Talk:Two by Twos/Archive4

First Paragraph

Anyone in the movement who reads the previous version of the first paragraph which is now altered, (but you can see here: [1]), would quickly recognize that it centers on claims made by the movement and attempts a refutation of these claims. For example, the movement claims to have no published literature so the author lists "copies of various pastoral letters, sermon notes, lists, and convention summaries" which circulate among the friends and workers. The problem is that this is not such a central fact that it should be included in the introduction.
The entire article is actually written on this basis, thus the protestations of some members (99% do not follow wikipedia actually) on the recent changes to this article. I've tried to restore the introduction to what it should be - a quick overview of key facts about the group, not an overview of counter-claims about the movement.
I hope these changes are thoroughly considered and not just reverted this time. I've made a number of suggestions to this article, and unfortunately, the author replies mostly with homilies about ducks and the like without engaging the argument.
I think we should consider reverting the article to the point before these changes were made. The citation level appears better, but this article consists almost entirely of material extracted from the self-published materials of R.I.S. [2]. It's not too bad from a factual point of view, however -
The previous article was the result of much discussion over terms, whether this is a movement or a church, for example. The main author has repeatedly shown their contempt for such discussions, but not every issue is a meaningful one, and there they are all the same. Now I fear we will have to cover the same territory as the result of the major revision that was made. I personally thought I could work with what is here, but I can see now we've taken a huge step backward.
Take also the founder issue. The best minds on this agree that the movement was started (not founded) by William Irvine and others. 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.
Unfortunately, there is no RS on this rather key point. We have to go with the best information available. Jaenen (who is a RS) notes the key involvement of many individuals in the early days, and the key aspect of church in the home was documented and begun independent of Irvine. Irvine began a preaching movement. The home meetings came later.
So those are two serious problems introduced.
With all respect to the present editors who have pitched in and are not acquainted with the movement, it will be difficult for you to get your bearings on the issues presented by the article. The problem I have right now is that the article reads like one side of a 'hot button' list. If you're a member of the movement, you'll quickly see that the article is just an assault on some of the past and present ideology of the movement. I'm not trying to defend that ideology - I just don' think that is what the article should be. If you want examples of this, I've provided 5 or 6 in the first paragraph. Basically the author is taking on the claims of no name, no published literature, no founder, and claims of full itinerancy. I don't believe the article should support these claims either. But what was attempted before was to isolate a few simple facts about the movement and provide an objective overview. Any POV issues were corrected as presented. The article stood for a long time without any such issues, although there was near-vandalism at time. Agreed the citations were poor. But I think we've got a much more serious problem now.
I guess I thought wikipedia was about collaboration and working with what's there. Over time people's edits do disappear but the present course of action of a wholesale replacement by a negative POV writer, and endorsement by editors is disappointing. (Please note that I wrote very little or none of the previous version of the article. I took the position as I do now of editor and editorial advocate which is better served by not writing). RSuser (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First, the lead-in section is fine. Putting alternative names for the group is appropriate for this section, since people coming to the article may have heard of or be searching on those terms. It lets them immediately know they've arrived at the correct place, as many of them will never have heard of “Christian Conventions.” Your blanking seems more an attempt to remove information. • Astynax ^talk 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I left the terms that people actually use. No one in the world uses the official registered names including Christian Conventions as a matter of fact. Is your writing based on just reading SPS or do you have some background knowledge of the group? You continue to impute wrong motives to me, when all I ask is fair and balanced reporting. I suggest that the registered (as opposed to common usage names) are not worth putting in the intro.RSuser (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends where the reader lives, what names they have heard used for the group, and for what reason they are searching WP for information. • Astynax ^talk 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the registered names appearing later in the article. If you want to have a comprehensive list of names here you need to add a dozen more. My suggestion - if we know the name has reasonable currency, put it here. 'Cooneyites' is used in Ireland apparently, so it's fine. Also, 'Two by Twos', 'Church with no name' come up often. What else do you think is in common usage. Then the rest put below.RSuser (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)RSuser (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the lead-in is the appropriate place for those. We could expand on the names later, in the section regarding that, but those registered and adopted names need to be where readers land, not removed, for the reason I've already given twice. • Astynax ^talk 04:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But your list is far from comprehensive. If you want ALL the names then we need to add (there is duplication): The Friends and Workers Fellowship, Two-by-Twos, 2x2s, Cooneyites, The Fold, No-Name Church, Christian Conventions, Assemblies of Christians, The Testimony, Testimony of Jesus, Nameless House Church, Tramp Preachers, Go-Preachers, White Mice, Dippers, The Black Stockings, The Jesus-Way, The New Testament Church, Reidites, Irvinites/ Irvineites, Alberta Society of Christian Assemblies [3]. And that's just English speaking countries. I think my approach is eminently more sensible, but there you are.

