of a stink about the other sections. Instead, they are trying to monopolize and drown out a pretty well written and sourced section. Suffice it to say, it seems that many people disagree on this issue. So I cannot see how anyone can claim there is a consensus. My 2 cents are that we should leave it up and ask for improvements. But to continue to take it down before it can be improved is childish and petty.
 * I'm not going to enter this edit war myself. But I do not believe this material should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamduker (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I edited the format of the above comment for clarity.
 * There's no selective outrage, it was the content I saw that wasn't sourced. I have no attachment to the OPC, I'm a UK Atheist. However, on any page where there is information that could be considered controversial, that information must be sourced. Besides to argue that I'm ignoring other unsourced bits of the article is just a smaller version of this problem on article deletion or "Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond"
 * The edits this author is currently Warring over are as follows;

 * Pennsylvania and California are the states where the OPC churches are numerically the strongest. vs Pennsylvania and California are the states with the highest number of congregants.
 * Now, I've tried to find a source that can be quoted for this but the current phrasing is A) Confusing, it could mean either OPC has the plurality of congregants in those two states, which isn't true, it could mean that these two states have the most congregations or most congregants. I believe from what info I can find it is the latter. and B) Not Neutral Talking about numerical strength implies that it is a positive thing, whereas highest number of congregants IS neutral

 * Removal of Neither the OPC website and nor the website of the office of the OPC historian indicates that a census has ever been conducted to determine the racial, political, or economic composition of the denomination.
 * As I've said above, we don't list things that particular sources DON'T say unless there is a source which indicates the absence is notable. If we went by this standard then we could fill the article with the statements that the OPC website doesn't declare dragon's fictional and doesn't specifically forbid [insert vile sex act here]. It's making a suggestion by omission and it isn't Neutral

 * The OPC does not juridically discriminate against any racial or ethnic groups, but in the early 1970s the General Assembly commissioned (and officially received) a report vs The OPC does not juridically discriminate against any racial or ethnic groups. In the early 1970s the General Assembly commissioned a report
 * Here I feel the (and officially recevied) is Expression of Doubt, it indicates something like the OPC deny receiving or the OPC claim to have received but actually didnt'. If it's left out it reads as if the report was comissioned, completed and read. It's another spin in this section that shouldn't be there.

 * Removal of the section referring to the photograph.
 * Seriously, this one is the clearest violation of WP Policies. It's textbook WP:OR. The source is a photograph the statements made are that this indicates that OPC is not racially diverse. There is no source for that claim because the photograph is not racially tagged. It's an interpretation put on the picture by a WP editor.

 * Removal of Such notions are quite at home in the Christian right, American fundamentalist circles, and in quarters of the Republican party.
 * This is clear editorialising as it stands and not neutral as well. it indicates a negative opinion of the views held and of the christian right.

 * I've indicated some of the policies you're violating with the inclusions that violate those policies and have reverted them. Those that violate style I've left for further discussion.SPACKlick (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I am fine with you improving the wording or asking for citations, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. But I (and others) disagree that I am interpreting their race. I can summarize an official picture just as others can summarize an official doctrinal statement. You don't seem to have any objections to the other sections that also make similar summaries (but with no sources).

 * I am also fine with you breaking up edits. But it is absurd for you to accuse me of deleting and changing too much. There was quite a while there where you were actually deleting others's citations, just so you could say that a citation was needed.

 * I am willing to work with you so long as you apply the same standard to the entire article and stop asserting that your view is the "consensus."

 * I believe you asked editors to intervene with a mediation and/or judgment, but they declined. Maybe you can ask again? If not, you may just need to accept that this material will be staying for a while. Mg3942 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * You cannot summarise a picture beyond what it contains. The picture shows a number of people standing in front of a building. anything beyond specifying visual details is interpretation.
 * You've twice now accused me of deleting citations so I could claim they didn't exist, this has simply not happend and I would ask you for the courtesy of linking the diff where I made such an edit if you will persist in making the accusation.
 * I'm under no obligation to work on the rest of the article. I work on several articles a day in the sections I happen to stumble on via recent changes and then on sections I can find details on from the sources I find from that section. In this case I cannot comment on a lot of the article because I don't have the frame of reference. You seem better placed to discuss the calvinism and doctrine of this denomination, for instance.
 * The editors I asked to intervene put the article in protection.
 * The standard policy on wikipedia is for contentious material to be left out of an article until consensus is reached. As this dicussion is now long and intractable would you object if I created 5 new sections of the talk page, one for each of the 5 edits above? It would make discussion easier I feel. SPACKlick (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

By your own standard, the picture does not show people standing in front of a building. By your standard, it shows nothing. But several people disagree with your standard.

