Talk:Two by Twos/Archive3

The factuality of this article is dubious. There are no citations, no quotes, no verifiable information. The posted material is slanted towards the group. The article is heavily edited and factual material removed. Website referals to people cruelly treated by the group are removed. The article is based on specific viewpoints and not undeniable truths. The group is not viewed as Christian by the Christian majority. The group rejects any association with Christianity. The group is heavily related to the Mason's. William Irvine who started the group was a Freemason and supported Freemasonry. Doctrines and teachings by the group are heavily influenced by Freemasonry beliefs.

24.21.75.147 (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the article is slanted, it is also extremely disorganized. The material is also very poorly footnoted, and material both pro and con have no citations. A bit of a war has evidently occurred, and we really do need to prune it down to statements that can be backed up by citations. I can get access to sources on the group and take a stab at reorganizing the article. I'm certain that nothing will please both sides, but that would be better than the confusing and contradictory statements we now have. I should have something within 2-3 days, which hopefully will be both more neutral and easier to plow through.Astynax (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

30 March 2009 Rewrite

I have finished and posted an extensive rewrite of the article. In the process of reorganizing the material, I have attempted to reword any non-neutral statements. I hope it comes across as less slanted (in either direction), less contradictory and more factual. I've also extensively cited from the few currently published sources to back up the material which was retained. Material for which I could not find reliable citations was generally removed (excepting cases where statements were self-evident or generally accepted). I hope this moves the article in a better direction. Astynax (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done some additional editing, including corrections and removal of some items which could be interpreted as non-neutral (thanks to Nemonoman for helping with those). I think it holds together better, although constructive discussion, additions and criticism is always welcome. Astynax (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

History

I would like to move the History section down to the end. It's rather long, and I think readers would look for a plain description of the group first. Also, the material largely duplicates or replicates the William Irvine article, so it should be condensed. I think there is undue focus in the article on this topic because the question of early history in the movement is such a controversial one. My personal opinion is that there was a scandal around Irvine, and so there was to be no more talk about him. It's the most likely hypothesis to explain his erasure from the group's history and lack of acknowledgement by the ministry of the day regarding his early influence.Slofstra (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Afterthought, upon re-reading the History section as it now stands is very well written, factual, and accurate insofar as I have read other sources; I'm by no means an expert. I will comment further, wonder what people think on my main point above, though. Slofstra (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I've looked at the Irvine article and it fairly duplicates the History section in this article, and is by the same writer. Slofstra (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Most articles of this type start with either the History or Doctrinal sections. I don't believe an average reader is as concerned with exactly how meetings are conducted right-off. Let's hear some further input on this from others. The history does follow some of the same material as Irvine's article, simply because they intersect at various points, and some of the narrative applies to both subjects. • Astynax ^talk 16:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Astynax, mostly. What is the average reader looking for? Tell me what this group is about. I do quick lookups on groups all the time. Just now Army of God. It's in the news -- what's it about? With this article's current content the History section provides a better picture of 'what it's about' than a description of services. Although a nice concise overview would be preferable -- and since I am a complete idiot on the subject matter I no ability to write such an overview with any kind of confidence. --nemonoman (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with these points. Only concern is the amount of detail essentially duplicating the Irvine article.RSuser (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Much of the heavy lifting in terms of research on the early movement has been performed by Cherie Kropp who authors and runs the TTT site. That and Doug Parker's 'Secret Sect' book are well regarded primary sources. Most of the other sources I have seen are derivative of these two. I stand corrected though. Slofstra (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Parker book does indeed put together a lot of info, and the TTT site seems to contain a lot of solid info (more than I've had the time to go through at this point). However, they are not primary sources, though they do cite and/or display many primary sources. I was allowed to look at primary source material in the hands of members before either the Parker book or the Internet, so the material has been there (both in published and non-published form) for over a century, though it is great to have it out there where it is easier to access. Would have made things easier 30-40 years ago when I rubbed up against this group. • Astynax ^talk 00:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not read the Parker book, but read something else he wrote on the Web. Is it not primarily a first person narrative of his personal experience and discovery of the origins of the group? TTT is primarily a compendium of primary sources, with some analysis; you can call it secondary if you like. What primary source material are you referring to that you saw? The most important sources seem to be the journals of John Long and Freehand Pattison, both referenced on the TTT site. The main problem I find is that if one just peruses the material out of interest as I do it's difficult to get a solid grip on it all. There is not a good orderly history although it seems that you've made a pretty good stab at a broad outline of it. Slofstra (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You probably already have this somewhere in the back of your mind, but here is an explanation: Primary sources include original accounts, contemporary newspaper or newsreel reportage, photographs, diaries, physical evidence, etc. Secondary sources such as the various books and websites, make use of primary sources. In some cases, primary sources, such as the newspapers cited in the article, are readily available for anyone who bothers to get copies of the materials from the libraries and/or archives where they reside (thus qualifying them as preferable RS for Wiki purposes). I've long had photocopies of the primary source items cited, so it shouldn't be too difficult for a motivated reader to do likewise (though tmtsoj says that some of them are available on the web now - even easier).

As to primary sources I've been shown or given in the past, though they are irrelevant to the article: Some information (such as the account of Edward Cooney and Queen Victoria's daughter) were only shown to me and I was not allowed to copy or keep those, and others I was given or found on my own. So much easier now that so much of this info is finding its way onto the web and into publication, but it was out there before. John Long's diary and Pattison's account are interesting and valuable primary source material which confirms much of what was known from other published sources.

Secondary published sources rely on primary source materials which sometimes is more difficult to track down. But it can be done. In this case, most of the books cited are old enough that I see some of their sources are now quoted on websites.