Items printed up for internal circulation are a form of publishing. The same holds true for the hymnal, which is also circulated only to members (outsiders cannot order it from the publisher). As for the term “semi-itinerant,” it is a perfectly acceptible word. If you can find a better word which conveys the thought of a limited itinerancy, then use that. But until then, your objection is ridiculous. • Astynax ^talk 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The other items are not printed or controlled by the church. Only the hymnbook. The church does not pubish or circulate the other items you mention. RSuser (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice you drop to personal attacks quite often "your objection is ridiculous". No one who has not heard of the group is going to know what you mean by "semi-itinerant". It should be clear that the ministers do not have homes of their own; that is the key point.RSuser (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those copies of Convention Gems, meeting lists, worker lists, etc. are handed out by workers and elders. And not just individual workers and elders, but the exact same items are distributed to many members in various locations. So, that seems to be no different than the hymnals, and is publishing. As I said, “semi-itinerant” is a perfectly good word, and, if you don't like it, find a better word that expresses the concept (i.e., that they are “itinerant” in only a very limited sense). “Homeless” doesn't exactly describe it either (workers living in rented apartments are not homeless at all). Nothing wrong with not being completely itinerant or actually homeless (like Paul the Apostle, who rented his own apartment like the vast majority of other inhabitants in Rome) - it just becomes misleading PoV to insist on claiming “itinerant” or even “homeless.” • Astynax ^talk 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Gems and sermon notes are NOT passed out by workers or elders. Not in any of the 10 countries I have visited. If it has happened it's a rare exception.RSuser (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that it is a rare exception at all. They just don't appear in the exact same format from people from widely different locations by magic. And it certainly isn't us outsiders printing them up and distributing them. So it is publishing from the inside, regardless. • Astynax ^talk 04:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The explanation is that SOME individual members and non-members take notes, type up notes and circulate these items informally. The ministry does not. Elders by and large do not. To my observation this is an implicit doctrine.Contributions/67.43.136.134 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can recall sitting with some of the friends while workers were in the next room running off hundreds of copies of notes and lists. I do believe that those were for distribution, as it seems ridiculous for them to be printing up all those just to carry around and never give out. I've also been told, from conversations with a worker, of at least one overseer who had his sermon notes taken down, proofed and distributed. It may be an implicit doctrine in some places - one of those regional differences. Regardless of who does it in other places, these items are printed up and distributed in quantity. And that's publishing, even if only for internal circulation. That isn't some horrible sin, and the workers weren't hiding that they did this. And I can't think why a reader would take it that way, either. But for the article to state that they publish nothing, or even nothing but a hymnal, would be inaccurate. • Astynax ^talk 17:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What worker was it? RS Canadian Encyclopedia also states no publications.RSuser (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have wallowed through the TMB and one thing becomes immediately apparent - there is no consensus. And it would not matter if there were, as that message board seems to be a small number of posters and would hardly be a voice for the church itself. First we're told that this place is run by members, then we're told that it is mostly ex-members posting there, then we're told that we can glean a consensus of church members from there. • Astynax ^talk 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What should we take as the "Christology" of the movement? RIS's research or what movement members actually say they believe? TMB would provide good anecdotal but unsourceable information on the movement. Regarding your question on who is there, mostly ex-members, but more members have joined in recent years. The poll set up by Jesse Lackman on members views on the Trinity is quite useful because the anti-cult movement has worked hard to discredit the movement strictly on a theological basis. They've published misinformation on the theology of the movement; no doubt you've read some. IMO, anything placed in the wiki article on doctrine and theology is wading into a quagmire. It's better for wiki to avoid theological debates. We're just trying to show you that your view of the movement's Christology is way off. Attend some meetings and you will see why.RSuser (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This also is stated in more than one source, and the christology indicated in those sources agrees both with what I've heard from all the CC people I know who I have asked, and in the sermon notes given to me by some who didn't care to explain the reasons for that view. So, in absence of a source to the contrary, I'm more surprised by denials of the material cited. A non-trinitarian stance is hardly unusual, as has been noted, and the article isn't making any theological assessment on the validity of trinitarianism vs. non-trinitarianism. • Astynax ^talk 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that there is regionalism to the Christology "group think". In any case, there is no formal Christology taught by the church. That's because (IMO) the Bible doesn't provide one. Have you heard of 'story theology'? If you want to use theological concepts to understand the ministry, 'story theology' is the closest fit that I have heard of. Anyway, your work on Christology is OR, no question. No one has accurately captured the Christology of the group because I don't think there is a single one. It is fair to say that the ministry does not preach the Trinity doctrine. Other than that it is difficult or impossible to characterize the Christology in a couple of sentences.RSuser (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What is contained in the article is not OR - there are citations, and I passed over others, which could also be included if needed to support that section. I mention my direct experience with statements by group members over many years only to note that they support, rather than call into question, the published statements as to the group's christology. • Astynax ^talk 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, a worker saying “Jesus is not God” in a sermon seems like teaching a non-trinitarian view to me. As does a long sermon (by Leo Stancliff) demonstrating that Jesus and the Father were only "one in spirit." As do funeral notes I was given where John Porterfield states “Christ was the express image of God, He was the express image of God. He wasn't God. He didn't claim to be him.” And those statements were made in various regions. I assume that the citated sources are based on similar statements, excepting the newspaper which is a direct quote from a worker (and there are others I didn't list). • Astynax ^talk 04:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To which I'll add that when the hymnal was redone in 1987, trinitarian hymns and references (in hymns authored by outsiders) were removed or altered. The present hymnal is now consistent with a non-trinitarian outlook. That, and excommunication of a newer member for insisting on trinitarian views, actually sparked the discussions of the group's view on the trinity which I recall. So again, that is consistent with the sources I've come across. If there is a source which states that the group adheres to a trinitarian outlook, then do the legwork and cite it. • Astynax ^talk 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like non-trinitarian to me also, in these specific instances. If you look at the 'story preaching' of the ministry you will find arguments for both sides. If you read your Bible you will also find arguments for both sides. Do you see the isomorphism involved? I argue with your conclusions. Plus the way you've come to them is OR. RSuser (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The other problem with describing the Christology in terms of mainstream church theology is that it marginalizes the group. You're implicitly showing preference to another kind of teaching, and then saying we're not THAT. RSuser (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You do the same thing when you insist on using mainstream church terminology like 'church' (for the entire movement) and 'minister' ... terms we don't use. RSuser (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly certain that those are terms used in the Bible. So I don't believe it is marginalizing anything or anyone. • Astynax ^talk 04:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean to imply that no group ever marginalized another one using the Bible as a source? Contributions/67.43.136.134 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No Christian group I know of, including the CC's, objects to using the word “church” or “minister” - even the workers use those terms. I actually was given a long sermon by one of the Carrolls that equate those explicit terms describe the CC way of doing things. • Astynax ^talk 17:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Minister is not wrong, but worker is the common and universally used term. The fellowship never refers to itself as a 'church' in the same sense as the Lutheran Church or the Presbyterian Church. RS Jaenen uses the term 'movement' frequently in his book.RSuser (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The constant whine from you on RS is getting extremely tiresome. You've run that into the ground in the past, which is why proposed references ended up being removed. I've already asked for where in Jaenen's book he claims that someone other than Irvine founded the group, rather than simply presenting anecdotes of previous groups which had similar features - because I don't see it in my copy. If you have published information, cite it - instead of destructively blanking material which has already been cited. • Astynax ^talk 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaenen states, in his exhaustive work on restorationist movements, and the only RS on the subject published by a legitimate publisher: On page 520 you read "In 1884 .. Edward Cooney began meeting with a few others in a private room for fellowship..", the first home meeting involving a worker. On page 524, "John Long, Fred Hughes and William Irvine decided to launch out 'by faith' like the Twelve Apostles. Others joined them including Edward Cooney .." . This in 1898. We read that Irvine had not yet left the Faith Mission at this point. Although he was clearly the most vocal proponent of the movement by 1902, it's hard to say why He would be the founder. Further, "in 1900 another group joined forces with them. Robert Hamilton and David Donaldson ..." Based on what I've read of the accounts and in view of the rapid early growth of the movement, and the lack of any consistent written doctrine by Irvine, the important contributions by Long and Cooney, the correct and precise statement is that Irvine and others started a preaching movement. That is precise and correct.RSuser (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! That is not a claim that Irvine did not start the group, you have leapt to that conclusion. In 1884, Cooney was not a CC worker, still held down a job, still was a member of the Methodist church (he only sold all and threw his lot with Irvine as a worker in 1901). That others joined Irvine's movement is already stated in the article. So those anecdotes are not statements that the group was in existence before Irvine founded it, or that someone other than Irvine founded it. Making that into any such claim is twisting. • Astynax ^talk 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know how that could be more clear. Did you see the sentence I bolded? It seems to name three men "who went out by faith", not just one. Does your idea of 'founder' include anything else besides going out along what John Long called 'faith lines'?RSuser (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't a clear statement of anything other than what it says. And what it does not say (and I'd already read that section) is to make any denial that Irvine was the founder of the movement. However, other people on the ground stated Irvine originated it (the words “found” and “founder” were actually employed). • Astynax ^talk 04:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would he make "a denial that Irvine was the founder of the movement"? I would not deny it either. But the research is not clear, and no one has yet researched and written a good exposition of the early days looking at the roles of all the early workers. The only credentialed historian to have published is Cornelius Jaenen and I quoted you his findings above. Irvine obviously had a key role, but since the movement began as a spontaneous preaching movement, with no published doctrine. We know Irvine did not start the home meetings .. which began later. Cooney had already had them in 1884. Many of the 'ideas' in the early days clearly came from John Long, esp if you read his journal, but there were obvious earlier influences including Campbell-Stone, Faith Mission and many others. By 1902, Irvine was clearly the leader, from what I have read. Note also that early workers never referred to Irvine as founder, including Cooney under sworn testimony. I found one ex-worker who referred to him in this way. A short time later he had John Long kicked out. But it SHOULD NOT BE our purpose to argue these points here. I just don't think we should be making conclusive summary statements in wikipedia when it is clear the scholars have not yet worked this one out. Contributions/67.43.136.134 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that scholars haven't worked this out. The sources cited explicitly state Irvine founded the group. That was stated 100 years ago, and revisionism trying to muddy what is clear has no place here. Certainly home prayer meetings were a feature of Faith Mission (though they weren't a substitute for denominational church attendance), but that doesn't mean that Irvine didn't originate the system of home meetings that continues in the CC's today. And there were certainly preachers who were similar to the CC ministry prior to Irvine, But that doesn't mean that Irvine didn't start the system of ministry that continues in the CC's today. Irvine originated the particular system of ministry and worship with which this article deals. That was acknowledged in the early days (by those in and out of the group), it was later acknowledged by Irvine himself, and it has appeared in the literature ever since. To state otherwise would be an extraordinary, revisionist claim. • Astynax ^talk 17:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RS Jaenen provides an alternative explanation, as I stated. I know of no RS that states explicitly: Irvine is the founder. Even Kropp finds the alternative origin statement proposed by myself and others to be acceptable. If Melton explicitly states "Irvine is the founder", the way you cited it, I will concede this one. RSuser (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When do we revert to what was there before? That's 4 major errors just in the introduction. Since when did wiki accept articles written by one author doing OR?RSuser (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's you making unsupported claims. • Astynax ^talk 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that you like to impute motives to my suggested changes. I just want the article to be accurate. I have no vested interest in believing or not believing Irvine started this movement. But I think the writing should accurately reflect what he did. A big problem is what I would call "drawing conclusions", which some of your writing tends to do. Just state the facts and let the reader draw the conclusions.RSuser (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out where you and nemoman are coming from. One problem is that you're using mainstream church terminology and thinking in describing the movement. You can't describe always describe this in terms like that.RSuser (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you and nemoman have decided no one else is allowed to make edits here! You keep reversing my improvements.RSuser (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you astynax for stepping up to the plate and defending your assertions, and providing an opportunity for me to state my views on the subject. It would appear that we are stalemated at this point, so perhaps we can obtain some impartial input. My primary concern is with some of the summary conclusions and statements which you are making. The quality of research and writing in general, I have to admit is very good.RSuser (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Terms

Church versus movement. The movement never refers to itself as the "church" or a "church". The reason I believe is that the church refers to the collected body of all believers in Christ back to the time of Christ. This article is about one movement of people within the church. The word denomination is also not used.