I would be happy to show you where you deleted others's links. I'll get to that tomorrow. I assume you will apologize to Wikipedia when confronted with this, right?

That is not the standard policy. The standard policy is BRD, which you have violated on several occasions by deleting first and asking questions later. At one point, you agreed to work things out on Talk. But then you went right back to deleting again. And you have claimed that a consensus exists when it in fact does not. Mg3942 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Right adding Request for Comment Template to this discussion in order to try and get more opinions here.
 * By my standard? You mean by the three key policies of Wikipedia? WP:NPOV, WP:OR & WP:V? To quote the opening of WP:NOR;

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
 * The position that the demography of the OPC is limited is not advanced in the source, therefore it's a straight up policy Violation, as K6ka and an IP user above agree.
 * It is not I who violated BRD You were bold, you added stuff. I reverted it, you keep re-reverting to keep it in while it's being discussed, that's not BRD. Thats BRrRD and that's what causes edit wars.SPACKlick (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Would like to offer a quick apology, where above I have used the term "vandalism" I should have said "tendentious and disruptive editing"SPACKlick (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Remove as original research. This conversation is getting a bit out of hand.  I read the first half, skimmed over the second half, and read the final comments above.  It looks like one editor is engaging in original research and another is removing the unsourced material.  This is not contentious, and the removal of the information should be upheld.  Unless a reliable source states something outright, such as The New York Times writing an article about this church that states the demographics, we do not report on it.  Inferring facts from a photograph is the very definition of original research, and it is a misuse of primary sources.  This has nothing to do with the truth of the matter, and what the IP editor says may indeed be true.  However, it is not encyclopedic.  I suggest that the IP editor read WP:TRUTH, which is admittedly just an essay and thus not official policy.  I suggest that both editors agree to  move all their comments outside the RFC, so that it's easier to read.  See WP:TLDR for why this RfC may not get much attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the re-addition of the contentious material, assuming per WP:AGF that the editor has misunderstood BRD. I'm a little concerned that so many of the edit warring reverts were made by anonymous IP until the article was semi-protected, but I'm going to again AGF that the editor didn't know that this is also against policy.  Ruby   Murray `
 * Your most recent Edit note was Undid revision 594319974 by Ruby Murray (talk) Please stop deleting before asking for more or better citations. We have asked for more or better citations, we have searched for more or better citations, none have been found. By Bold, Revert, Discuss The article should remain without your contentious additions until consensus is reached. Please stop edit warring. SPACKlick (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment: This goes beyond the terms of the RfC, but there were massive amounts of original research on this page, which I have removed. E.g. The OPC did not offer any scientific or biblical support whatsoever for its claim that homosexuality (in and of itself) represents an objective threat to the "safety" and "health" of the American citizenry. StAnselm (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Progress?
I was invited here by the feedback bot to find this discussion has been quiet for a week. Do you feel you are close to a consensus? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion stalled after a couple of editors were blocked for sockpuppetry. I think an uninvolved editor will need to determine consensus. StAnselm (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the discussion went quiet once it became clear that it was pretty unanimous to remove all the WP:OR and that has since been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I thought so. I'll remove the RFC tag then, but keep the page on my watchlist. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I think it would be good for you to keep an eye on recent activity and deletions. Thanks! 81.64.76.210 (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits of 19 and 20 February

 * Yes, well this edit is more original synthesis. We do not claim "anecdotal evidence", ever. StAnselm (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not add whole sections without support. These is a claim by a prominent OPC minister and another minister, posted on the front page of the OPC's website. They are identified as claims and do not purport to represent the entire denomination. It is relevant information. Please show what rule this is violating or stop deleting it. Lauraface32 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Just for the record, StAnselm -- I didn't object to the writing. I thought it was well written. But after all the issues on this page, the rules need to be applied consistently. Unsourced content needs to be removed. Sourced content needs to be allowed (even if you don't like what it says). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraface32 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So that's the only reason? You did see the footnote at the end of the paragraph, didn't you? That is generally sufficient - citations are not needed at the end of every sentence. Are you saying you didn't actually dispute any of the content? Then it seems to be that your objections are are spill-over from the debate above. In fact, to be perfectly honest, it looks like you are only removing my edits out of spite. Please try to keep the issue of my additions separate from the issue of your own additions. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, would you please kindly do one thing at a time with the article? I think you added your unsourced section in the same edit as you deleted my sentences in a different section. This makes it difficult to focus on one thing at a time. I had to delete yours to restore mine. I would prefer not to have to do that. Thanks!!! Lauraface32 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you would have preferred not to have deleted my addition? In that case I shall restore it. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * : Welcome to Wikipedia! It seems you have misunderstood the rules. Please read WP:Five Pillars, and remove your contributions about race and politics while we discuss it here.  Editing works by consensus, so someone can't keep restoring something until someone shows them a rule.
 * : As Lauraface32 said, please do one thing at a time.