Regarding the Parkers' book: it is not a first-person narrative by any means. Only about 130 pages, but crammed with solid information, heavily footnoted and sourced. The only first-person is in the Introduction, as might be expected. The Parkers' had direct access to many of those first workers before they passed on and quote directly from correspondence and transcripts (many of whom were alive back when they began to publish their material), as well as much (now) readily available original sources. If it is not still in print, then it should be available from your library or interlibrary loan (I found it in my local library). The other books cited also quote and reproduce quite a bit of source material. I found the recent All in Good Faith section on this group one of the best descriptions yet of the group's first years. Though, again, it confirms material already published, it is from the perspective of researchers on the ground in Ireland. Worth a read if you can convince your library or bookstore to order it for you (it has to come from Ireland or a univ. library). • Astynax ^talk 07:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what question you were addressing, but this is a good discussion all the same. I'm well aware of the distinction between primary and secondary material. However, my main point, that there is little good RS secondary material stands. The best secondary material including Parker's book is self-published. And there is no balanced research on the group extant. But my point is not to criticize the source material. You have to make the best of what there is, no question. The issue is the unsourced material which I restored into the article. But perhaps there are sources for it. I will take it as a challenge. Slofstra (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've poked around a bit and I believe the restored material is source-able. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not addressing a question, but rather your statement that Parkers or websites were "primary sources," which they are not. Most of the sources are also not derivitive of web sites that I am aware (they predate them), or Parkers' book (though Parker is cited in some, and some of the same subjects naturally arise). I'm also unsure of how you can opine as to the various secondary sources being not "good RS" when you now tell us that you have yet to read even the Parker book. The arguments back and forth in the archives confused the nature of acceptible RS with the Wiki demand for NPoV in articles. Since that seemed to be creeping back in, I was stating that good RS does not, in any way, need to be NPoV - there are very few or no such sources which would qualify (that goes for most articles on Wikipedia, not just this one). Rather, it is the Wiki article which must be NPoV. • Astynax ^talk 18:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Parker as a primary source, as I said. I accept now that it is a secondary source. However, the best comprehensive web sites like TTT and TLT but especially TTT contain a wealth of primary sources: letters, photographs, journals, sermon transcripts, and so on. As far as Parker being a RS, it is not a RS because it is self-published. The main thrust in WP:RS is peer review or something akin to it. To be fair, almost everyone with an interest in the subject accepts Parker as reasonably authoritative, so it's as close to an RS as we'll get. It is true that RS and NPOV are separate concepts, but I think you'll find that RS as defined in WP:RS tend to strive for NPOV as well. Certainly to be accepted in academic circles, that is, to pass peer review, NPOV must be present.Slofstra (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on restored sections

I was asked to comment on the recently restored sections. They are by and large somewhat interesting, but at a level of detail that I would question. I don't know that one needs 12 bullet points to describe a basic meeting that might be described in a couple of sentences (as is done, sort of repetitively now, in a section following). So I would question Notablity of much of what is presented in these restored areas. As stands I believe the restoration diminishes rather than improves the article.

The lack of citations is a concern, particularly as some of the facts asserted are on their face questionable. As I read many sentences, I found myself thinking "Sez who?" and finding that someone had apparently felt the same and inserted a .

The writing itself is casual, which is not a problem per se, as it can be edited for improvement, yes? But there are many many sentences whose meaning is either murky or entirely obscure, or where contradictions are heaped together cheek by jowl. Some examples:

• When a church member feels "called" to enter the work, they go to the head worker within their state or territory. << what does "go to the head worker" mean?
• If they choose to marry, they typically leave the work. If they leave the work from necessity... << what necessity?
• ..they often choose to marry. << what does "often choose to marry" mean?' << are there other reasons to leave the ministry than necessity? If the other reasons are the basis, is marriage a less-likely choice?
• Individuals in the community are invited to attend gospel meetings by the friends. << who are 'the friends'?
• Meetings are ...in a rented public hall or school or a private home of one of the friends. << why is this relevant? That armories, stadiums, casinos, swimming pools, etc., are NOT the site of these meetings?
• and appoint elders (also called "bishops") and deacons responsible for leading the meetings, normally the head of the house in which the church meets. << what are deacons, then?
• One of the workers (the youngest usually speaks first) preaches to the congregation until close to the end of the first half hour of the service. << what does "close to the end of the first half hour of the service" mean?
• Another hymn is sung. The audience is often invited to stand while singing, as a rest from sitting. << "As a rest from sitting"? Really?
• The other worker preaches to the congregation until near the end of the meeting. << what does "near the end of the meeting"? We've heard that the first preacher preaches for up to nearly the first half hour. How long is it until near the end of the meeting? Or do we care?
• the elder carries the bread and cup out of the room << what cup?? This is the first mention of a cup with communion. Only bread discussed
• [End of meeting] greetings: members generally greet each other (in Western countries, usually with a handshake) and brief conversation before departing the meeting house. ''<< what's the relevance? This is notable?
• Workers and friends gather at the nearest suitable river or lake. ''<< what does "suitable" mean?
• The baptism ceremony is led by a senior brother worker. <<what is a "senior brother worker"?
• The church appears among liberal "progressive" Christianity in regards to the role of women in the church. << What does this "appears" mean? What does "liberal progressive Christianity" mean?
• Women workers were first commissioned to preach in 1900, and have equal authority to male workers, including the authority to preach, teach, establish meetings, discipline members and organise gospel meetings. However, they can not rise to the position of head worker, and do not lead meetings when a male worker is present. << Does this discrimination seem less than Liberal and Progressive to anyone else?
• Disagreements between members may arise, but not with the Bible or with God. << What is this supposed to be saying? Aren't most doctrinal disputes ostensibly about disagreement over interpretation of Bible/God?

