Talk:Dove World Outreach Center/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dove Church website has been down since September 8, 2010

- The web site http://www.doveworld.org/ is no longer operating. It appears to have been taken down. Dove Church says they didn't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.208.246 (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Information on the Burn the Koran Day should be in one place

Currently the article's Responses section details external responses both to this event and to other activities of the church. This is confusing and makes relevant information harder to apprehend. __meco (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Was a change made? I'm not sure I see a problem, as there are two response sections, one of which is exclusively relating to burn the koran day. Mattyp9999 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't find source

I can't find the source for a speach given by Pastor Terry Jones:

"The era of Islam is now at an end. The breakthrough of the Christian spirit has again cleared the way on the Christian path...The future Christian man will not just be a man of the good book, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you. As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare, to overcome the fear of death, and to regain respect for death - this is the task of this young generation. And thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of Islam. This is a strong, great and symbolic deed - a deed which should document the following for the world to know - Here the spiritual foundation of society is sinking to the ground, but from this wreckage the holy spirit will triumphantly rise. — Pastor Terry Jones , Speech to the students in Gainesville 208.3.91.194 (talk)

This appears to be a slight modification of a speech given on May 10, 1933 to students in Berlin by Joseph Goebbels in conjunction with a large book burning rally. Despite the epic rhetoric, I doubt that the pastor would copy a nazi speech as that would be likely to alienate even those who would initially be inspired by inspirational force of the words. If Terry Jones has indeed spoken these words like you claim, surely you could assist us with some information on where or from whom you got this text? __meco (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the anonymous user deleted this section consequent to my above post, I think we may conclude that this was a deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia. __meco (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

or just a humorous juxtapose that intended to garner no more attention than a few chuckles208.3.91.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

Conceded, however there are more serious perspectives to this sort of prank, so it may be better simply not to. __meco (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

remember that in kabul they are shouting Death to America and burning our flag. Islma burnt 3000 Americans to death on 9-11 and now we are told we better not burn their so called holy book or else, what else are they going to do, throw a fit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realredone (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

3000~ people died after the attack on the towers in America, how many innocent lives were taken overseas by coalition forces in the following 9 years???208.3.91.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC).

Protect this page

Wikipedia better lock this article up fast. I'm not a fan of the churches plans but the vandalism of this page isn't a good thing either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.189.226 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

An administrator has acted on your request and the page is now semi-protected for two weeks, meaning only users who have been registered for at least three days can edit. __meco (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced text removed

On September 11, the same day and time Dove Outreach is planning to burn Qurans, local chapters of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the International Socialist Organizations (ISO) along with hundreds of unaffiliated individuals from Gainesville, are organizing a counter-demonstration in an effort to drown out the Dove's message and show the national and international media that they do not represent the views of the Gainesville community. This counter-demonstration, which is set to happen across the street from Dove Outreach property, will focus on a message of peace and tolerance and is projected to have a much higher attendance than Dove Outreach's event. The Church's website affirms that their Koran burning is not an act of hatred.

Until a reliable source can be supplied for this information I place this text here. __meco (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanna make a request to such people lease don't force Muslims to be the terrorists today world need peace such actions will give rise to hate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.25.6 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

U.S. military burned bibles in Afghanistan

I'm not sure whether mention of this in the article is warranted, at least not at the present time, but in the Wall Street Journal article with general Petraeus' condemnation, which I just used to reference an expansion of the article, it is mentioned episodes in the past where military officials has had to react to rumors about allied forces mishandling copies of the Qur'an. If mention is to be made of this it should perhaps be accompanied by the reported burning of Bibles by U.S. military troops in Afghanistan as reported in this May 2009 CNN article. __meco (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Camel-case

Controversy - as in the section heading "Political Controversies" - is not a name. Can't see why people keep using camel-case everywhere. Can somebody fix that (the page is locked for me)? Even here on the talk page: "Arrest News". Come on, guys. Shape up! 91.208.174.15 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Seems to be a non-controversial change, easily reverted if I'm out of line. I also did the same for the lawn signs section. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

small outfit

Mitch Stacy's AP article "Pressure rises on pastor who wants to burn Quran" (e.g. here at Yahoo) elaborates on "a small Florida church" by saying that Jones "has about 50 followers". By US Christian standards, isn't 50 peculiarly small? But however you care to interpret a following of 50, I think the number belongs in the article, though I don't quite know where. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