Thank you! Lauraface32 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Politics section
I understand that some people do not like this section and would prefer that this potentially embarrassing information not be broadcasted. But unless it breaks any specific rules, it should not be removed. I know that I am new here, but it seems to me that an encyclopedia should share as much information as possible (not just what is popular or promotes the entity in question). Please let me know what rules (if any) this breaks:

'''The OPC has published the view of a minister who believes that the majority of Orthodox Presbyterians are racially white and politically conservative. Several of the most important founders of American reconstructionism (such as Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen) were Orthodox Presbyterian ministers. Some important Orthodox Presbyterians, including Machen, were and are libertarians (but not left-libertarians). There is some evidence that many members and leaders are Republicans, and that criticism of the GOP is unwelcome in some congregations. For instance, a prominent Orthodox Presbyterian minister recalls being immediately rebuked and warned that he was in a "Republican church" after criticizing the foreign policy of President George H.W. Bush. '''

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraface32 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 February 2014

 * Yes, the last two sentences break the rule of no original synthesis. Yes, it's good that the word "anecdotal" has been removed, but this is still an extrapolation from one guy's experience to saying something about the whole denomination. Such extrapolations are not allowed. StAnselm (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't an extrapolation. It just says that it is one minister's experience. And that "one guy" (as you call him) happens to be the editor in chief of the ministerial journal of the OPC. The article had been on the front page of the OP's website. There is no synthesis. It is clear that you don't like this information being shared. But they are well-sourced and limited in their claims. So what rule specifically do you believe is being violated? Lauraface32 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't jump to conclusions about what I would like to be shared. And please remember that the onus is on you to argue for inclusion. That is, you need to make an argument based on wikipedia policy as to whether it is neutral, verifiable and relevant. You have already been asked by another editor to remove it while the discussion is in progress, but you have refused to do so. StAnselm (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant because it describes what ministers in the OPC view as the racial and political composition of their denomination. It is also relevant because it has been posted on the front page of the OP website. There are links to these articles. This makes them verifiable. They are also neutral, in that they are what the OPC has published about itself. I just removed them. And I have just made a very clear argument for their inclusion. But if you can't show why they aren't neutral or verifiable, they will be reinserted.

Please do not add your history section until you source it and defend it. All sections must play by the same rules. Lauraface32 (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I think you need to be careful before using untrue words like "refuse." I never refused to remove it. I forgot. Then I saw that you tagged it up, so I wasn't sure if it was necessary. I did not refuse 's request.

 * The reason why I think you are embarrassed by this information is because the third party claims are listed just as that -- claims. This conforms to WP policy. Every third party claim is backed up from a citation from an article that either is or was posted by the denomination on the front page of their website. So your issue seems to be more with the content than with the conformity to WP rules. Another reason I think this is that you tagged every sentence with very silly objections. You called "evidence" a "weasel word." REALLY?!?!?! Also, you inserted several paragraphs of your own unsourced info into the new history section while trying to get my sourced sentences removed at the same time. You clearly have an issue with the material that goes beyond WP's rules and policies here.

 * As for the history section, I agree that every sentence doesn't require a citation. So if two sentences speak to the same point, you can leave the citation at the end of the last sentence. That is what I did in the quote above with the penultimate and final sentence. But in your new history section, all of the new sentences make a different claim (when Machen died, why the Bible Presbyterians left, what happened with the foreign missions board, etc., etc.). These are all separate claims that either need to be cited or removed. It is silly for you to argue against sourced material when you are adding whole sections of unsourced material. Lauraface32 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your constant deletion of the history section constitutes disruptive editing. It appears that you are deleting it based on the fact that it was I who added it. But it was very clearly sourced, and it was mostly restoring and/or summarising what has been in the article for a long time. As for your "refusal" - if you had simply forgot, I am sorry that I used such a strong word. StAnselm (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Some evidence" is indeed weasel wording. The Gamble anecdote did not provide evidence that "many" members are Republicans (and it was George Bush Sr who was mentioned, by the way). Who says this is evidence? Maybe it was a one-off occurrence. Gamble himself doesn't seem to draw any conclusions from his experience. Hence, the claim you added constitutes original synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And how do you know the article in question was on the front page of the website? StAnselm (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally, the quote at the start of the paragraph is out of context and misleading. He did indeed say, "I suspect that a majority of our membership is Caucasian and politically conservative." But the whole point of the article is that it is misleading to say that the OPC is "a white, politically conservative denomination". That point doesn't come out int he quote that you cherrypicked. (He also says that he suspects "the "lily white" congregation is the exception rather than the rule".) StAnselm (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. I do not believe your section sources even a majority of the claims it makes. If you add the sources, then I would have no problem. I do think we need to keep the sources tag if you are going to only cite from the OPC's own official history, as it relies on sources too closely connected with the subject. We should keep this removed until we work it out on Talk, just like with the other sections. You cannot continue to insert language that others find unsourced. As the 5 Pillars say, anyone can edit. You do not own this article, and must work it out in Talk before it is reinserted. Am I wrong about this, '?