I'm for removing or significantly condensing most of the restored material.--nemonoman (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree generally. I'm too busy to do anything more myself though than comment here.

The constant minutiae detracts from the solid content of the article. I also sense that there is no consistency in these traditions and customs, at this detailed level, throughout the world, though there's no real way of knowing/proving that. If I'm right though, that also makes these restored sections irrelevant.

That said, I'm open to additional details being added if it is a genuine feature that's not just a common feature of any splinter church or special interest group. Obviously, any additions must be well written and cited properly in contrast to what Nemonoman pasted above which is shockingly bad. Donama (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of citations under the Ministry section. But the first part of the restored material cause me to wonder whether these are widely practiced, viz.,

|

"The church holds that its ministers"

"Should not remain in a specific location"
"Should travel in pairs"
"Should take minimal worldly possessions, but instead"
"Should rely on hospitality and generosity"

"Thus the ministry is homeless, perpetually travelling, and receives its income through support from members. Church buildings are seen as inconsistent with biblical Christianity. The group typically conducts meetings in homes."

These may be ideals, but I wonder if they are strictly practiced today? At least some do remain living in a specific location (either in rented quarters or with certain members), and most are assigned and constrained to operating in a limited geographical area (rather than "perpetually travelling"). I'm also left wondering if they do not sometimes not travel in pairs, and what is the meaning of "minimal worldly possessions" (I thought they were to "sell all" - though perhaps they are allowed to acquire things after that?). My understanding is that they do not rely exclusively on "hospitality and generosity" but are provided with funds to begin their missions, and there are other funds held in trust for various purposes. Perhaps some may be generally practiced, and some are ideals? I'm also wondering if it might flow better were this section moved adjacent to the "Hierarchy" section (or vice versa)? • Astynax ^talk 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This material sat in the article for two years and no editors commented, corrected or improved it. Now that I seek to restore it, it has all kinds of problems. Is this the wiki spirit of collaboration we hear so much about? (Note - I did not write it, and don't know the author). RSuser (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Integration and reorganization

The restored passages contain a lot of interesting -- but still uncited -- information that brings a lot of added value. I have attempted to integrate the previous paragraphs into the restored sections. I am BEGGING for someone to add citations; otherwise I will feel compelled to remove some of the more interesting and flavorful sentences. --nemonoman (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove the unreferenced template, and replace with individual "citation needed". I really hate the way this looks, but it may provide a better basis for establishing what (appears) under-referenced. Isn't there SOME sort of overview document that can be referenced for these items? I'm thinking that somebody has done a dissertation or something that could be referenced? --nemonoman (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to interpret what was written before was obviously impossible because you've introduced a few factual inaccuracies. I would work on this but I don't really have time. The 'ministry' and 'the work' are the same thing. It's basically open to men and women who get accepted for the job by existing workers. Some other probs too but will have to wait til I have a chance to write more detail. Donama (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as dissertations, there are a few at least. Benton Johnson (who is cited somewhere in the article) is a professor somewhere and quotes from and expands upon a master's thesis by one of his students. There is also this research paper, which has been quoted elsewhere online. • Astynax ^talk 22:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be someone's term paper, not a dissertation.67.43.136.134 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made no attempt to interpret, only to integrate. Factual inaccuracies? Really? From material with no references, grammatical and internal contradictions as shown above? Factual inaccuracies? Are you kidding me? What I should say now is Well, I don't know where that comes from. I've been part of the group for years and that's how we do it.

Nemonoman, sorry my tone came across completely wrong. I was trying to sound practical/realistic, not accusing. Anyway your point is basically my point: From material with no references you couldn't be expected to know if it had errors. This is not criticising you but the lack of clarity in the original text. And as for the confusion between editors, don't worry about it. I'm not really that emotionally involved. Still, I do think this Wikipedia article is the best resource one can find on the church and so I'm interested in it continuing to be useful for all. Donama (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your gentle response. My first encounter with this subject was this article, and I was fascinated. So I also feel a desire to get this to best standards possible. I'd like very much if there were some sort of Wiki template:

This article is under-referenced, but it's the best we could do! Some the information is from actual human beings instead of from books! So sue us!

--nemonoman (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::I am very sorry that you have time to re-introduce doubtful paragraphs full of questionable data, but no time to fix the problems that got them excised in the first place. I am very sorry that you have plenty of time to write on other user pages about hatchet jobs being done to this article, but have no time to address the specific concerns presented here when you were the one who asked me to take my time to review them. Yes, I will be interested to see what you write -- when you have the chance. Yes I will indeed. --nemonoman (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been informed that I have mixed up a couple of editors. I am very sorry to have done this,and I apologize to Donama. S/He didn't deserve my nasty sarcasm. I hope that s/he can find it in her/his heart to forgive my outburst. --nemonoman (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the article. I have decided to move on. Slofstra (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Conventions article and Wiki "Five Pillars" guidelines.

Hello. I sent this to Nemonoman but can't find the reply so I will post it here too.