This raises a question about how terms should be used. I believe it best to not override plain English, first of all. For example,the group says it is not a religion, but that's a bit of a stretch. However, other word choices, like the word "church" are used in a different way within the movement compared to mainstream theology. In that case, I personally prefer to avoid grafting mainstream Christian terms onto a description of the movement.Slofstra (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is the Category:Christian movements which could be used. Admittedly, if we had RS which called it a "church", we could call it that based on that sourcing. The way that words are used within the group however should not affect the way we refer to things here, unless those usages are themselves notable. It might be possible to perhaps indicate in this article, or perhaps some other one, what the terminology of the group is and how it is different from that of other Christians, but, unless those other pieces of content exist, either as articles or sections of articles, then the article should reflect standard usage, as wikipedia is intended to be read primarily by the greater community, who "think" in those terms, rather than reflect the opinions of the group itself. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is completely absurd and unreasonable to edit this article so that it talks in the language of group members. That is PoV, and it also makes the wording needlessly vague. The average reader will have no idea as to on how this group uses words and phrases. It is perfectly fine to explain that some people within the group do not use words such as "church" or "denomination," but it is entirely another thing to rework the article using their phraseology or avoiding standard terminology to reflect an insider viewpoint. As to "movement": it was such in its early days, but that term doesn't really apply a century later. • Astynax ^talk 18:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a middle ground here. I am all for using 'plain English' and the common meaning of words. However, some words have strong ideological overtones. One of these is 'founder'. When you say "William Irvine is the founder" you have actually entered an ideological debate. Any member of this movement will hear 'this' subtext: You are claiming Jesus Christ is not the founder of our movement. It is heard as provocation. That is why it's better to move to a term that is not so ideologically overloaded, like originator. But I do agree - that we should not defy plainspeaking, and I also agree that members of the movement do re-assign meanings in a POV way. So astynax's concern is well placed, but not in this case. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The other term along this line that is problematic is 'church'. Here is why. There is the whole controversial question of succession from the time of Christ with an array of opinions from apostolic succession to a succession of ideas to no succession. When you say 'the church begins with Irvine', that interferes with the religious notion that God has preserved a true church on the earth and you enter into a debate where the participants argue on and on without having come to terms. It's much more practical to speak here in terms of a movement. Because then we know we are always talking about what Irvine (and others) started as opposed to what Christ started. 'Movement' avoids this ambiguity. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The insistence on using the terms 'church' and 'founder' to speak of these present day events will be instantly seen as provocation by any member of the movement who reads this article. I can tell you that for a fact. RSuser (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So you can call it PC if you will. I think it moves consensus forward to use terms that avoid the ideological debates, which will never be resolved, and can just continue on their own merits. RSuser (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I note, that Melton says "originated".RSuser (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally I will add that the terms 'movement' and 'originator' are NOT terms used within the movement either. They are simply words from the dictionary that avoid issues. The first use of the term 'movement' would be Jaenen. I'm not sure where 'originator' came from but TMB seem to like it based on an unscientific straw poll. So the use of these terms will not advance the movement's POV.RSuser (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version of the Lead which Slofstra had shortened, with minor edits. “Semi-itinerant” is a perfectly valid term, and accurately describes the minister's movements. They are not true itinerants these days (that is one of the things Cooney preached against, and which got him thrown out), and stay in their assigned regions either in rented quarters or moving between members homes within that area. I think further explanation of that might be appropriate in the later section on the ministry, but suffices for the lead-in summary. Similarly, gospel meetings are not regularly scheduled, and thus “occasional” is descriptive (frequent just isn't accurate for all areas, but perhaps a better term would be “irregularly scheduled”?). The various names are there simply because there are several and the CC title isn't the name in Canada, the UK, etc. And the names have been adopted officially, and are used that way by the group's leadership - again, no need to fuzz the wording so that those members who object to any "name" can parse to fit into their viewpoint. • Astynax ^talk 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last comment, "assume good faith".RSuser (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the body of the article as it stands, does not use the word “founder” or “originator,” though it describes that. Again, the use of “founder” is in the info-box, and your concerns with the word used there should be addressed to the Christianity project, who maintain the info-box format. If they are agreeable to use of a different word, then it will appear in the info-box here as well.

The CC's are hardly the only church which makes claims of no founder other than Christ and other historical assertions (e.g., various Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, Christadelphians, Orthodox, etc.). However, those claims in faith do not, and should not, modify an encyclopedia's description of any group's origin, or any other description. And this applies to other groups just as it should here. These matters seem entirely a matter “of controversy” only within such groups, and nowhere else. Once this or that group starts bending things to reflect member tastes and viewpoints, you end up with a collection of bad history and bad articles. There is no need for Wikipedia articles to be inclusive of views accepting Landmark Baptist views tracing their group back to Christ, or Mormon scholarship attempting to suggest lost lost Israelite tribes settled the Americas, etc. Same here.

Editors should be observing, not reflecting, an organization being described. Part of observing would be noting doctrinal matters and views. But a group's views should be treated and noted as matters of faith and doctrine, not substituting self-description for description (which starts looking like Nemonoman's “Members Only” scenario).

“Movement” describes a rapidly evolving, organized effort toward some goal. That describes the first years of this group, but it doesn't describe the current, 100+ year old group which claims to be unchanging and consistent from new testament days.

My reaction to dropping the word “church,” runs along similar lines. This is a term used to describe Christian religious bodies. I'll accept your statement that the word can carry some negative connotations within the group, but members do use the term, even in describing themselves. Whatever connotations they hold would better be addressed in the Terminology section.

It is a slippery slope, is it not? Get rid of the word “church” and then move on to the next word to which members object (e.g., anything that hints of an “organization,” then on to “minister/ministry,” then on to “sermon,” then on to “doctrines,” and soon you have needlessly limited the normal vocabulary available to editors - and all to reflect the usages of the group, rather than to allow the group to be described in terms that readers outside (and, yes, inside) can easily understand. • Astynax ^talk 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what you have declared but failed to demonstrate is that the use of the words 'movement' and 'originator' somehow advance a POV favourable to the group. Could you explain how that occurs through the use of these terms? In my view it does NOT in any way advance the groups religious POV. Whereas I have shown clearly how the use of the terms 'founder' and 'church' advances an anti-religious POV. After all, can you really prove that the church, the true body of believers in Christ, was founded by William Irvine and not by Christ? Can you somehow show that God has not kept and preserved his church all through history? I'm all for leaving discussion of that question OUT of the article as I think you should be.RSuser (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, what I've said is that removing perfectly adequate, descriptive terms from the article to reflect usages of members affects clarity, needlessly. If PoV is a factor, it could certainly be argued that limiting editors to using CC-speak would introduce it. No one expects readers new to the subject, and who have observed what they would term a “church,” to understand the fine point that some members object to some usages of some words such as this. Explain what members mean by those words, and their objection to them, by all means. But it is muddying the waters to limit the terms editors may use.

I'm also saying that “movement” does not describe the present church, although it certainly could be applied to its formative period just prior to WWI. • Astynax ^talk 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

God's promises.