"Some evidence" is not weasal wording. If it is, we can simply remove the word "some." That wouldn't be a problem. As for George HW vs George W Bush, we can fix that real easily. Gamble inserts into the article precisely because it reveals an ethos present in the OPC. He mentions it in the middle of a review of Trueman's book ("Republocrat") to show the problems that Trueman sees in confessionally reformed churches of reflexively identifying with the political right are indeed present in the OPC. Seriously, what is the problem with this?

As for your claim of cherrypicking, you are free to add more to the section. Nowhere do I claim that the OPC is only white or only conservative. But I still don't see what your objection is to this language.Lauraface32 (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thing - it's really hard to assume good faith when you tag the statement that Machen died in 1937 as needing a citation. Were you seriously doubting it? Even after you clicked the link and read his article? StAnselm (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I told you that I had no problem with the writing. It just needs to meet the same standards that you expect of other sections. If we cannot assume that a picture of white people can be fairly called a picture of white people, then we cannot assume that Machen died in 1937 or that the OPC was founded by him. Wikipedia requires you to source even the simplest claims -- such as the sky is blue.

Seriously, I think you could have made the demographics section better instead of deleting and tagging it. I don't see what your issue with these three sentences are. Please cut it out. You have assumed that you are in charge of this page and formally warned me for things that said were fine. This is bullying. You need to accept that you are not the owner of this page. No one is. If a section conforms to WP's rules, it should stay. If it doesn't, let's try to fix it together. Lauraface32 (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. StAnselm (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And the reason we don't call a picture of white people what it is, is that the consensus above was that it was original research. StAnselm (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion of the history section separate from that of the 3 4 proposed politics section sentences. Otherwise it is impossible for 3rd parties to understand. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. But Lauraface32 has joined the issues together in that she deleted the history section in response to my deletions in the politics section. StAnselm (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree,. Please stop making this personal. I just said that all sections need to be treated equally. I agree with you,  Lauraface32 (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with that StAnselm has been bullying people to get his or her way on this page. I also agree with her(?) that the sentences are mostly fine and should be restored. But I agree with  that we need to change it to the first President Bush.  Adamduker (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that there was a consensus. But what would you say about just posting the picture, ? Not making any claims, but just showing it in a box in the demographics section and saying -- "a photo of OPC leadership at the 80th GA."

Please list and defend your objections (if you still have any) to reinserting the text with the modifications for which Bush it was. It seems that others do not hold to your previously stated view. Lauraface32 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Just change the name of the présidente. Dont' delete da whole thing. 195.101.202.111 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Do you mean this photo? No - it is property of the photographer, and it wouldn't meet non-free content criteria.
 * StAnselm has posted his objections. You haven't addressed his concerns about relevance or synthesis.
 * Don't take StAnselm's warnings as bullying. Warnings help you avoid repeating mistakes.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I already addressed the extrapolation objection. It would be extrapolation and synthesis if I were to write that this proves the denomination were white or conservative. But I didn't write that. I wrote that OP ministers have made claims, and that their views have been published on the front page of the OPC's official website. The claims of OP ministers about political and racial demographics seem extremely relevant in a section on the OPC's racial and political demographics. Just as claims by OPC ministers (such as Hart) are relevant in a section on the OPC's history. Lauraface32 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the Hart reference in the history section is published by Johns Hopkins University Press. Secondly, you haven't answered my question of how you know that the article(s) were on the front page of the website. StAnselm (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the citations is still on the front page of their website. The other was published in Ordained Servant, which appears exclusively on the front page of their website before it is archived. That should answer the relevancy question. Lauraface32 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is a link to it on the main page. That's not the same thing, at all. StAnselm (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess I understand the distinction you are making. But the OPC still published it and advertised it through a link that they advertised on their front page. We can easily change the language to reflect that. This seriously can't be an objection to keeping it off, right? If it were, we could challenge the relevancy of the doctrine and history sections by the same logic. The fact still remains -- the denomination has published these statements by OPC ministers in their ministerial journal and/or on their website, and advertised the documents in which they appear on the front page of their website. This should be more than sufficient to pass the relevancy threshold. Lauraface32 (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Notice that there is a spectrum from ephemera to encyclopedic information. One of our tasks is to agree where on that spectrum your proposals lie, . --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with you,. It seems that the sentences -- with the alterations suggested here -- fall within WP's rules. They are correctly sourced, relevant to the section, and do not extrapolate or synthesize. If your only remaining concern is that it might possibly tilt towards the ephemeral side of the scale, then I (very respectfully) don't see that as a reason for immediate removal (as this was not one of the original concerns raised towards taking it down). It certainly isn't offensive and I don't believe it violates any rules. I would, with all due deference, humbly suggest that this is something that could very well remain up while the temperature is taken. Lauraface32 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't think we agree. I said that is one of our tasks. Inclusion is not about rules, but about consensus.
 * As it stands, if you added it, I would remove it, not only because I am yet to be convinced that it is not ephemera, but also for the other reasons above.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