I read though this discussion on the Christian Conventions article and noticed some of you are not familiar with the fellowship of friends and workers. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, you are, so maybe you can help me. When I read the wiki "Five Pillars" it seems to me a lot of this article is based on what could be called personal opinions and interpretations not actual experience in the fellowship or on NPOV, citable, primary sources. Part of the problem lies in the fact we have no written doctrine except for our Hymnbook. We strive to refer to the Bible alone, we believe God is not the author of confusion, and have faith in the unifying effect of the Holy Spirit's guidance. Real life fruit of our faith is the fact that when we are away from our home meeting we can walk into a house we've never been in before, meet with people we have never met before, and have meaningful, unified, and Spirit led fellowship. Many of us in the fellowship have attended Sunday meetings, study meetings, special meetings, and conventions all over the countries we live in and in other countries. You'd really have to come and see for yourself to understand, and all are welcome to do that. Anyway when there is no written doctrine how can what we see as "personal opinions, experiences, or arguments ... original ideas, interpretations, or research" [1] in the Christian Conventions article be countered with what Wiki guidelines would define as acceptable? Here's some examples of what I'm talking about;

- The name Christian Conventions listed for the fellowship. It's true that here in the USA the name "Christian Conventions" has been registered with the US government. As has already been pointed out the *reason* that name was registered with the US government was to help provide formal conscientious objector status for friends and workers drafted to military service so they would not have to apply for it on an individual basis. All the friends and workers I have talked to about this understand the reason for registering that name. Yet the reason is not written down anywhere and thus any attempt to clarify the reason for the name would be based on personal understanding which doesn't meet Wiki guidelines. So how would the reason for the name be submitted to the article? Seems like it can't be done inside of the Wiki guidelines.

- Under "Doctrine and practices"; "The group's fundamental belief is "The church in the home, and the ministry without a home". A travelling ministry leading meetings in members homes has been constant since the first messages in 1897." A reader might think every home meeting is led by a minister but in reality there are not even close to enough ministers to cover all the Sunday fellowship meetings so most often those meetings are lead by an elder, usually the owner of the home. This is the reality, but it is not a written down doctrine or guideline so how can I or anyone else correct that error without citing personal experience?

- Under "Terminology"; "Profess - to make public declaration of faith in the fellowship." When I (and many others) professed it was NOT a declaration of our faith *in* the fellowship, it was a declaration of faith in God's promises. Again nearly all in the fellowship I know understand this but none could correct what's written - all we have is our real but personal experience showing that statement is in error.

- Under "Christology"; "Since the group's inception, it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity." I got so frustrated with this common opinion attributed to friends and workers I posted a poll about it on the TMB discussion board. The poll's a bit lighthearted but shows a basic agreement with Trinity Doctrine when the phrase "Jesus is God" isn't used. [2] Interesting that even professed Trinitarians don't think the Trinity Doctrine can be accurately condensed to "Jesus is God"; [3][4]

Again, when there is no written down doctrine to counter what we see as personal opinions and interpretations that aren't what we know to be true how can I or anyone else correct them without referencing our personal experience? The first pillar states; "unreferenced material may be removed" - what is "unreferenced material"? Notice how much of the article *is* "unreferenced material", specifically, personal opinions and interpretations. Also notice how many of the references listed are what could easily be called personal opinion and/or personal interpretation even though they have been published in some sort of formal format. Simply publishing something in a formal format doesn't automatically disconnect what's published from being influenced, sometimes very heavily, by personal opinion and/or personal interpretation. In conclusion it seems we in the fellowship are trapped in a no-man's-land, we really can't correct personal opinions and interpretations in the article without violating the "Five Pillars" guidelines. If there's a solution I'm missing, I'm listening.

Thanks, Jesse Lackman

Note; If you'd rather discuss this though e-mail I think I have that option activated on my talk user page.

Jesse Lackman (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesse I left answers on your talk page and my talk page.--nemonoman (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm looking here and don't see them; http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Nemonoman#Christian_Conventions_article.

Jesse Lackman (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fish

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. It's clear now that the only persons who may edit this article are members of this church. Or movement. Or group that really isn't a group. Non-members, with their fussy old instance on facts, validation, reliable sources, etc., will never understand. Non-members only annoy the members while they are arguing with themselves.

If a consensus can be built to change this into an actual Wikipedia article -- instead of using this article as the extension porch of TMB (which I assume is some sort forum about this church or movement or group that isn't a group), you'll know where to find me. In the meantime, enjoy yourselves, guys. --nemonoman (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not at all what I was thinking, I'm sorry. I have never edited the article for the reasons I outline above. Isn't it interesting that the majority of the article seems to be written by those who are not in the fellowship using reference material written by those who are not in the fellowship? I think it's possible those of us in the fellowship might also have "a fussy old instance on facts, validation, reliable sources, etc." I wonder if the solution is what you posted above;

This article is under-referenced, but it's the best we could do! Some the information is from actual human beings instead of from books! So sue us!