re: 50 members, I put it in both the lead and the article per WP:LEAD but using small in the lead instead works too. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Beats me how this can be of "mid importance" to any project (see above), but then the workings of projects mystify me. (I intermittently tinker with the atrocious article on Shuntarō Tanikawa, a well known and prolific author of books for kids [as well as much besides], but the kids' literature project sternly rules that he's of merely low importance.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think rankings are determined by a top secret stochastic process that may involve a roulette wheel or possibly looking at chicken entrails. Hard to tell. I've changed them to low. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Top secret stochastic process, yes of course; but possibly it also is not entirely independent of the degree to which the US mass media can get worked up about the subject. -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, top egg heads at Nasa have been investigating the mysterious so called Tanikawa neglect factor for years. It appears to be a form of spatial agnosia that results in many people's ability to perceive and take an interest in things reducing as the distance of the thing from Wikipedia's US based servers increases. There is no sign of a cure. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Link dead

www.PleaseDontBurnTheKoran.com <= have look. 62.241.105.149 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It moved to thepetitionsite.com but since there isn't a secondary source describing this petition and I couldn't see a news report about it (i.e. not blogs etc) I've removed it. There may be one out there I missed but we don't need the link to the petition site either way and it's blacklisted. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry Jones convicted of title fraud and tax evasion in Germany

According to [1], Jones was convicted of illegally bearing a doctoral title in 2002, while he was pastor of CGK in Cologne/Germany, and had to pay a fine of €3000. And according to [2] (use your browser's "Find" function to search for "CCK" to get to the point) he got in trouble with German law enforcement over taxes as well and then claimed harassment and persecution. I wonder whether this belongs here as well? The Neue-Ruhr/Neue-Rhein-Zeitung quoted in the first link is a mainstream non-yellow newspaper of Western Germany, by the way, and the second link goes to the US state department. Both were published long before the current Koran controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.135.165 (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. -- 77.7.135.165 (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the former, but unfortunately none of the links that it meticulously provides still works (no big surprise after eight years), and none is available at web.archive.org. I did see some stuff linking Jones or his sect or both with Scientology, but it seems to me merely a matter of Scientology quoting Jones as complaining about being treated with suspicion. I couldn't immediately find anything by Jones about Scientology. -- Hoary (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't split the Qur'an burning info

Again the information on responses to the Qur'an burning has been split from the section on the upcoming event and is currently commingled with all other reactions to the church's activities. Please bring it back under one main section header. __meco (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Other book burnings

I removed the Nazi/Catholic comparison with the edit summary "not convinced that Andrea Stone's comparisons matter due weight-wise. also why pick just those 2 comparisons out of her list of book burnings ?".

It was restored with the edit summary "I don't see why this couldn't remain to represent the many who have picked up on this connection"

If many have picked up on this connection we need a source saying that and preferably say who the many are... if there aren't.. er.. too many to list. By itself I don't think Andrea Stone's opinions matter at all and the source can't be used to support anything but her opinions. Also, I can't think of a reason to pick any of the many book burnings Stone lists over any of the others. Why not Muslims burning "The Satanic Verses", Orthodox Jews burning New Testaments or the CCP burning Falun Gong books ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps because the Nazi burnings of "degenerate" lit are the best remembered burnings. Plus Jewish groups in Germany don't routinely make comparisons with Nazi thuggery. How about "An incitement to hatred" (editorial, Irish Times), or "Condenan judíos alemanes de quemar el Corán en EU" (El Financiero)? -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We still need a source that says many have made comparisons to X. We can't add unpublished conclusions based on our synthesis of sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We could say that this group (rather than a large number of unspecified people) has made such a comparison, providing these two sources for the assertion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that kind of thing is fine too. Even saying something a bit vague like 'A number of commentators' or whatever 'have said such and such' seems fine with refs at the end of the statement. It's us just making up 'many' that's the problem. It would be much better to have a secondary source though that has made the observation. It seems pretty likely that one will turn up. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, hurriedly and imperfectly. Sorry, I now have to leave the internet and return to the "real world". -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

<--Outdent I'm not sure I completely understand the discussion above. The content that was twice removed was a summary of a news analysis article by a Washington correspondent, Andrea Stone, it was not purely an "opinion" article. No one put text into the World Dove article saying that many people made the Nazi comparison - the only place the word "many" appeared was in an edit summary. Sean, the person who removed the material, raised a number of issues:

• the material about other book burnings should not appear in the article at all,
• Andrea Stone was not any sort of authority, her article was mere opinion,
• many historical instances of book burnings should be listed -- not just the Nazis and the Catholics, (this seems very inconsistent with his other arguments) and
• we need a source that said many people have compared this proposed book burning with other book burnings in history.