, could you please define what reasons you still have against these fairly benign three sentences? I think she defended the charges of relevance and synthesis fairly well. Now it is up to you to counter the defense if you find it wanting. Is this not correct?

I am convinced these sentences are not ephemera. Of course we should work towards a consensus. But unless you can demonstrate that they are ephemera, then there is no reason not to allow it. This is about good faith. Adamduker (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Relevance A link on a main page of a subject's site says nothing to me about relevance. Is that the defense you mentioned? If so, what does it say to you ?
 * Synthesis This is a complex issue related to relevance. seems to use an ephemeral statement about a single church to imply something about an entire denomination. Also, http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=541 doesn't, as far as I can tell, say anything encyclopedic. Anonymous "I suspect that a majority of  ..." is ephemeral and belongs on the OPC website, not this one.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you will allow me to respond:

 * Relevance -- the fact that the OPC advertises these articles on their main page was a secondary argument. The primary argument for relevance is that these are OPC ministers (including one fairly famous minister) speaking of their observations of the OPC's demographics. This makes their statements relevant for a demographics section. If they were speaking about interpretations of Genesis 17, then those statements would be irrelevant for a demographics section. But they were in fact speaking about the very issue at stake here. That makes the statements relevant.
 * Synthesis -- I made no such implications. I specifically stated these as the views of individual ministers that were approved for publication on the OPC's official website. Any perceived implication is on your end. Or do you think there is something specific in the language that makes such an implication? If that is the case, couldn't we just adjust the language?
 * Finally, you said that you would delete it as is. But I am not at all suggesting that it be reinserted in its present form. As I have said all along, I think we should correct the president to reflect the fact that the author was referring to the first President Bush, and we should change the language about the front page. I am willing and ready to work with everyone concerned to make it more accurate.

Does this answer your concerns? And if not, what do you think is lacking? Lauraface32 (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 * My opinions are secondary here. I am trying to persuade you to engage with and . But no matter how you edit it, these links seem to encourage Wikipedia readers to infer something about the majority of the denomination, and so I forecast that your politics proposals will not attain consensus. Perhaps I am mistaken. That's all from me for a while. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that objects to these three sentences? The only objections I see are from. I think it is important to keep the issue confined to the texts, the rules, and the consensus. It is improper for anyone to project a consensus. Respectfully, how can you be impartial if you are already forecasting the results? If the goal is to get us to dialogue, then that goal has been accomplished. StAnselm raised some objections, but I have answered them. If there is still an issue, please bring it up. If not, then there is no reason to keep it off just because one person doesn't like it. As the Five Pillars states, no one owns a Wikipedia page. Thus far, it seems that more people disagree with StAnselm on these three sentences than agree with him.

Finally, no editor can predict how others might read a sentence. If the sentence is correct, then we should not infer that others might read it incorrectly. No one can predict reception. Lauraface32 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you were asking me, . Could you clarify your question? For the record, I have agreed with both and  about different aspects of their disagreement. So I don't want to get into a big fight here. But I don't think the sentences are a problem, so long as they incorporate the two corrections StAnselm suggested (updating the president to H.W. and fixing the "published on the front page" error). Other than that, I think they are fine. They are relevant and they are not extrapolations. Adamduker (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Agree that no big fights wanted. To clarify: What persuaded you of their relevance ? I see Machen's libertarianism, if attributed, as marginally relevant. But the rest does not make a strong case, nor interesting reading, to me. I don't want to get your hopes up, but make your case and let's see. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 * , I think their relevance is pretty obvious. I have seen no one advance an argument for their irrelevance. From my perspective, these sentences reflect the experiences of OPC ministers who have served in the denomination for many years and have a lot of experience. And they speak of the very issue (political demographics) covered by this section. One of the ministers (Gaffin) is one of the most respected and highly-regarded pastors in the history of the denomination and teaches at Westminster Seminary. The claims are limited and do not synthesize or extrapolate. I agree with  100% when it came to the matters of which president was mentioned and the fact that the articles were advertised and linked (but not published) on the front page of the OPC website. Without wishing to cast aspersions, I think   was a little sloppy there. But I disagree with 's objections of relevance, synthesis, and extrapolations. He hasn't presented any evidence to that effect whatsoever.