If opinions and interpretations from actual human beings not in the fellowship are allowed to be in the article, then wouldn't it be reasonable to at least ask those actually in the fellowship if that human information component of the article is accurate? How this could happen within the wiki guidelines I haven't a clue. Are there any other articles you know of like this one that had success in reaching some sort of a consensus? ::Jesse Lackman (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Only by giving up and accepting reliable sources and verification. Otherwise the result is just a heaping pile of BS. See Aurangzeb as an example of a complete disaster of an article. This is on the same path. It's downhill and one way only. --nemonoman (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nemoman, I think your comments are unfair and avoid the issue. I sense a level of frustration which is understandable. RSuser (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have some experience in academic writing and also have a degree in English language and literature, so I endorse the wikipedia principles. I'm not sure why you would want to position the anti- side as being in favour of those principles, and the pro- movement side against. I assume frustration is the explanation. RSuser (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
How to move forward. IMO, the way to move the article forward is to properly cite controversial statements with strong reliable sources. For example, "Irvine is the founder" is highly controversial and hypothetical, so needs something along the line of a properly published historical work or peer-reviewed paper in support. Personally, I believe the statement is supportable, but the proper work has not yet been done, IMO. For specific statements about what Irvine did, his influence and so on, SPS and newspaper accounts are fine. Some of the SPS people have done good work in this area. Finally, for commonplace, non-controversial statements, on which there is consensus, citations should not be necessary. I couldn't get agreement on this when I floated the idea above, but to give you an example: How would you cite the statement, "The hand has five fingers", yet we all know this is true. RSuser (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The hand has five fingers since this is a discussion page, the reference section doesn't show automatically. Look in edit mode to see the reference info.--nemonoman (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To correct another point, the original article was written mostly but not entirely by non-members. Personally, I don't add anything to the article except edits and rewrites. Certain ex-members dislike me enough already for me to want to write anything. RSuser (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Please look at the actual history of the article to see the kind of pusillanimous attacks that used to make it in.RSuser (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think the article had reached a kind of NPOV before that it now lacks. Only one problem - what was there was badly written and very disorganized. What do you expect though with 20 different writers? RSuser (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
About TMB. You have some mis-information about TMB. TMB is primarily for ex-members of the movement. As a high committment faith group some of the ones who leave need help (think Amish, etc) and the TMB provides valuable peer support. Only a small number of members of our group participate there. RSuser (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• No point in rehashing what I've written below. Read the extensive discussion on TMB by ex-members and members. I do find that most ex's and most members can obtain consensus on these issues.
• As there was previous mention of the TMB in the archives, I've been watching the discussion on this subject prior to deciding to edit and since. Although one current member seems to be more or less Trinitarian, the arguments from the current members there seem to be firmly antitrinitarian.
• There is a very long thread on TMB discussing all the historical evidence on the issue.
• I'm not sure why people on TMB and perhaps other members have a problem with this
• the thesis I endorse below on this particular subject, which emerged after much discussion on TMB, and is not really that much different from astynax.
• Moreover, I see some workers being touted as trinitarians over on TMB
• I posted a poll about it on the TMB discussion board.--nemonoman (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following the above. Can you clean up/elaborate?RSuser (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What I did above is to quote some of the places where TMB has been brought into the discussion of this article. I have no idea what TMB is. I assume it's some sort of CC forum. All I know is that when any item of dispute comes up in this article, somebody is likely to point to TMB and say that the point was addressed there and the consensus was whatever. I doubt an unaffiliated editor is going to have much luck trying to make sense of the jumble of opinions for which TMB is cited. Are CC'ers trinitarians? Let me check with TMB, just to make sure.

It's not being used to source the article so I don't understand your point.RSuser (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And what this tells me is: Members only. And that is NOT a reasonable Pillar of Wikipedia.--nemonoman (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not being used to source the article.

The main issue I can see now are POV issues. Unfortunately, when these are brought to the attention of the person who wrote 90% of what is there now, s/he tends to blow off concerns without engaging, IMO. The craft of writing is a nitpicky one, afraid to say. Choices like whether you say 'church' or 'movement' aren't based on deep principle; they are issues in clear exposition and I wonder why you would blow this off, the same as 'asyntax' would? RSuser (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a "movement" would have been appropriate during its early years. But it is not currently that any more than the Church of England is a "movement." Moreover, I've frequently heard members describe it as "my church," and so that doesn't seem inappropriate at all. And on top of that, it is a clear term that average readers understand and use when talking about this religious system, as well as other churches who disclaim names. • Astynax ^talk 03:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How it's done

See this revision: [5]. This is how it's done. You state facts from verifiable sources. If you have better information from other verifiable sources THEN you replace. If what you have is a personal feeling that you think differently, you put that on the discussion page, or you start a blog. You DON'T blank cited facts. --nemonoman (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know. That's what I'm doing. Removing unsourced material. Read the latest on the first paragraph above. Since when does 'wiki' accept OR by a single writer. A sure way to lose NPOV which is what has happened. When do we revert? Interesting stuff on your talk page on how you and astynax are working together on this article. RSuser (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Astynax asked for help with POV. I'm gave it. Look for many edits I made to reduce POV in this article. Just because you're a member of this church doesn't make your editing correct. Or valid. Just because a single editor has introduced material doesn't mean that it is necessarily POV, and if referenced, it's not original research. If a bunch of misguided editing gets done, other editors jump in and help fix it. That's the Wiki way. I feel bad giving up on this article and leaving its most careful editor without an ally. So if he's in, I'm in. I guess members are going to give me a hard time too. Let's go. --nemonoman (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your knowledge and application of wiki standards is noticeably lacking. First, you told me there was no standard for working with what's there, when there clearly is. Now you're telling me that "if referenced, it's not original research". Many cases where this is not true. If you draw a conclusion, then the reference should also draw that conclusion. If the reference contains information to support your conclusion, you are doing OR. Also, if the reference is SPS it's usually OR, and you are just citing or parroting OR. A lot of this article is of that nature. It's easy stuff to find. I just read the article and if my BS-meter pegs out, there's some kind of problem with the sourcing.RSuser (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that citing SPS or web articles is no better than no citation at all. You're just copying an opinion from one place to another. I notice you guys haven't touched my SPS argument because you know the entire article is based on SPS and primary source materials. I actually have no problem with it if the end result is accurate. But then I have no problem with uncited, accurate material either. I think the two are equal in merit.RSuser (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds all too familiar. The article has been down the road of slamming any and all citations as non-RS before. If you think that this strategy is going to work again, forget it. Ending up with an uncited or mostly uncited article is an open invitation to summary deletions, and uncited statements are in violation of WP policy, as you are quite aware. You are also aware that past attempts have been made to delete both the Irvine and Cooneyite articles arguing lack of citation and non-RS sources. So, again, going back to the article's former state is not an option. If you have alternative statements to add showing variations or other information, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as you provide sources. The article is up to 72 citations, including 9 books, 1 hymnal, 2 encyclopedia articles, 22 periodical and newspaper articles, and 6 archived web links to primary source documents. • Astynax ^talk 04:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Cooneyites group, with less than 30 members worldwide (apparently), still lacks notability as a subject. I submitted an AFD on 'Cooneyites' in good faith, not realizing the term had currency in the literature referring to the Christian Conventions group before the Cooney split. I did not know that the term 'Cooneyites' is still used in Ireland to refer to our group as well, so it shows up in the literature. A merge would be the appropriate response at this point.RSuser (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement about non-RS citations is not meant as a "slam". I believe that it is an accurate premise, and I don't believe that we should argue the point further based on inaccurate premises. I don't particularly have a problem with using non-RS sources, except when the end result is an obvious distortion or lacks NPOV, which some of your writing tends to do. Anyway, I'm content to argue this on a point by point basis, but we are having extreme difficulty with just the first paragraph.RSuser (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus on the Cooneyite article when you proposed deletion was that it was indeed notable. As to the number of its adherents, that is completely speculative and sounds more in keeping with the number in N. Ireland, if not in simply one part of N. Ireland. I can count that many in the photographs in Roberts' book. There are Cooneyites in at least Australia and N. America, and I'm not sure how anyone could arrive at figures on those, since they don't hold conventions. Rather than throwing accusations around, cite examples of PoV. • Astynax ^talk 21:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as I indicated, Cooneyites is notable, but based on its reference to Christian Conventions. I did not know that when I made the AFD. Sorry, don't see where I'm making "accusations". RSuser (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-controversial plea for help