I've deleted this phrase from the Professing section. The phrase is WAY too indistinct, IMO. There must be something more specific somewhere: God's promise of eternal life as expressed in John 3:16 maybe, or something similar? Can we nail this down a little? Is there maybe some sort of formulaic profession, as many traditional denominations have for confirmation, baptism, or profession of faith?--nemonoman (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"to make public declaration of a personal faith" is fine. It is faith in many things, mainly God, his word, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, including all the details that entails. thanks

Jesse Lackman (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Right -- but isn't there some sort of formulaic vow? Or is it just a personally made-up statement, like at some sort of modern write-it-yourself wedding? --nemonoman (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No formally spoken vow, just making a simple indication like standing up or raising a hand during the singing of a hymn. In a way Hymns are like vows aren't they. For me it was a hymn in our hymnbook called "Jesus my Saviour King";

Jesus my Saviour King, I will be Thine!

Only to thee I'll cling- I will be Thine!

Mine not the worldling's gain, mine not his pleasures vain,

Man's honor's I disdain - I will be Thine!

Let others seek their own, I will be Thine!

I'll live for thee alone, I will be thine!

Riches and earthly fame, each mean or selfish aim,

forever I disclaim, I will be Thine!

Whate'er thou wilt I'll do, I will be Thine!

Gladly I'll suffer too, I will be Thine!

Only possess my heart, bid sin and fear depart;

O let us never part! I will be Thine!

Hope that helps.

Jesse Lackman (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the worker asks a question. Something on the order of “If anyone would like to profess in this way, please indicate by standing.” The exact wording may vary from worker to worker, but it isn't just an expression of having personal faith (faith in what? - many people outside would say they have faith in most of those things). Rather an expression of faith along the lines defined within this group. • Astynax ^talk 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You hope that helps? It does not. Holy cow. I may already be a professing CC member.

You may have seen my comment that I am not a Christian, at least not in a traditional sense. I say I'm not a Christian because I have carefully read the faith affirmations of most major denominations and do not believe that I can honestly profess before god and man to believe them all.

Billy Graham's "stand up and come forward" was for accepting Jesus as one's peronal savior. You made by standing a statement of commitment and faith, and it was pretty clear what you were committing to. Rather an expression of faith along the lines defined within this group. Sounds nice, sort of. But the article is pretty vague about the faith of the group. Clear on history, clear on practice. What they believe -- other than the method of ministry and meeting -- that's sort of ultra-vague.

When you raise your hand and say I do, there's typically something you say I do about. Do we really mean to say "professing a belief in whatever"? If that's the actually situation, let's say so. But for pete's sake it seems bloody unlikely. --nemonoman (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fortt book gives this definition...

To profess means that one has indicated willingess to “walk in The Way” publicly (to “take one's stand,” or to “make one's choice”). This is usually done in the final meeting of a set of Gospel meetings, or Convention meeting. It means that the candidate has decided to become a member of the Two-by-Two church, and to abide by its regulations, both spoken and unspoken. The invitation process goes something like this: “If anyone has been feeling God speaking to his heart in these meetings, we invite you to indicate your willingness to follow Jesus by standing to your feet as we sing the last version of hymn number 100 ['Just as I am,' or another hymn]. Just stand and remain standing while we close in prayer.” The process is called “testing the meeting” by the workers. Contrast this with the invitation issued by other church groups (goes on to give various examples from other groups)...

I've heard and read variations on that invitation, the major difference being an invititation to “follow Jesus in this way” so it probably varies from place to place. I'm not sure that that is much more illuminating. • Astynax ^talk 22:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

and to abide by its regulations, both spoken and unspoken. OK. I guess. --nemonoman (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC) PS. I'm putting this in: please help by supplying the ref.

I'm not sure “regulations” is a good term, since it carries a hint that something's out there in writing (which members deny). I'd suggest perhaps rewording to something like “conform to its standards” would be a better reflection? • Astynax ^talk 23:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I really don't know where to begin with you two! I don't mean any disrespect. I suppose you want to understand everything based on a wikipedia article, but it's not possible. My suggestion is to not dig too deep and just describe superficially what happens. That is: the meeting is 'tested' in the manner Jesse describes. If you wish to make your choice in the meeting and go get drunk the next day, you can do so. No one will stop you. It's not what anyone would want you to do, of course, but there are no explicit regulations. I suppose when you take that step you've indicated that you wish to embark on a personal journey to live out Christ in your life and to be led by the Spirit. Skeptics generally have a different explanation of the process involved - I've seen everything from cult pressure to social pressure offered as an explanation. The ideal of workers and friends - and often preached - is not to exert social pressure and let the Spirit lead. But there are various perceptions on what is actually taking place; ask ex-worker Brad Lewis [4].RSuser (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My surprise at this information is not that there's a commitment opportunity, or that members freely commit, but that the commitment is sort of intuited and not explicit. I like mine in writing, or at least a tape recorder. --nemonoman (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For improved understanding

I think the word professing confused me, as this suggests (to me) a verbalization of a statement of faith). Now I'm starting to think that professing is more of a commitment to a way of life -- and as with many signup commitments, there specifics of that commitment are intentionally and reasonably sort of vague. No one knows precisely what lies ahead when signing up for a marriage or for the army. One might have an idea, but the specifics of the relationship can not be entirely known at the time the commitment is made.

At the risk of being slammed, I found something that helped me understand professing better, even though it comes from a book that can easily be characterized as "anti-" by members, and will like be so characterized.

Christian Truth and Religious Delusions 1941 By Casper B. Nervig [5]

If the book isn't anti enough, Nervig quotes from a pamphlet "Cooneyites or Go-Preachers published by Loizeaux Brothers in New York."

Nevertheless his information was very helpful to me in understanding the nature of "The Way" and the profession of members.

"I don't believe in Creeds!"...Other expressions of this idea are familiar. "Why must we have all of these man-made creeds?" "The Bible is creed enough for me." We want deeds, not creeds." "No creed but Christ." Such statements are often made with sincere intentions of emphasizing Christ and the Bible....(Nervig, p.134)

(note: page numbers quoted here are from the pamphlet being quoted by Nervig):

THe way of salvation preached by the Two-by-Twos is one of works alone..."They do not preach redemptions by blood, but instead preach the 'Jesus Way', or to put it in simple language...[the] task of following Jesus....[S]inners are saved by imitiating the life of Jesus as a man here on earth...They assert that the Lord Jesus did not finish the work when here...-that He only began to do and to teach. Man, therefore, according to them, has to complete his own salvation, which consists of following the 'Jesus way,' or in other words, it it is the imitation of the life of Christ here on earth..."(p. 9). "...With them the new birth is...turning from the 'wrong way' to the 'Jesus way'..."(p.11) (above from Nervig, p. 133).

By the way, my editor colleagues who happen to be members of this group should feel that they are in good company. Nervig lumps them in with Catholics, the Eastern rite churches, Pentacostals, Mormons, Christian Scientists, the Reformed Church, and a bunch of others. Lutherans, apparently own the Truth, according to Nervig...or at least some of them. Like the joke says: "Well there's nobody right but me and thee, and I'm not too sure about thee."--nemonoman (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The word “profess” is used frequently among members, and is something that jumps out to outsiders as a characteristic term. It is more than just having faith and more than just a desire to join the group, but more something along the lines suggested in the quote I gave - some silent, public indication of belief in “the way” and “willingness” (another term I've heard frequently) to conform to it. As you said, sort of like marriage, I doubt that many people, after sitting in a series of gospel meetings, have a complete idea of “the way” or what it fully means to “profess.”

I understand that it can be highly irritating for someone outside a group to have others defining what, to them, is undefinable. Most groups choose to publish their own stories to give their version of their beliefs and practices. That is the responsibility of individual churches, not Wikipedia's job, despite that this is one of those groups which has so far not done so. That doesn't mean that information is not out there, but rather that we glean it from existing sources. Any description of a non-creedal group is going to be resisted and/or disclaimed as incomplete or inaccurate by members (acceptance of a description would start to look like, well, a creed), but nevertheless, such groups are described on Wikipedia and elsewhere. • Astynax ^talk 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's a minefield. Personally I think the solution for an encyclopedia is to stick to the facts, and avoid trying to define the religion back to its adherents. If a member disputes what is said or how it is said means that you should seriously consider deleting the point. It's not the job of the encyclopedia to solve religious and doctrinal controversies. RSuser (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If a member disputes what is said or how it is said means that you should seriously consider deleting the point. You can not be serious. Consider the implications of what you just said: How do prevent a 0-line article, or a free for all from any anonymous IP that claims to be a member with an opinion. It's clear that variations exist between groups and individual members. I invite you to look into Muhammad, particularly the LENGTHY discussion on including images, and see how very sensitive religious disputes have been handled in that case. Hint: Wikipedia policy is that it respects but does not necessarily conform to the dictates of a religious group. I'm assuming a similar policy would be followed here. --nemonoman (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The context here is when wikipedia transgresses into purely ideology and religious belief. Non-falsifiable, untestable premises. That is clear IF YOU READ PROPERLY.RSuser (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is www.workersect.org a self-published site?