 * Just a humble thought -- I don't think a particular editor's level of interest is a good measuring stick for relevance. I have zero interest whatsoever in a Wikipedia page on the rapper Eminem. But that doesn't make such a page irrelevant. It would be wrong of me to delete a section on such a page just because it doesn't interest me. So I don't think your interest levels are a valid criterion here. If people aren't interested, then they won't read it. We are talking about three very short sentences here that are well-sourced and speak the topic of the section. So long as it is relevant, well-sourced, and doesn't extrapolate or synthesize (or violate any other rules), then there should be no reason to delete it. Adamduker (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Can you please explain why it is irrelevant, ? You seem to be advocating a position. Could you please defend it? I have yet to see anyone explain why they think it is irrelevant. Is your main concern that you don't find it interesting? It seems just as relevant (if not more so) than parts of the history section (i.e. when Machen died) and the intro blurb (what does Machen founding Westmister Seminary that has no affiliation with the OPC have to do with anything?).
 * For the record, I don't have a problem with any of those statements. I am just saying that the three sentences in question here seem more relevant to the political section than those statements are to their respective sections. Also,, my editor name only has one "e". I am sorry for making those errors with the president's name and the "published on the front page" comment. I have corrected it in the text above.
 * Assuming for a moment that no one has any specific issues with the writing, rules, or relevance, how do we proceed? Lauraface32 (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I've red Wikipedia for years, but I have never contributed anything. I found out about this on the OPC's website. I have been in the OPC for years. So I don't think it would be fare for me to right anything in the article, as I love the OPC. I think the sentences are very fare. Anyone who has attended an OPC knows that it is a conservative church BOTH theologically and poltically. What those ministers wrote is true. I know some pastors say that the church shouldnt be poltical. But they also know tht the OPC has done a lot of poltical things and that the peple tende to be republicans. God bless you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Welcome! The article mentions only two political interventions by your denomination: abortion and homosexuals in the military, neither of which were directly party political. If it has made many interventions, then please let us know where we should be looking. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for welcming me! Prayers 4 you!!! I think the OPC's quetion and answr page and the quote in the article by pastor Gaffin (a very smart and Godly man) are good to put on the page. But I dont think I should write them, bc I am in the OPC!!! God bless you!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: No-one is doubting that, at least in the 1970s, the OPC was "largely white". That has been stated and cited in the "Racial" section. The issue is whether the OPC is conservative politically. Personally, I have no doubt that it is - but that must not be included in the article without reliable sourcing. We cannot take my word or ArmorofGodchick's word for it. (Of course, "conservative" is not necessarily the same as "Republican" - my suspicion is that in many areas there would be something approaching an even split between Republican and third=party voters.) But getting back to the proposal above - the last part is still original synthesis. There isn't any evidence that "many members and leaders are Republicans" - there is only evidence that one particular elder, somewhere is, or was, Republican. Finally, people are mentioning Richard Gaffin - but I don't see where he is mentioned. Was he supposed to have written the Q & A at http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=541? (Also, please not the disclaimer at the bottom, The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an "official" position of the Church - so the fact that it was "published on the OPC website" is irrelevant.) StAnselm (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

, if I read you correctly, it seems that your only remaining concern for synthesis is the "many republicans" part. Is this correct? And if so, does that mean that we have consensus on the other parts? Perhaps we can continue to dialogue about that while we reinsert the other parts. This is what that would look like:

'''
 * '''The OPC has published the view of a minister who believes that the majority of Orthodox Presbyterians are racially white and politically conservative. There is evidence that criticism of the GOP is (or has been) unwelcome in at least one congregation. For instance, a prominent Orthodox Presbyterian minister recalls being immediately rebuked and warned that he was in a "Republican church" after criticizing the foreign policy of President George H.W. Bush. Some important Orthodox Presbyterians, including Machen, were and are libertarians (but not left-libertarians). Several of the most important founders of American reconstructionism (such as Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen) were Orthodox Presbyterian ministers.