Can we all please try to put our discussion items at the bottom of the discussion page? It's getting very hard to follow editors's trains of thought -- at least I'm having a hard time -- when editors intersperse opinions all over the page. I am guilty of this myself, and I regret being part of the problem.

If you've got a comment about with the article's first paragraph and you notice the discussion topic First Paragraph at the top of the page, I beg you, please fellow editors, please, RESIST THE TEMPTATION to intersperse. I beg you -- just start a new topic More about the first paragraph at the bottom of the page. And so on.

I believe that some elements of the contentiousness of this discussion is that it's so hard to understand the continuity of logic from the various commenting editors. In the interest of harmony, I beg you, please fellow editors, please, try to place comments at the bottom of the page.

THanks. --nemonoman (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Testing. Testing. 1-2-3. Can anybody hear me? Hello?--nemonoman (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Don't you respond to comments by putting another comment directly under, with a colon in front, as I have done here?RSuser (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree: this is the typical desirable pattern. New comments placed at bottom of comments section. This makes for a thread that can be followed reasonably easily. Interspersing comments -- something I'm very guilty of -- is problematic. If the section is short, a dull reader like myself can make sense of the interspersion, usually. But take a look at the opening discussion on this page -- "First Paragraph" for an example of interspersed comments running amok, and a discussion thread that is all over the map and very hard to follow.

So my plea -- if you feel the need to intersperse, please don't: that's my plea. Get a sponsor. Go cold turkey. That's my plea. Quote the passage that inspired your comments at the bottom of the discussion thread, PLEASE. Like this:

Don't you respond to comments by putting another comment directly under, with a colon in front, as I have done here?

My reply: If ONLY that were the case! etc., etc.....

Or if new threads have been added, and you just saw a line three topics earlier that's simply crying out for your rejoinder, please start a new topic, referencing or quoting the old topic.

Anyway, I thought I'd ask. I tried to archive some of this enormously long and unwieldy discussion page: even though many discussion topics had apparently cooled down some time ago, newer comments -- often of the 'me too' variety -- had been interspersed. Leaving a decision up to me: Is this an old, archivable discussion? Or is this some current hot topic? And may I say, leaving a decision up to me is always a dangerous enterprise. --nemonoman (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never actually done what you've suggested and it's a good idea. So you keep adding to the existing topic, but at the bottom of the existing topic. I believe in the case of the First Paragraph discussion you would have a lot of repeated stuff, but at least it would be linear, just like a forum thread. Will give it a try. Where were you two or three years ago? Do you know how much trouble you could have saved us?  :) RSuser (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please help me understand the controversy

Can somebody please help me understand the Irvine controversy? I just don't get it.

I can see how controversy might arise from those who would prefer to draw a line showing CC origins in apostolic times. OK. I understand that philosophically and spiritually and as a matter of faith. No problemo. But I have seen no hint that there anyone is holding to a historical record that shows traces that lineage, right? (I mean a sort of Matthew-like: Abraham begat Issac, Issac begat Jacob...leading to the present day).

It's pretty clear that the among the cooler heads the modern rise, the modern origins of what's being called Christian Conventions in this article are to be found in Ireland, late 19th century. And from what I can tell, Irvine was in Ireland late 19th Century. And there is clearly sort of a before and after here: (BEFORE) No Christian Conventions, at least not a widely available version (AFTER) lots of gatherings, members, news articles, etc. So SOMETHING HAPPENED, yes?

So what -- I mean this sincerely -- what is the controversy? Is the line that Irvine STOLE the CC from somebody? Or somebody else did the work and Irvine took the credit? Or that someone else did the work, but Irvine unintentionally was given credit by the media and historians? Or what?

Is there a second theory at work here? Is there a second gunman on the grassy knoll? Global warming is a myth? That sort of thing? Is the problem that the article is pushing one story to the exclusion of another?

If so, can somebody tell me the other theory. Note: I'm not interested in the apostolic origins theory unless someone can show me the lineage, or at least show me some sort of well-known, previously existing apostolic-inspired meeting predating Irvine's appearance, that inspired him or others to begin the movement. Like: And they all went over to O'Leary's house that Sunday, and they saw the how things were supposed to be and then went from O'Leary's to spread the word. In which case, I think we'd want to put O'Leary in the article someplace, yes?