Since the article makes many references to [6] and its publications [7], could we get an idea as to whether this is a self-published site or not? Are its publications considered self-published? RSuser (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Here is a typical example of what they publish: [8] RSuser (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So. There's opinions on the site. So? Lots of sites mix fact and opinions. Look at the New York Times.com Look at whitehouse.gov. I'm not sure that any element of this article cites those opinions as a bais of facts, however. If you see some such instances and don't want to correct them yourself, tell me. I'll correct them. But the site does provide a relatively straightforward intro to the group for someone (me) who had never heard of it. I fancy I'm smart enough to tell the difference between items being presented as fun facts to know and tell and theological arguments about the validity of the group's message. I don't think this article quotes arguments pro and con. If a reference in the article is to a specific mistake or lie, however, it should be removed, no question.

As to whether it's selfpublished: you're one saying that the members never publish anything. So it's either these crappy references, filtered as best we can filter them, or no references at all, at which point I and other editors will simply remove most of the information in this article. Maybe even mark it as a candidate for deletion. There must be some sort verifiable outside source: even crappy outside sources will do if that's all there is. --nemonoman (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a tacit admission in your comments that RIS is indeed a self-published source. And that some of the sources used in the article are not reliable sources, since SPS are not generally reliable sources (WP:SPS). Your premise seems to be to use whatever sources are available in the absence of proper reliable sources. If that's how this is going to work, let me know, and we'll proceed on that basis. You editors have already refused to admit anything that is not cited, period, and that, apparently, is why the entire previous article was blanked. I can live with that. So are we now at the point that any citation will do? Surely that can't be correct. Isn't it true that no information is better than mis-information since the latter hurts wikipedia's reputation as a credible source? On another point, the movement (workers and elders) never publishes anything, that is correct.RSuser (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to delete the article. There are a few legitimate RS and perhaps that is all that should be used. Here is one: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSuser (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid ending up with anything like that article! Very scant useful information, at most. And, had I not already come across the names of both “Assemblies of Christians” and “Two by Twos,” I would have suspected it described some other group - and I've encountered others which a reader might think fit that vague description. No use of the group's terminology, and the substituting of terms that CC members I know would never use and would flat out deny described them (sacrament, retreats, eucharist, bishop, presbyter, “"apostles' doctrine and fellowship,” orthodox, etc.). Utterly confusing. And surprising written by a member, who must have more and better information, and decided to write something else. • Astynax ^talk 06:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting how different writers come out so far apart. RSuser (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More interesting that the Canadian Encyclopedia article seems to obscure rather than shed any light on the subject. Like I said, I can think of other groups to which almost all of that could be applied. Perhaps it was an editor's fault, though I wouldn't expect it to bear an author's name had he not approved. • Astynax ^talk 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Canadian Encyclopedia is an august and long standing publication. The article would have been edited and vetted by its staff. You're entitled to your opinion though.RSuser (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are the self-published source guidelines. I think this article mostly conforms, and if there are non-conforming items, it should not be too hard to bring them into line.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves - inserted RSuser (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Help? did I miss something? What is RIS? as in RIS is indeed a self-published source I don't get it? --nemonoman (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's refering to the publisher of A Search for the Truth and Reinventing the Truth, books cited in the article. • Astynax ^talk 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope I can help here Nemoman. You copied in the wrong policy, and missed the policy title. Read the title carefully. The actual policy is the first paragraph here WP:SPS. Basically you cannot use SPS. The policy says "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". Regarding RIS. I provided three links in the opening statement. You can see that the article is largely compiled from this self-published site (RIS), and that many of the citations in the article refer to books published by RIS. RSuser (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Self-published sources. Au contraire RSuser, I copied the EXACTLY CORRECT items relevant to this article.

RIS. Self-published is typically meant to describe a sort of iBook or Vanity Press situation where someone's book as little value to commercial publishers, and the author is forced to self-publish. Websites are now the Quick and Dirty way to publish one's own stuff. My take is that where the publisher is not the author or a straight-up vanity press, even where the publisher has an agenda, that the books it publishes cannot be described as self-published. Doubtful, maybe, worthless, maybe, slanted or prejudiced or anti, maybe. Just not Self-published. --nemonoman (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore: only one RIS book is cited ("Daniel Search for the truth") in 11 out of 72 references. --nemonoman (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I wonder if we can limit the discussion to whether RIS is self-published or not, before looking at article implications? RSuser (talk)

Please, please, nemoman. Read the title of the policy which you copied and tell me in your own words what that means. WP:SELFPUB is irrelevant. The policy you want is WP:SPS. RSuser (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re RIS:Since they publish (at least) 2 books by different authors, one can easily make a prima facie case that RIS is a publisher, and the books are not self-published. If you want to say the books suck for one reason or another, I think you'd have a better shot with that argument.

Re what I quoted. I quoted WHEN self-published sources MAY BE USED. So I quoted the right part. Guideline is that self-published is not best source, or even a good source, but that they MAY be used under guidelines I quoted. I suggest that in the case of this article those 'may be used' guidelines are being followed for the most part.--nemonoman (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

MOre re RIS. I've just looked at their website. They publish books by at least 5 different authors. Ergo, prima facie case is: they're a publisher. They clearly have a focus on the CC. A publisher with a focus is still a publisher: Sierra Club, Shambala, American Enterprise Institute. These all have a focus and/or agenda. I think you'll do better promoting individual books as biased or unreliable than to suggest that these works are self-published. That argument's an uphill climb. --nemonoman (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:SELFPUB is wrong. It applies ONLY when a source is used as information about itself. For example, if we wrote an article about RIS and used RIS as a source, then this guideline would apply. It clearly does NOT apply here. The correct guideline is WP:SPSRSuser (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re - RIS. Well, I'm only asking. Note the question mark in the topic title. I understand your POV. I'm not sure if you're correct though. It sure ain't the Sierra Club. How do we find out?RSuser (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nemoman, I'm pleased I found this. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#One topic publishing house acceptable as RS? It may help us; feel free to add your comments. RSuser (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made a good move by doing this, and I'll wait for other opinions. I'm not smart about the matter. I've told you how it looks on its face to me. But I'll value the opinions of editors who have looked into RS and given such matters some thought.--nemonoman (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat. That's why the request. RSuser (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian and antitrinitarian cats

According to the Nontrinitarianism article, these are groups that reject as non-scriptural, wholly or partly, the doctrine of the Trinity—the doctrine that the God of the Bible is three distinct persons in one being, and that these three persons are eternal and equal in nature, authority, and knowledge. While I'm comfortable that the CCers appear not to wholly align themselves with the doctrine of the Trinity, do they reject it? If so, do they reject it as non-scriptural? Further the article states: All nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity... was not Trinitarian.. Is this what CCers espouse? I'm not debating that they don't accept the usual definition of the Trinity: just questioning if the specifics of this Nontrinitarianism article reflect the CC view. I'm a stickler for details in these sorts of categorizations. --nemonoman (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is really difficult to make a statement at all about CC on the topic of Trinitarianism/non-Trinitarianism, let alone verify it. I think that readers of the article deserve to know the ministry does not preach the Trinity, per se, and also that they do accept Jesus as the son of God. Beyond that it gets dicey. I'm also conscious that some members of the anti-cult movement are pretty busy labelling who they do and don't like based on their position on the Trinity doctrine. A quagmire best avoided. RSuser (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless references can be cited that support the rather specific definitions of the Nontrinitarianism article, I'm for removing the category. I'm aware that unscrupulous editors will sometimes use categorization as a backdoor way of supporting a Point of View, even when the article has been worked over to make it as neutral as possible. I don't believe this is the case here, but as I say I watch the categorization of my watchlist articles pretty intently, as many on my watchlist fall prey to this exploit. --nemonoman (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts;

Christology; "Since the group's inception, it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity." "Though they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they have a unitarian view of Christ."