I completely disagree with the proposition that many concurring sources have to be found to include this material, and that one of them has to actually say that many people have concurred. WP policy does not impose such a requirement. Also, this article never included text that said "many" people - so why does the concept of "many" commentators need to be supported? However, I do agree with Sean that some other historical comparisons should be included, provided of course that they are from reliable sources. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote, the source and what was in the article.

• It's not evident that it is a news analysis article i.e. a meta-analysis of multiple news sources given that it doesn't contain a single reference to a news source. It looks much more like Stones' personal analysis of the situation which for me makes it an editorial/op-ed.
• It's true that the word 'many' wasn't in the section I removed. I should have phrased that more carefully. What was in the article was 'The announcement has also elicited comparisons' which implies a plurality of sources for the comparisons although granted it also can refer to there being multiple comparisons made by one source. I read it as the former.
• I didn't use the words 'authority' and 'mere'. Stone is an experienced journalist. One of many. The piece looks like an op-ed, her 'analysis', an opinion piece. I have no problem including her comparisons along with other sources comparisons as long as we either attribute her analysis to her or make sure that we avoid language that can imply that she is more than one person.
• "I can't think of a reason to pick any of the many book burnings Stone lists over any of the others." != "many historical instances of book burnings should be listed -- not just the Nazis and the Catholics". I meant that I can't think of a policy based reason for a wiki editor to pick one comparison over another. We can have interesting discussions about various booking burnings but in the end we need a policy/secondary source based reason to pick one over another or select the ones that are made the most by the sources.
• We need a source that says 'many' if we want to say many. WP:V requires that what we say comes from a reliable source. We can't editorialize. I think it's better to do what Hoary did here, say what people said and attribute it to them. We can do that for Stone too.

Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that my preference would be to have a single sentence that said something like 'A number of organizations and journalists (or whatever) drew parallels with other book burnings' with a link to the article, the sources at the end and leave it at that because I don't think the comparisons themselves are particularly central to the issue. Whether it's Nazis, the CCP, Catholics etc doesn't make much difference. They all carried out book burnings, an apparently a popular pastime. Although, it's nice to be able to link to specific book burnings mentioned by sources too. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Created International Burn a Koran Day

Please make new additions about this event to that page and reduce discussions here to a brief summary. __meco (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring content

Sourced content was removed [3] with an accompanying edit summary that stated: "Obama's full comments aren't relevant enough to be included"

I am restoring most of it for the following reasons. Firstly, Obama is the the chief executive of the entire federal govt, and the commander of all US military forces. Other countries and individuals are looking to see his response. Therefore it is very relevant and ultimately, it is his call as to what to do about this situation. Second, I did not add all of his comments, I only included a few short words. I am restoring the phrasing, adding General Petraeus, removing redundant phrasing about national and international instigating. KeptSouth (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally support the above user, If anyone's comments are relevant on this issues, its Obama's. ValenShephard (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent me KS. I did NOT say his comments were not relevant enough to be included AT ALL, but ONLY that they did not belong in the introductory section of an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with the government, local or national. In the section listing individuals/entities responding to the event, I not only kept Obama on top, above the arguably more relevant responses from religious institutions, but moved the comments I originally deleted from the top down there. In my edit, it no longer appears that Obama has the only important input on the event, yet when the article moves to focusing on the response in particular, Obama has the first entry. Since you appear to have misunderstood my edit, and I have now clarified my position, I'm going to restore it to my version, modified to hopefully better reflect an appropriate introduction section. Thank you for your interest in keeping Wikipedia a trustworthy source of unbiased information. - Drlight11 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not misrepresent you - I merely posted your edit summary and discussed your comment and removal of sourced material from the article. No personal offense was intended. I would like to limit this discussion to your second removal of Obama's statements that the book burnings would be a destructive act and a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. This is sourced information, important to an understanding of the US govt's position and appropriate for the lead. You say "it no longer appears that Obama has the only important input on the event" - no one ever said he did, however you did say earlier that his comments were irrelevant. After your first revert, as a compromise, I agreed to your addition of Gen Petraeus and even added Gen Odierno's position and a cite to it. However, you then, for a second time, removed Obama's remarks that the burnings would be a destructive act and an Al Qaeda recruitment. The remarks are sourced, important, and briefly stated, and I am restoring them. You will be afoul of the 3RR should you decide to remove this material for the third time in 24 hours. I hate to do this, in fact, I never have, but I am posting a 3RR warning to your talk page KeptSouth (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between removing the comments, which I did not do, and relocating them to their appropriate section, which I did do. And yes, posting only a snippet of my original edit summary, when the entire quote makes it clear I did not do what you suggest I did, constitutes misrepresentation - it would be a very basic example of quote mining, which I urge you to read up on. In the meantime, it is worth noting that as you have reverted my edit twice, you are ALSO at the 3RR threshold, and you do not have the authority to award yourself exemption to the rule. I will be submitting this to a third opinion who will have access to ALL the information, and removing your aggressive warning from my talk page. Finally, I did not derive personal offense, but at the same time, please do not feel affronted by the fact that your version, while not inappropriate, is also suboptimal. We are both after the same thing here. Thanks for cooperating. - Drlight11 (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we are after the same thing which I assume is improving article content, but I feel it is always best to avoid hyperbole. I never attempted to be "aggressive", never presumed to "award" myself an "exemption to the rule", never characterized anything as "suboptimal". --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