I'm sorry that I write with sarcasm and irony even when I'm utterly serious. I'm serious. Please help me.--nemonoman (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be explained somewhere. In the years following the schisms with Irvine and then Cooney, Irvine seems to have been demonized by some of the leaders and by all kind of speculation (since the schism happened in the background, rumors spread that he was a "womanizer" or had "gone insane" or had "lost the annointing"), none of which seems to be borne out by his subsequent conduct, whether or not one agrees with his claim of continuing revelation. With some workers, having no founder other than Christ seems to have become a matter of doctrine.

Melton says that the statements of first century origin were made from "embarassment" over the schism. And that seems plausible. But those early workers involved in the schism and papering-over the origin are long dead. So one wonders why the continued myth-making? It seems to me that some do indeed wish to simply acknowledge the historical origin with Irvine as founder and put all that baggage behind them. But clearly there are also quite a few who refuse anything to do with an origin later than the first century. And yet others seem to be trying for some sort of new compromising narrative which will acknowledge "something" happened around 1900, which somehow still traces back to the first century, and still denies the founder. There have been previous attempts at remaking the origin myth to something along those latter lines, but they've gone nowhere. Seems a lot of trouble, when acknowledging Irvine's role as founder would be simpler (and perhaps he wasn't quite the skirt-chasing looney that the rumor mills of the first half of the twentieth century made him out to be). • Astynax ^talk 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Nemonoman,

The controversy is not really about Irvine et al the man - the carnal history; in my opinion it's about the spiritual side of it. It seems some want to pin the "founding" on a man and disregard the possibility Irvine et al were inspired by the Bible and God himself. In trying to make the case that the fellowship is merely man-made we see things like this alleged about our fellowship;

Does this one also apply??

Isaiah 5:20-21: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight![6]

You might notice that the author of that post is the owner of the web site "Telling The Truth" which is referenced in the CC article and this discussion. Casual research shows most of the external link sites are very obviously connected to each other. They have the same flavor I mention in the section "On the reliability of so-called "reliable sources". You can decide if all this is grassy knoll material or not. ;)

As for lineage there seems to be no carnal lineage i.e. man to man, it is as you say "philosophically and spiritually and as a matter of faith". [7] Personally I knew an old lady here who knew what she called friends, workers, home meetings as a young girl, in the very late 1800s, in a country William Irvine and the early workers weren't in in that time frame. She regarded those people exactly the same as the friends, workers, home meetings she later found much later here in the USA which were of the Irvine et al lineage. She was happy, satisfied, and never wrote anything down. A man to man lineage didn't matter to her, she read what she read in the Bible, observed what she observed in real life, and was satisfied. How should I reconcile her story with William Irvine as founder?

Jesse Lackman (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

JesseLackman wrote:

Irvine et al were inspired by the Bible and God himself

I'm comfortable in describing Irvine as inspired by Bible and God. Perhaps even inspired by a visit to your old lady's home meeting(?). But the movement appears to have its recent origins after Irvine got inspired, and no particular popular availability before. This sort of activity might reasonably be described as the founding of the CC. Much as Luther might be described as the founder of Lutheranism. Surely he was inspired? And numerous others had expressed views similar. But before Luther, not much was happening -- at least in Wittenberg. And Luther is described as the founder of the Protestant Reformation. So again I ask: where's the second gunman?

As for the Isaiah quote -- that one went right over my head. Seems like there will never be a time or circumstance where that quote doesn't apply? So how it applies here escapes me. Other than "Woe unto me", I guess.--nemonoman (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The fairly obvious implication is that we in the friends and workers fellowship call evil good, and good evil; we put darkness for light, and light for darkness; we put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! And that we are that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in our own sight! That is an implication found in some of the reference books, and on some of the web site links. It's not too subtle either;

Daniel, Kevin N. 1993. Reinventing the Truth: Historical Claims of One of the World's Largest Nameless Sects.

Fortt, Lloyd. 1994. A Search for the Truth: The Workers' Words Exposed

Irvine, Wm. C. (editor). 1929. Heresies Exposed. (This book's section on the "Coonyites" has been "published" slightly different formats elsewhere as if it applied to the fellowship now. Some of the assertations are foolish to say the least, but they are still given as if they are the absolute truth.)

Nervig, Casper B. 1941. Christian Truth and Religious Delusions.

Jesse Lackman (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, the article makes no such assertions. As for including material which reflects the church's view, a simple solution would be for the senior workers to get together and put their names to a published statement of faith and official history. The article would definitely fall short if it didn't acknowledge such a source. Until something along those lines is publicly available, the sources that are out there will have to do. Few sources, even peer-reviewed academic papers, are free from viewpoint. Nor are the works you've listed free of point of view (though I suppose the perception of degree depends on a reader's toleration for views other than his/her own). It is our job as readers and editors to separate information from opinion in such works. That is equally true of works by members or former members who are pro-CC. We work with what is out there. • Astynax ^talk 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Astynax, while it's true the article doesn't make those assertions two or three mouse clicks away from the article's links will get you to where they are made.

1 --> http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t17.html

and

2 -->> http://professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general

Or-->> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0963941925/christianministr

1 -->> http://www.2x2ministry.org/

and

2 -->> http://www.2x2ministry.org/deceivers.php

There are many more ways to get there than those examples. I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. ;)

Jesse Lackman (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesselackman wrote:The fairly obvious implication is that we in the friends and workers fellowship call evil good, and good evil;

Well, you won't find me implying that, or thinking it either, and I'd get on the case of anyone who tried to imply that within the context of this article, or on the street for that matter. "Let him who is without sin...etc.". --nemonoman (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You! I don't do that either. Jesse Lackman (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a few mouse clicks gets anyone to google and to those same sites. One could continue arguing that point in favor of eliminating references to the names, references to people like William Irvine, etc. - for eliminating the whole article, in fact. All that stuff is out there, and suggesting that we're going to, or should, insulate anyone from it by removing references doesn't seem to be reasonable.