The common foot note is from a letter written to the editor of a Newspaper in 1907 - that's over 100 years ago! Why would a letter to the editor 100 years old be more valid than the Trinity Poll post on TMB? [10]

The statements "Since the group's inception, it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity." "Though they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they have a unitarian view of Christ." and their common footnote illustrate once again the importance of the quality and objectivity of sources referenced and how source flavor can affect the objectivity of the article itself. Such references can be used exactly as you say "a backdoor way of supporting a Point of View" This article lists this fellowship to have 150,000 - 600,000 members - hey - that means there are 150,000 - 600,000 sources more current and just as valid as a 100 year old letter to the editor. (Surely this is where an independant, objective, researcher like Mr Irvine Gray [11] could play a vital role.) What RSuser describes as "labelling who they do and don't like based on their position on the Trinity doctrine" is often what happens, and not just about The Trinity - it's often subtle but still true. It's always amazing to me to see how many people pretend to know better what we think than we do! That seems to be the direction "research" is headed now days - sacrifice objectivity on the altar of subjective and emotional opinion. Sad. Here's a classic example illustrated by a post by "daybreak" on the TLT discussion board;

Aug 1, 2008, 12:08pm, Daybreak wrote: "A co-worker in my office pointed me here...he had found the site after a comment I made during a brief discussion with him about my beliefs. He mentioned that as he read, he wondered what in the world I'd gotten myself into. But the more he read, and reflected on what he knew of me, the less he could take the writings seriously. There's an obvious mismatch between what is said about the Truth and what he knows from observing my life."[12]

Daybreak's co-worker saw the disconnect between what's implied on the TLT site and reality. See how it works? I'm not saying there's nothing on sites like TLT that's true, but that sources like that, RIS, etc. often have an undeniable flavor and should be referenced with care so the objectivity of the article referencing them cannot be called into question.

Now, getting back to the trinity discussion, let's look at the current Luthern version of The Nicene Creed[13];

The only lines I would personally question are; "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God," to me they are like Bush Sr's "thousand points of light" statement, I simply don't grasp what they are supposed to mean, they are vague and ambiguous just like reality of statements like "God the Son" and "Jesus is God". What I can grasp is, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." That's God speaking about his son Jesus and as the Nicene Creed says; "for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man ..." In other words what I'm saying is I can see nearly all of the words of this creed in the Bible, I've heard friends and workers speak about the exact same ideas many times. A fair statement in the article would be based on this reality; it would not say or imply we are anti or non trinitarian. That is simply not the truth - no matter how far some try to stretch that strawman. What is the CC article about, what we in the fellowship actually think, or about what everyone else thinks we think? Are others a better authority on us than we are? If so why?

I think references to trinity beliefs should be struck from the article - if people are curious about what we believe they should come and see for themselves. We are easy to find - just ask!

It's just little details like this that bother me. Another one is ... well this is enough for now.

>smile!<

Jesse Lackman (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place for inviting potential members to visit a meeting and find out more. It's an encyclopedia designed to condense and distribute knowledge. In fact there are multiple sources describing the group as rejecting the concept of the Trinity, and not all anti, and I haven't even looked very hard. The only item is question as far as I'm concerned is whether or not this rejection conforms to the specifics of the Nontrinitarianism article, and the only reason that's a question is the attempt to insert the article into that category.

I think you might also consider, jesselackman, that although you seem to have accepted the Way based on your personal experience, without too much concern for its specifics, it's pretty clear that the early preachers of this group did some serious and specific thinking about what elements of Christianity they believed were righteous and which they believed were not, and preached to inform and guide others based on that thinking. It is not wrong to try to understand and present that effort, and the efforts of subsequent workers, in a way that is objective and understandable to persons who may never get anywhere near an actual meeting. --nemonoman (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that Melton has described the CC's (he calls them Two by Twos, as do many others without a trace of sarcasm) at least a couple of times as embodying many early Christadelphian (i.e., unitarian rather than trinitarian) characteristics in this and other regards, and since Christadelphians are listed in the Nontrinitarian Wikipedia article, then that would probably be the best fit.

That said, CC's, like Christadelphians, do believe that Jesus was God's son. One area in which they depart from trinitarians would be that they do not hold Jesus as God incarnate, again, similar to the view of Christadelphians and other nontrinitarian groups. There are evidently individual members who hold to other views, though I've never encountered one in person over many decades (on second thought, I have encountered a few who left or were tossed out due to holding trinitarian beliefs, though I only found that out later). • Astynax ^talk 06:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK fine, they're not Trinitarian. No problemo. No argument, as stated earlier. That's not what the question is in my view. The more I look into this, the more it seems that this group's theology isn't exactly honed to a razor's edge. I mean no disrespect, as I am more aware now than before of the "Deeds not creeds" approach, which I find rather refreshing and appealing. That said, trying to fit this largish square peg into a narrow round hole seems questionable to me. The specificity of the Nontrinitarianism category specifically:

• reject as non-scriptural, wholly or partly, the doctrine of the Trinity {emphasis mine}
• All nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity... was not Trinitarian {emphasis mine}

Pinning down this group's current doctrines to this level of granularity seems to me to be a stretch. From what I can tell, the "Early Workers" had a doctrine, or at least had specific doctrines that they rejected, and one can find reasonable evidence of those beliefs. It just doesn't look to me that CURRENT doctrine, whatever the hell it happens to be, gets to granularity of Nontrinitarianism. --nemonoman (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman, thanks! You are getting a feel for the *real* reality which you never would have got with the cited sources alone. One reason there's no written down doctrine (except hymns) is that we have faith in God's promise that he will write his doctrine on the hearts and minds of men and women. Isn't it interesting that Jesus never wrote down doctrine ... and often commented on the state of man's faith? Is writing doctrine on the hearts and minds of men and women an impossibility for God? Of course not. When God does that the result will be unity and harmony, God will not write a different doctrine on your heart than on mine - that would be confusion - God is not the author of confusion - man is. The result of this harmony is the observable reality we can go to a Sunday meeting many places in the world and enjoy the same Spirit led fellowship we enjoy on our home meeting. One of our workers recently mentioned, "we cannot expect others to live our convictions." That's the balance, we are a peaceful "live and let live" group of people (my opinion based on real life) which is probably one of the reasons there is so little written about us.

One more thing, I do read and take to heart what you write even if I don't comment on it. I know what others have said and written about our group and it's "doctrines" but think my real life experience trumps what *others* think and say my real life experience is. Some of what's written about us looks a lot like Don Quixote's imagining windmills to be giants, I think even Astynax, having read the books, seen the web sites would agree.

Jesse Lackman (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Melton is indicating both when he equates the current group's views with early Christadelphians, who reject both the trinitarian doctrine and argue that this was a doctrine introduced much later. One of the arguments I've heard made by CC's was that the trinity is “not found in the Bible” or is a later “Catholic doctrine.” There is a letter here (fourth paragraph from the bottom) which seems to echo something similar. It fits into the view that they are a continuation of the original church of New Testament times. I'll go dig out Melton's encyclopedia article to see if he goes into more detail. • Astynax ^talk 16:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for indulging me with further research. Please forgive my nitpicky sensitivity to mis-categorization in Wikipedia. --nemonoman (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the arguments I've heard made by CC's was that the trinity is “not found in the Bible” or is a later “Catholic doctrine.”

That's not an argument, that is a fact. Trinitarianism#Formulation_of_the_doctrine RSuser (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't arguing for or against trinitarianism. Just observing what what I've heard seemed to fit the nontrinitarian definition, which is what Melton has stated, and that seems to flow with the group's claim to be a continuation of the church from new testament times. There are certainly other churches who hold nontrinitarian outlooks of one form or another. Just one more. • Astynax ^talk 01:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that Melton has described the CC's (he calls them Two by Twos, as do many others without a trace of sarcasm) at least a couple of times as embodying many early Christadelphian (i.e., unitarian rather than trinitarian) characteristics in this and other regards, and since Christadelphians are listed in the Nontrinitarian Wikipedia article, then that would probably be the best fit.

