Talk:R. C. Sproul Jr.

NPOV

It's apparent that the revisions made on 3-28-06 by 68.62.252.9 are little other than non-verifiable interested-party personal commentary in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policies. Furthermore, 68.62.252.9 has failed to provide any sources, in violation of Citing Sources policy, which specifically states, "If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source."

Therefore, per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which states "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor" I'm deleting the revisions made by 68.62.252.9. Should 68.62.252.9 choose to make further revisions he's encouraged to first review Wikipedia policies and act accordingly.

Unencyclopedic content?

I question whether much of the controversy section should be in the Wikipedia at all. The events described should probably be redacted to a short paragraph since the Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing current events (cf. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information #5). Two years from now, will the minor details matter? Not likely. Thoughts? --Flex 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has responded (despite my additional requests on the previous contributors' talk pages), I will now proceed to redact. --Flex 17:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I question why this was ever called a "controversy" in the first place. Rather, this was an ecclesiastical judgment, a judgment which was in part decided by the fact that RC Sproul Jr came "as his own accuser and confessor." In other words he plead "guilty" to several of the most serious charges against him. In the civil realm would we permit a civil judgment against a defendant to be called a "controversy," just because the defendant later disagrees with the ruling of the court? Referring to this as a "controversy" impugns and undermines the authority of a legitimate church court to issue judgments against a man who vowed to submit to their authority. The RPCGA's judgment has now been effectively confirmed (and it certainly hasn't been overturned) by the CREC.

If this indeed were all a mere "controversy" then Flex would probably be right. But that's just the problem. These are not just "minor details." Being defrocked as an ordained minister is the ecclesiastical equivalent of, militarily speaking, a court martial and being dishonorably discharged. Such a thing would never be termed a mere "controversy" or a "minor detail."

I would propose changing the heading "Controversy" to "Ecclesiastical Judgment." Furthermore, editors should stop deleting important details of the judgment against RC Sproul Jr. These are not just "minor details" and when various editors continue to make deletions of vital information it just makes it too obvious that their interests are far more subjective and personal than objective. --Frame-Work 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]