Please don't get angry at me for changing this,. I am just trying to find consensus. I changed the order of the sentences just a bit to make it flow better. Again, I did not mean any offense by this.

- I agree with you on some aspects of your concerns. But I think the language that used regarding the Q&A already reflects the fact that the statement is the view of one minister. I don't see any need to change it further.

I think we are making progress. Let's all please try to continue the constructive dialogue so that the modified sentences can be reinserted without violating any rules and without upsetting people.Adamduker (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't have a huge problem with the changes, though I think it is a bit silly of to claim that there "isn't any evidence that 'many members and leaders are Republicans.'" How could he possibly know that? Again, I think he is claiming to be the final arbiter of what is true and what isn't. Someone tried to post that no one had ever conducted a census to determine the OPC's racial or political composition. But he objected on the grounds that you would need actual evidence that a survey doesn't exist. But now he has no problem saying authoritatively that evidence that many members are republican doesn't exist. When it comes to my section, he needs every clause and claim cited. But when it comes to his section, that same standard doesn't apply.

 * Nevertheless, I guess I can go along 's changes until more evidence can be produced. As far as I am concerned, we have consensus. But I hope  will apply the same evidential standards to his own section.Lauraface32 (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in what it true, but what is verifiable. As I mentioned above, my own personal suspicion is that there are lots of Republicans in the OPC, but we need a reliable source before we can add it to the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * 'Comment: I agree that there may be a consistency and selectivity issue here, . But I think you need to be more kind and focus on one issue at a time., now that the language that StAnselm had issues with has been deleted, can we please reinsert the three sentences?Adamduker (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think it is still irrelevant - it's the opinion of one minister, and the experience of one other. There is nothing to suggest widespread republicanism. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Good morning and God bless all of you! I thnk it is importnt to remembr that the OPC ministers know better than we do! They work there and are very smart and GODLY men!!! Some of them even have doctors degrees in the OPC! So if they say something on this subjct let's Let's keep what they say!! God bless everyone!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, let's not fight! Anger doenst acheeve the righteouness of God!!! Let's all agree and be happy!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorofGodchick (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The language no longer suggests widespread republicanism. Do you have any specific objection to its relevance? If not, I don't see why you can still keep it out. I have taken your side on many aspects of this debate. But at this point, I think you either need to come up with a specific suggestion or objection, or accept the consensus that you are outvoted. Adamduker (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of this opening sentence in the Political demographics section? "The denominational magazine has taken up the question of whether the Christian right is good for American conservativism (a topic that has nothing to do with Reformed Christianity)." How does this relate to the political demographics of the OPC? One could guess what the intended point is here, but it is not clear from the actual sentence. Maybe whoever contributed this can reword it to more clearly express their point here. Otherwise, I suggest it be removed. Rhankins (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree that the opening sentence in the Political demographics section makes no sense, and should be removed.
 * Also, the suggested sentence "the OPC has published the view of a minister who believes that the majority of Orthodox Presbyterians are racially white and politically conservative" seems to misrepresent the Q&A post, which is (1) an unofficial individual comment, and (2) modified by the disclaimer "I never inquire into the political opinions of my flock. I have, on the other hand, heard from various ones everything from 'I always pull the big D lever' to 'I can't even vote this year because there is not a true conservative.'" The article should not include that sentence.
 * I also note that none of the usual reliable books discussing religion and politics describe this denomination as largely Republican. -- 101.119.14.235 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dinosaurs
The sentence "The denomination has published the ideas of a minister who has asserted, against all historical and scientific evidence, that dinosaurs existed in England just five hundred years ago" needs to go. It is just the opinion of one minister, and the OPC published it with the disclaimer The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an "official" position of the Church. Furthermore, it's not a political issue. The link to training daughters should go for the same reason - we should wait for denominational declarations; surely the General Assembly has said something about it. StAnselm (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The OPC has published these opinions. They aren't binding, but neither are the GA reports. Topics relating to evolution and creation science have clearly become very political. Feminism is also political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.95.153 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, surely a GA committee paper has a bit more clout than what is essentially a blog post. The OPC published the opinions with a very clear disclaimer. In any case, we should probably restrict ourselves to denominational pronouncements, as we do in the "Doctrine" section. The pronouncements concerning abortion and women in combat would be good examples of what can be included. StAnselm (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this link gives us a lot to work with. StAnselm (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I note there is also a disclaimer attached to committee reports ("They should not be construed as the official position of the OPC") though often the Assembly has adopted statements arising out of the report. StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment. It's probably more correct to say that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is sitting on the fence on Creationism, given that the denomination has declined to rule that the "days" of Genesis 1 are literal twenty-four hour days. -- 101.119.14.172 (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is tendentious editing. First, blog posts are not invalid sources. Second, this isn't a blog post. While the views do not necessarily represent those of the entire denomination, neither do a GA report. And unlike GA reports, the OPC links their Q&As on the front page of their website and sometimes advertises them in their denomination magazine (New Horizons). The creation report states that ministers should be required to refute evolution. Regardless, StAnselm is doing two things at once. He is attacking a sentence on dinosaurs while also questioning whether the Q&A is a relevant source. This material has been up for over a month. To delete it just because you don't think it is entirely representative is tendentious. You can add the "relevance" tag if you want, and we can discuss it from there. As written, the language already makes it very clear that it is only the view of one minister. Lauraface32 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