OK, I'm responding to a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

Actually, either version looks reasonable to me, although I lean ever so slightly more to summarizing rather than quoting in the lead section, and saving the quotation for later in the article. WP:LEAD doesn't say anything against quotations in the lead, but it does suggest summarizing the details of the article, so my inclination is to suggest that a quotation may be too much detail for the lead section. If you do decide to put put a short quotation in the lead, then a more detailed quotation is worthwhile to include later on. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are borderline, then I was mistaken, for I thought that the inclusion of any one person's detailed response was distinctly inferior to a brief recap of the overall response in the introduction. Unless other people weigh in and support my version, I'll leave the article as it is. Thanks for your input Amatulic! - Drlight11 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did say I lean to favoring a summary in the introduction as opposed to a quotation, and WP:LEAD would support that position. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion on this content dispute (I know that giving one is sometimes a thankless endeavor!) I thought Pres. Obama's statement that that the Koran burning would be a recruitment tool for al Qaeda was important enough for the lead and different from the idea that the troops would be endangered. I agree that generally quotes don't belong in the lead. I'm not a deletionist though, and if another editor adds something to the lead that is NPOV and non trivial, I'll usually merely it rephrase rather than remove or relocate the idea entirely. Thus this problem occurred, which in my view was largely a good faith content dispute but colored by some unusual edit summaries and comments that showed there was a strong possibility of edit warring on the horizon. In any event, it's nice to see an unbiased and helpful opinion on these pages.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Event canceled

US pastor Terry Jones cancels Koran burning. --91.19.126.127 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the company hosting the church's web site canceled their contract with DWOC immediately. Has anyone seen any similar information about DWOC's fire risks insurer?--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? You're not making an arson threat against DWOC, are you? I don't like DWOC either, but making threats is definitely over the line. I hope I'm mistaken and that that wasn't your intent. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I think it's a fair question, but such an insurance cancellation is unlikely to be made public. The church could conceivably be a bombing target, given the fear-mongering rhetoric from all sides that came out of the pastor's threat. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing things up. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but Hauskalainen's comment was vague enough that I didn't really know what to think. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, I do not make threats! It was a legitimate question based upn what I thought might be a likely consequence of what he did. I did not read the article fully yesterday but it seems that there is a reliable source in the article today indicating that this has already happened.

"Mr. Jones, in a lengthy interview at his church, said he sincerely hoped that his planned Koran-burning would not lead to violence. He dismissed the idea that it could put American troops at greater risk, and — echoing his sermons — he said that his church was being persecuted. He said his bank recently demanded immediate repayment of the $140,000 balance on the church mortgage; that his property insurance had been canceled since he announced in late July that he intended to burn copies of the Koran; and that death threats now come in regularly." See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/26gainesville.html?_r=1 If the building is uninsurable and the mortgage is called in, someone has to repay the bank from their own pocket.. The article does not make clear whether the mortgage has been settled or whether the church will now go up for sale. All in all it seems that there has been a price paid for the action of calling on korans to burned....

The company that owns the 150k mortgage called the entire amount due and payable at once. the fire insurance policy was canceled. this is all online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Source? Yeah, there's a lot of talk of that online, but it's all in blogs and in comments to other articles. A cursory search reveals nothing in reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How about the NY Times. The Pastor admitted to their reporter that the insurance policy had been canceled and (presumable as a result of that) the mortgage had been called in.