I object to the approach being taken here. If you wish to say that the group is anti-Trinitarian, then IMO you should find a reliable, NPOV source that works this out, provides the pros and cons and supports the thesis. It's not enough to find a couple of sermon and Faith Mission newsletter quotes about Jesus and infer the group is anti-Trinitarian. Then you're just adding your own opinion to the article. If your cite is an SPS, then you're adding their opinion. This is a very controversial topic, and controversial conclusions require impeccable sources (it's in WP:RS). RSuser (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The big issue I have personally is that the Trinity philosophy is very reductionist and takes away from the ineffability of the Godhead. I don't disagree with the theory, per se. (Of course, I've argued this with Trinitarians who say the explanation adds to the ineffability.  :))RSuser (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Astynax: you have convinced me that the categorization is correct. --nemonoman (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RSUser, I wouldn't dream of proposing basing this on or citing sermon notes or newsletters, and there are certainly other sources which will be added once I have time to gather them together. I've been running errands all afternoon. My copy of Melton doesn't go into more detail as to what his definition of nontrinitarian consists, so I just have his equating it with the view held by Christadelphians. but next time I drive by the local university library I'll check there (they have the current edition). I need to stop by there sometime anyway. While shuffling through the paper hills and valleys next to my computer, I did come across some other sources new to the article which apply to other portions - will be glad when all that can be shoved back into its drawer (could be something important under there). • Astynax ^talk 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Melton on Trinitarianism

The following comment is to be found on page 428 of Gordon Melton's The Encyclopedia of American Religions, 2nd edition: "Critics, primarily former members, have published excerpts of sermons of leading preachers which indicate that a unitarian theology which denies the Trinity and emphasizes the role of Jesus and human example is a prominent perspective and that further doctrinal variation from evangelical belief is present." Gordon Melton is arguably one of, if not the, most reliable sources in the field. I would have to say that a statement in the article effectively repeating the points made by Melton would have to be counted as being reliable. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement as presented is undeniable. The question is whether we are categorized as anti- or non- Trinitarianist. I can't agree with anti-, although if non- simply means the Trinity doctrine is not preached in its fullness, then we are non-Trinitarian. I notice the non-Trinitarianism article equates the two, non- and anti-. That can't be correct.RSuser (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

More on Trinitarianism

When I go here: [14], I get a statement ("not adhering to the Trinity doctrine") quite at odds with the main article on Nontrinitarianism. The latter states "rejects" the Trinity doctrine. To "not adhere" and to "reject" may seem a subtle difference, but they are quite different. The former includes those who say "do not know", which is a rough approximation of the preaching I have heard. So by one definition we are non-Trinitarian, and the other we are not.RSuser (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be primarily about the existing content of the Nontrinitarianism article rather than necessarily with the categorization. There is an extant Unitarianism article, but that seems to deal specifically with Christian groups which are explicitly Unitarian. Personally, I would leave a message on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page and request that the phrasing be changed there. One thing that is true is that, in several cases, categories are created and then later used for additional purposes beyond those which were anticipated in advance because of no other category in which to put them. I assume the possibility of Trinitarian agnostics is one of the reason the phrasing was added to the category page. Categories generally aren't treated quite the same way as regular article content, partially because of that effort made by several to "shoehorn" in articles which don't fit anywhere else. Personally, I think the naming the Category:Antitrinitarianism is itself objectionable, and it would be possible to bring it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to suggest renaming it, possibly to Category:Christian Unitarianism. I'm personally going through all the clearly Christianity related categories now to eventually address that same issue in a lot of other areas. If there are enough articles about groups which are trinitarian agnostics, for lack of a better word, there would probably be no objection to creating such a category, but at this point I don't know one way or another. That's one of the things I hope to address when I finish the listing of categories, which is really just to see which categories are themselves miscategorized or insufficiently categorized and, yeah, which could reasonably be split. It's going to take a while to even just go through all the extant categories, though. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:Your argument seems to be primarily about the existing content of the Nontrinitarianism article rather than necessarily with the categorization.. I started this topic precisely for this reason. The category specifically refers you the article, and the article is rather precise and ham-handed about a specific set of beliefs that constitute Nontrinitarianism. It's pretty clear the CC doesn't particularly have a trinitarian bent -- but the inherent POV of the "Antitrinitarianism" category, and the high specificity of Nontrinitarianism as currently constituted in this category by this article certainly gave me pause. I have seen editors try to shoehorn topics to fit their agendas by using categories, and then later to use categories as backup for summary edits. So I'm sensitive. If the Category continues to say Nontrinitarianism as defined by this article -- THAT'S the language by which the case must be judged. Change the Category language, or the Article language to allow for a broader definition of Nontrinitarianism and CC fits right in, however. --nemonoman (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RSuser coments on Reliable Sources

Could I add an extended thought or two on this? I'm doing this because I sense you're not grasping 'blueboar's concept. I can relate to the idea of 'editorial scrutiny' through my experience in academic writing. Forgive me if I sound patronizing. The best sources you can find are -arguably- peer-reviewed academic journals where the ideas have been tested without partiality to a particular point of view. Next down are published books, periodicals from reputable publishers. The arm's length test means that ostensibly the material has been published with greater regard for accuracy and truth than for pushing the writer's viewpoint. If that arm's length relationship is missing, then we're into the realm of advocacy. This means that hypotheses are proposed without considering all sides of the argument. If you allow these kinds of hypotheses into articles as 'fact', you're polluting wiki.RSuser (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Further, allowing SPS sources in will create edit wars and endless discussions. I can see it happening now with the Christian Conventions article. RIS is an anti- Christian Convention advocacy group, and citing from their web site and SPS books is going to take much time to vet and weed out. We who are in the group can see the bias immediately. It's going to take time to explain the kind and source of bias to other editors such as nemoman. Do you have time for this? I've taken just the first paragraph as an example, and we have several thousand words of Talk!! Better to not let the cat into the pantry in the first place. RSuser (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You write: The arm's length test means that ostensibly the material has been published with greater regard for accuracy and truth than for pushing the writer's viewpoint.

Wherever did you get the idea that a publisher was with going to assert a regard for accuracy and truth? What rock have you been sitting under? The bias of publishers is so well-known that there are Jay Leno makes jokes about it and 8 million people laugh.

You write: If that arm's length relationship is missing, then we're into the realm of advocacy. This means that hypotheses are proposed without considering all sides of the argument.

Wherever did you get the idea that reliable sources are free of advocacy, or that they consider all sides of an argument? What in the world? Name 10 publishers that achieve this lofty ideal.

You write: We who are in the group can see the bias immediately. I'd prefer editors on this topic to write and not cite at all, than to cite poor quality sources. It's going to take time to explain the kind and source of bias to other editors such as nemoman. In fact, I have suggested in the past that we leave uncited material in the article, as long as the material is NPOV and non-controversial.

So long is it is YOUR uncited material and as long as YOU believe it to be NPOV and noncontroversial.

In other words -- once again: Members only please. Scholarship be damned. Research be damned.

RSuser: One more question: How am I to know that you are in the group. How do I know that your information is correct. What Reliable Source are you prepared to present as a credential of your bona fides.

Because -- hear me -- if membership is your criteria, if membership trumps all, then trust me, I'll put together a sockpuppet "member" so fast it will make your head spin clean off. I'll create many uncontroversial and NPOV edits to this article, feeling free because I am a member. After all all it takes to prove membership in THIS particular group is to say so. So I won't even feel all that hypocritical. And at every revert you'll make, I'll accuse YOU of bias, and point out that it was YOU who said: leave uncited material in the article.

And then we'll see together what happens to the content of this article.

Just try me.--nemonoman (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never said 'members only' and I never originated one word of this article, before or after. So I don't know what you mean about 'my' information.RSuser (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to address this in the RS noticeboard with editors knowledgeable on the subject. I'm not sure why you wanted to copy from there to here.RSuser (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do what you like and how you like. I've had it.