These ministrs are smart and GODLY men. That is why they get to anser are questons on the OPC website! Lets respect our leaders! I think dinosars are polticl. I dont belve in Darwen. I only vote for Godly men who dont believe in Darwens theery. The Bible says humns and dinosars livved together. We should vote with this in mind,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.6.23 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm: First, this Q&A feature on their web site is not the same as the denomination "publishing" this idea. This is what opc.org says about these Q&A answers: "The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an 'official' position of the Church, especially in areas where the Standards of the Church (the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms) are silent." The topic of dinosaurs is not addressed in these Standards, and so clearly this is covered by this disclaimer that it is not an official position of the church. If the reference was to a GA study paper, I would have a lot less concern about its inclusion in the article. True, GA study papers are not constitutionally binding in the OPC either, but they are a lot more weighty than a simple Q&A web site post managed by one denomination committee with a big disclaimer notice. And so a Q&A post like this is not helpful to try to "prove" political views of the denomination. Second, I maintain that "dinosaurs" is not an appropriate topic for the political category. Even if the evolution/creation topic was an appropriate topic under Politics, this line about dinosaurs doesn't make a clear connection with that topic. It would seem that this kind of material would be better suited for a topic about the denomination's view on creation. Third, the line in question says that the Q&A article asserts "that dinosaurs existed in England just five hundred years ago". But the article does not even assert that. I could see how someone could read that into the article, but all the article actually asserts is that there were carvings of what look like dinosaurs on the edge of a tomb from about 500 hundred years ago in England. So, this isn't even an accurate citation of the Q&A article.Rhankins (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I disagree, Rhankins. It doesn't matter how weighty they are or if they are in the Standards. That would only matter if they were published in the "doctrine" section. The author uses his view on England to support his position that dinosaurs have existed rather recently, and that "unbelieving science" is wrong about when dinosaurs existed. I mostly agree that it might be better suited for a different section on science/creationism, but I disagree that these issues aren't political. If only universally adopted statement's by the GA are relevant, then the entire history section would need to be removed. A demographics section does not require universal denominational support. In this case, the OPC advertises their Q&A section prominently on the front page of their website. Of course it can be cited, just as any other sort (so long as it is clear that it the view of a single minister).

 * Regardless, thee are two different issues here. The first is whether only official denominational standards should be used on the Wikipedia page. The second is the sentence about dinosaurs. Let's focus on one thing at a time. If you have an issue with the viability of the OPC's Q&A section, start another thread about that. Adamduker (talk)

 * Comment. The question of "weight" is important because the original line in the article overstates its weight when it says that the "denomination has published..." Even if it said "the denomination's web site has published..." then I would have less concern.  Furthermore, the bigger question in terms of weight is whether or not this is a helpful citation for the "political demographics" section.  If it's just one minister's view, then I don't see how this is helpful at all for demonstrating the political demographics of the OPC.... The point is that this citation does not adequately contribute to demonstrating a "political demographic" of the OPC in my estimation... In fact, a lot of this seems to be doing Original Research instead of actually citing sources to show the political demographics of the OPC. Rhankins (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ordained Servant opinion
I have reverted this recent addition of an opinion piece from Ordained Servant. It seems to me that we should focus on official denominational positions, not editorials. StAnselm (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism
I have removed a bit about how many ministers use the phrase "Cultural Marxism". It doesn't seem to come from a reliable source - the minister making the claim says people accuse him of it, but it just sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. In any case, please discuss it here before adding it back in. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

LGBT Issues
I hope the editors add some treatment of LGBTQ issues by the OPC. I was raised in the church. It remains openly rejecting of gay members and the gay offspring of current members. It opposes same-sex marriage for everyone, even for people outside the church if I am not mistaken. 24.4.92.102 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orthodox Presbyterian Church