On international response

On international response of the burn the Qur'an day, I have been reading an article listing leaders from different countries condemning the event. I am not a registered user, someone who reads this with the appropriate privileges could update the list to make it more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.189.147 (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite aside from the fact that the main article on this planned stunt is elsewhere (see the section immediately below), I don't think it merits a long list of people and organizations who condemned it. (I'd be inclined to limit the list to the most eminent voices, the most surprising voices, and those who said something out of the ordinary/obvious about the planned stunt.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help avoiding a mess

I wrote above on this talk page two days ago that a dedicated article had been spun of from the current one on the planned Qur'an-burning event, and I encouraged contributors to this page to exert their efforts at that page instead of this one. Sadly, many people seem to have ignored this turn of events and continue to add detailed developments of that issue into the current article, leaving the 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy without badly needed updating. People also keep discussing details about the event on this talk page instead of the more appropriate one. Please, you are creating extra work for other editors who will have to move and modify the work that you put in, and in the meantime our main article on this event is left inadequately updated. I urge therefore regular editors of the present article to break in when new discussions on the Qur'an-burning event are initiated here and refer those to the appropriate venue! __meco (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could be said that this tiny church has only succeeded in attracting attention to itself via one planned stunt, and that therefore either (a) material about the planned stunt should be part of the article on the church (as matters were until recently), or (b) material about the church should remain part of this article, renamed as being primarily about the planned stunt. I don't remember any discussion here of whether to split the article in two. Now that it is divided into two, it hardly seems worth putting back together again -- but do you really think that this little outfit merits its own article? Anyway if there is something here that should go there, then feel free to move it; and if it's there already, then feel free to delete it here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not so important what I think, suffice it to say that this article was in fact created after the announcement of the Qur'an-burning. Only an AfD could give the answer to the question of do this article belong on Wikipedia? __meco (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There was an AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Burn a Koran Day (the article has since been renamed to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy). There were many proponents of merging these two articles together. It appears to me that the controversy is more notable than the church itself (the notability of the church is a side effect of the controversy), so perhaps this article about Dove World Outreach could be merged into the controversy article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ORG

This item is notable for a single event, the so-called "2010 Qur'an-burning controversy". There is no reason or justification for keeping this title separate from the main article. It certainly doesn't pass the notability threshold as a religious congregation. Therefore this title should just become a redirect. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That would require a merge, which is being discussed. KeptSouth (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Summarized

In response to the duplication tag re. the duplication of material on the Koran controversy, I summarized a lot of the materials, and removed the tags.

I don't see where there is a discussion of the lack of balance of this article so I am also removing the balance tag at the top. The problem may be that there isn't much material out there on the DWOC that is positive. KeptSouth (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

an even smaller outfit?

Jones junior of this "corrugated iron church" implies here that there are fewer than 50 members; here and elsewhere we read that there are merely 30 or so. Perhaps the number of 50 was inflated, or perhaps it wasn't and membership has shrunk along with the outfit's newsworthiness. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reactions and protests should be shrunk

Much of the content here is duplicated in 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy, and should be covered in WP:summary style. Obviously, some reactions should be retained here - President Obama talking about the group is pretty significant - but if you keep full length sections at both articles, editors will come and add to one or the other but not both, and half the work will be wasted. I think it is essential to keep the reactions at the other article (which is about the controversy), so this should be the one to summarize them down a bit. Wnt (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC) -- Oh, but please try to make sure the details you edit out here really are present at the other article.

The photo of the church.

I live right next to the church, I could take a better photo, does anyone have an suggestions, like if you would like me to take a photo of the sings out front or if there is a particular angle that would make the photo better?Cozzycovers (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When I took that photo, I wanted to be a quick as possible without bothering those who lived in the area (who have probably had enough of this already) or trespassing on the church property. If you want to take a few photos, perhaps get some of the [vandalized] church sign, the building itself, and the lawn signs, and upload them to Commons so that they can be used across projects. --WillMcC (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to same gender marriage

The article does not state that Dove World Outreach Center opposes same gender marriage. It instead explains opposition to a person who identifies as being a homosexual serving as mayor, and other extreme rhetorical stances. While DWOC probably does not like the idea of same gender marriage no examples of actual opposition to such are provided in the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"After Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, the church hanged an Obama effigy".

I don't think it's original research to conclude that they oppose same-sex marriage. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

COI issues

DrTerryDJones seems to be on a mission to sanitize their organizations article. Insomesia (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs updating

This information about Dove World needs to be updated please. Dove World has moved to Tampa, FL. The picture in this article is now representing the new church called "Spirit of Faith." Spirit of Faith has purchased the land and are moving in on September 11, 2013. The first Sunday church service will be held on September 15th, 2013. For more information about the move, visit www.mysof.org. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.11.248 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Spirit of Faith Buys Property

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130717/GUARDIAN/130719676 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.11.248 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)