There has been a constant stream of charges that "critics" or "ex-members" have or are twisting things around, and that members somehow are the only valid source for information. I sincerely doubt that is true at all, since both the members and former members I've met seem to be equally conversant about the group. A pro bias, and blanking info due to impugning sources and persons would be equally unreasonable as far as input for the article. • Astynax ^talk 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No Reliable source (SPS) and NOR are sufficient grounds for removing material. Especially when the material is not NPOV. 67.43.136.134 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the reliability of so-called "reliable sources"

Only by giving up and accepting reliable sources and verification. Otherwise the result is just a heaping pile of BS. See Aurangzeb as an example of a complete disaster of an article. This is on the same path. It's downhill and one way only. --nemonoman (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the principles of Wikipedia! From now on let's make sure that only members of a group can edit articles about the group. Whites about whites, Jews about Jews, Democrats about Democrats, Nebraskans about Nebraskans, etc. etc. Why should scholarship get in the way of opinion? --nemonoman (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To all readers and for the sake of discussion; Us members should be "giving up and accepting reliable sources and verification"? Who defines reliable source and verification per Wiki guidelines? What if nearly all sources were written by non-and former members, will that ensure the article's objectivity? Of course not. That's the problem - nearly all the sources referenced on the CC page are written by non-members and former members, many who have suffered real or perceived wrongs. Naturally what they write is quite often not objective but emotionally effected and thus more in the realm of opinion and personal interpretation. This will affect the objectivity of the article.

I've read through all the archives, what I saw is that nearly all bickering is between non-members and members NOT between members. Here's an example of why this bickering exists; On the non-member site VOT "Veterans of Truth" [8] there's this article; [9] [10] It was published here; [11] It contains flat out lies like;

- "Having a relationship outside of the sect is strictly forbidden." (Not true.)

- "Men must be clean-shaven with short haircuts." (I wore a beard.)

- "Radios were even discouraged, and workers don't even read the newspaper and things like that," (Workers read newspapers.)

- "For instance, some female members do go to college, but only for professions domestically associated with women, such as nursing." (Not true.)

When you dig deeper this is the flavor of allegations you find in many of the references given on the CC page. Even the impartiality of the Impartial Reporter reporter should be subject to a certain amount skepticism given the fact he/she was not a member and the hostile attitude prevalent towards the early workers and friends at that time. The name impartial reporter does not automatically guarantee the reporter is impartial. [12] (Mr. Irvine Grey is doing a doctorate research project on the fellowship.[13][14] Mr. Grey did respond to my private message about the impartiality of the Impartial Reporter reporter, interesting response too. ;) I wonder if Mr. Grey could be invited to help with the objectivity of this article? Just a thought.) A book or article written by a non-or-former member is not guaranteed to be above emotive opinions and interpretations. This is why there is bickering between members and non-members, that bickering will always exist when citations (even though "published") are personal opinions and interpretations written my non-members, especially former members. Personal opinion and interpretation is NOT automatically interchangeable with truth, even if those personal opinions and interpretations are published in a book, newspaper, website, etc. So it comes down to who's personal opinions and interpretations are valid. It's very obvious to current members that real life experience in the fellowship is very different than what most of the CC article references allege. Maybe the solution is for us members to start another article entitled; "The Friends and Workers Fellowship" with Nemonoman's human being experience disclaimer at the top. Would that be a better way to achieve some sort of balance in real life in the fellowship experience vs emotional personal opinion and interpretation from non-and-former members? The great majority of members are happy and satisfied. Proof is the fact most 99%+ do not have any desire to get involved with this article, the various web sites about us, etc. [15][16][17]  ;)

Jesse Lackman (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be a fair amount of garbage on those websites. I'm not convinced the article is repeating those dubious assertions, however. The article seems to present a reasonable picture of the CC, not colored by flamboyant assertions or outright falsehoods.

The character of the objections that I have seen are -- to an outsider at least -- reasonably minor:

* The founder debate -- ok, that's hot.

* Church vs movement -- really, can't we find some compromise?

* Names of the group, or if the group has a name -- This can be fixed, can't it?

* What gets published? A lot seems to depend on who is defining 'published'. The answer is: Not very much gets published.

* Trinitarian doctrines, etc: This sort of topic will never be settled, will it?

The general layout of the article: history, practices, etc. This is pretty OK, isn't it? You can argue (reasonably) that non-members are stepping on toes because they aren't sensitive to subtleties. But, stepping on toes, yes? Not cracking kneecaps, or breaking skulls.

This article doesn't dump on members, or call their beliefs into question, at least not in any sort of broad or heavy-handed way. And non-member editors are trying aren't they? To work with a good will and with some sort empathy? On Big Questions, have you found the (Recent) non-member editors to be "anti"? Or to accept gross mischaracterizations or gross falsehoods?

Can't we all just get along? I've never said you had to be clean-shaven, and that's not in the article. So what's the problem here? If anything objectionable can be found anywhere in one of these sources, than NOTHING the source says may be accepted? Is that your point? Do you want to argue that point, really? That's the atheist's point about the bible: and to my mind -- the argument rings false in both instances. --nemonoman (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've used the first paragraph as an acid test. You're right. I didn't think it would be this hard. Initially, I saw all the work asyntax has done and I was quite impressed. But let's face it; he thinks he owns the article at this moment. RSuser (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)