Talk:Institute in Basic Life Principles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is part of WikiProject Homeschooling, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of homeschooling-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Why merge? Because the institute IS Gothard and Gothard IS the institute. Harvestdancer 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See the AfD discussion [[1]] for a discussion of whether to merge or delete one of the articles.--Gandalf2000 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Articles for Deletion debate resulted in a "keep" (archived discussion can be found here). Not sure about merging though. Weien 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 The merge and such 2 Controversy and Criticism 3 Cleanup template 4 POV 5 Changes to Article 6 Comment 7 Matthew Murray 8 Balance 9 Additional resources

[edit] The merge and such

I say don't merge. While the organization and the man are pretty much the same, they are separate subjects.

On the side, while I don't have references handy, I can certianly vouch for some of the "citation needed" parts, including former supporters completely abandoning christianity, using non-scriptural testimonials to support points, and seeming to have ever answer for a question (that's not to say they shouldn't be cited though - I'll see what I can do about digging up some of the old family literature). I doubt I'll be able to cite much on former followers abandoning church alltogether, I doubt it's been written on.

Jordanmills 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Don't merge. My experience from actually attending is that people react positively or negatively to the material, not the presenter.

We could probably pull the Forty-nine character virtues into the IBLP article, since these 49 don't appear to have a life of their own outside IBLP. <<== I was simply wrong about this (see below) --Gandalf2000 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As to the fallout of former participants, I am guessing the most we'll find are informal exposés and discussion boards such as this [2] and this [3]. In reality, it appears most students who go through the IBLP/Gothard/ATI programs eventually abandon the Gothard camp for other Christian groups or churches.--Gandalf2000 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf, it's usually only a 1 week seminar so it's rather hard to join or abandon the Gothard camp for another group - participants simply go back to their old church. Most of the effects are felt in the congregation - how deeply do they believe in it?

After following the first link in the IBLP article, which is to a story on the Character Training Institute (CTI), I think the 49 character virtues should go into an article on CTI, since that is their most public presence, and where most people would be likely to want to investigate what the 49 character virtues are about. CTI is distinctly notable because its focus is on political organizations. One option would simply be to add CTI stuff to the Forty-nine character virtues article, and rename it.--Gandalf2000 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. I agree that the man and the organization are almost interchangeable, but they are different entities. In particular, the scandals involving IBLP officials are notable, but these did not involve Gothard himself. Strictly speaking, thearticles should stay separated, though there is considerable overlap. (In case you're wondering, or even if you're not, I'm a Christian who has little use for Gothard of IBLP. When he first became popular, a lot of people in my church got into him. Three years later, most of them left our church — a loss of nearly one-third of the congregation. I think it's very nearly a cult.) Realkyhick 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy and Criticism

This section has no sources cited for any of the claims made. Since this section appears to be a criticism of Bill Gothard, one should note that the principles in WP:BLP in addition to the policy of WP:V should be adhered to in this section. Claims made about living persons are held to a higher standard than other claims in Wikipedia (at least that is what Jimbo Wales has stated). Vivaldi (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup template

This article needs to be cleaned up. For one, there are way too many places where it says "IBLP/Gothard". If IBLP is Gothard, then we just need to keep this article and make it a redirect to the Bill Gothard article. No information would be lost. The only reason we should keep this article and not redirect is if the article is changed so that it refers to IBLP actions instead of saying "IBLP/Gothard" everywhere. Namely, if IBLP is an organization that has some significance outside of being a vehicle of Gothard. This isn't like Pat Robertson and the 700 Club because the 700 Club article talks about many other things than just the actions of Robertson. Vivaldi (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(reply) It looks like this page needs some attention from people who have had a positive experience with IBLP (keeping their input NPOV, of course). The criticism section is the majority of the article. I'll see if I can arrange that. ----Steve 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This article grossly violates NPOV, because the majority of its content is criticism and controversy, with virtually no facts. I am a Christian, and a seminary graduate, who has attended Gothards Basic and Advanced seminars several times, and I am familiar with his teachings, both their strengths and weaknesses. While there certainly are weaknesses, and he pushes some biblical points to debatable extremes, the vast majority of his material is both accurate and helpful. That makes me a "satisfied customer", as, I think, are most of his many attendees. NPOV must address that.

Also, most of the controversies and criticisms are about misbehavior of the organization, not the individual. Thus, the organization and its history, and Bill Gothard the person are both notable subjects, clearly deserving of separate articles, with extensive cross-references. In that regard, uncited controversial information about him must be immediately deleted according to Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. 75.1.75.15 23:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I just put up the POV flag. Like the Bill Gothard article, this one is biased against IBLP. I did make one change to the Medical Advice section.

JBFrenchhorn 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Article

The two edits from the IP address starting with 66 on Sept. 2 were made by me. I was not logged in.

This article and the Bill Gothard article need some big changes. Please edit and discuss, but maybe not in that order. :)

Jeffrey JBFrenchhorn 07:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I came to this article because Advanced Training Institute had been 'Prod'ded. The presetn article appears essentially to be a biography of Bill Gothard. If the present article has any other substance, it could be kept, but duplicating his biography is not useful. I know nothing about the subject. Peterkingiron 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Murray

The Matthew Murray section needs to be cleaned up a bit and changed so that its connection with the topic can be more clearly seen. I will remove if it is not changed within a few days. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

I'm mostly interested in the IBLP and Gothard because of the City of Character program and the IACC. I agree the article needs some balance. I'm attempting to inject some references (I noticed the historical material that was noted as "unreferenced" was actually from the group's website and injected the references) and work out some of the related material. Let me know if you have concrete suggestions on how I can help. Reboot (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional resources

Advanced Training Institute

critical: http://xatiguy.blogspot.com/2004/07/frequently-asked-questions.html, http://independentspirits.net/news.php

related: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0902/is_6_32/ai_n8590484 - rigid childrearing can cause disfunction (Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reboot (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

basic facts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gothard_discussion/ - this is members only but the activity report may be an indication of decline, if used must be reported in a way that doesn't constitute "original research" meaning it should be reported directly as "traffic on the gothard discussion group about the IBLP and Bill Gothard's teachings has declined significantly since 1999" or something to that effect.

supporting: working on it

Reboot (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)