• We who are in the group can see the bias immediately'

that's members only.

I have had it with you. I have had it with trying to accommodate and attempting to find common ground. I've compromised cajoled and bent. I'm through.

Here's the New Nemo: You don't like something that has a reference or citation? Find a better one. End of story. --nemonoman (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See my comments in the RS noticeboard.

Let me explain that comment. A pro- reader sees the anti- bias, and an anti-reader sees the pro- bias. That's all I meant.RSuser (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

...And the intelligent reader sees -- ahh, skip it. --nemonoman (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're going to say, but that is not 'quite' correct. An 'informed' and intelligent reader can see either pro- or anti- bias regardless of his own bias. But he's or she is still slower on the draw on his own bias. Now don't take the following negatively. You are not 'informed' about this group. How can you make POV decisions about the writing in this article? RSuser (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never written anything for the article. I'd like to see a much smaller article. I've been concerned with both pro- and anti- POV edits. My comment above is not to be taken as advocating "members only" input. A pro- reader sees the anti- bias, and an anti-reader sees the pro- bias. If anything my bugbear is that the writing from all sides has never been anywhere near an academic or NPOV level. It would take a lot of work to show the anti-POV edits in the article at this point, and I'd rather just remove the badly sourced stuff than argue everything out. Many of the edits are in an ideological context that is not well understood outside the pro- and anti- movement crowd. The non-trinitarianism debate is a good example of how difficult and how long it takes to work out these issues. In many cases editors are trying to do academic work that academics haven't done yet, so I think the best is to leave it aside. Don't say anything.RSuser (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would take a lot of work to show the anti-POV edits in the article at this point. It certainly would indeed because there are damned few. So either make that effort or take the results.

How can you make POV decisions about the writing in this article? The way I do in all my edits: I look for indications that the language is reasonable and that the information is being referenced properly. I pay attention to careful editors who provide references showing differently. I read references and make my own conclusions. Same, apparently as you do, except I'm an idiot, according to you, but you are not: "You are not 'informed' about this group.". Oh, maybe I'm not an idiot. Maybe I'm just not "informed".

This type of logic is troubling and troublesome. I suggest you revise your thinking. --nemonoman (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing:

I've never said 'members only'. RSuser (talk) 5:42 pm, Today (UTC−4)

If a member disputes what is said or how it is said means that you should seriously consider deleting the point. RSuser (talk) 2:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

How am I supposed to take this?

Take it the way I actually said it. If a point is uncited or not cited properly and a member disputes what is said or how it is said means that you should seriously consider deleting the point.RSuser (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's one source cited that's written by a current member, nearly all others are written by non and former members. So the logic could be flipped - is everything cited in the article to be approved by non-members only??

Jesse Lackman (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, perhaps deliberately. No one wants false or biased information in this article. But if the criteria is that Members may insert unreferenced 'facts' or that material should be deleted if a Member disputes what is said or how it is said, then Members have free rein to say and do whatever they wish regardless of the validity of the materials being presented by other editors. And perhaps you think that this would be OK because you are a Member of this group. --nemonoman (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has said anything remotely like that. Too bad you can't fairly capture what we're saying. RSuser (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RSuser: I have quoted you verbatim, so I don't agree with your statement that I'm failing to 'fairly capture' what you and others are saying. Since I have quoted you verbatim, I reject your contention that "No one has said anything remotely like that."

RSuser: You have repeatedly said that Members:

• Understand what non-members do not
• Should be able to insert information without citations or references (if NPOV and noncontroversial)
• Should be given priority on decisions regarding deleting information, if they dispute it for any reason

You continue to ask for the deletions you proposed in the First Paragraph section above. You have made an issue of calling Irvine the founder:

Take also the founder issue. The best minds on this agree that the movement was started (not founded) by William Irvine and others. 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.

At this point, there are at least 10 references for Irvine as founder. Instead of producing any material that would counter these references, you simply suggest that the best minds have reached consensus that he was not. In this case, you appear to be saying that the best minds are the ex-members and members who have discussed on TMB. So even ex-members, apparently, have greater credibility than a scholar with facts.

I am frankly appalled that you transformed your very reasonable request for the RS workgroup to help us rate the validity of RIS and similar single-topic publishers, amd turned that request into yet another forum for complaining that 'members' were not being given special treatment in editing this article.

I am appalled that you are accusing me of bias, of bigotry, and of false representation of your views.

You cannot win this battle here -- What you are suggesting stands the five pillars of Wikipedia on its head. To get your way here, you will need to go to war with the 5 pillars. In such a war, you would have many, many allies. Others also find the 5 pillars to be constricting and unforgiving. A notable example which I again recommend you review is the demand made by literally hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and some extremely intelligent and cogent editors, that Wiki policy be changed to stop the posting of images of Muhhamad in Wiki articles. That was a great and worthy battle. Those who defeated have relented only, not retreated. I suggest you might find allies among them. But until you win THAT battle, this one goes against you.

Until then, consider me 100% opposed to your 'members over reference priority' suggestions. Consider me 100% opposed to removing RS-referenced facts or inserting non-cited information. Consider me Extremely Dubious about your claims of finding bias, original research or Point of View in this article, as YOUR credibility as a Reliable Source has diminished considerably with me over time.

If you wish to regain credibility with your complaints about this article, please as a gesture of good faith provide one or more reliable sources that prove Irvine was not the founder of this group. I won't even insist that the reliable sources you quote pass the smell test you wish to apply to RIS. --nemonoman (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said you have not fairly captured anything I have said. I don't have time to keep straightening out your egregious distortions of the things I'm saying, not to mention your laughable interpretations of, and musings on wiki policies. I'm content to let you think what you think as it would take far too much effort to straighten this out given your limited capacity to use logic. I've said what I've said, and I won't repeat myself. Let the reader decide.RSuser (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

provide one or more reliable sources that prove Irvine was not the founder of this group.

Again, you are clearly out of your depth when you make statements like this.RSuser (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think you can delete a item with 10 supporting references and not provide a single reliable source to support your contrary -- may I say "anti-" -- view, then it is not I who is clearly out of my depth, and it is not I who has a laughable interpretation of Wiki policy. Prove it, or walk away.--nemonoman (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person making the statement. I don't have to prove anything. If the sources hold up, then the statement stays, if they don't, it goes. That's the way it should be done. You can't require people to prove the negation of an assertion.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A statement with 10 supporting references would certainly appear to have met its burden of proof. Absent your knocking down each of those references, or supplying a reference to support your anti- assertion, you really have no business demanding it be deleted. If Irvine is not the founder, and the whole thing is some giant conspiracy, then surely somebody somewhere has documented this. Oh, right, the discussion consensus on TMP. THAT'S the Reliable Source. Right. And that trumps the 10 references because...er...I'm getting a little fuzzy here. How is that supposed to work again? You can't prove a negative...so that's a negative, so asking to prove it is...er...illogical.

Like if I said things don't fall down when you drop them, I wouldn't and couldn't be asked to show a reference for that -- because that would be asking me to prove a negative right? So if somebody in the gravity article says "things fall down", and backs that up with a half dozen references, I could delete it just by saying -- no they don't?

You're the guy who says I have no logic, and it's not even worth trying to help me understand. Boy, I agree. Forget me. Leave me. Explain to Asyntax or Blueboar or somebody. --nemonoman (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When I blanked it there were NO references and there had been some discussion. Even now I question the references that are there. If the reliable secondary sources (I know of only three) say verbatim "Irvine is the founder" then you can say that. I know of two reliable sources that don't say that. I'm not sure of Melton but I will find out. If the source only infers that "Irvine is the founder" then it becomes an issue as to whether the wiki editor is merely paraphrasing the source or developing an argument based on the sources. The latter case is OR and not acceptable. It's very simple to me. So in trying to make edits, I look at the process - it really doesn't matter what you or I think. My motivation to edit may certainly be on what I think, but my argument is based entirely on evaluating sources. I don't pretend to be the academic historian; that's the job of Melton or Jaenen. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's like you trying to determine if the group is anti-Trinitarian. Who cares what you think, and for that matter who cares what I think? We're not expert theologians. Show me a reliable source that shows the group is anti-Trinitarian and we can put it on. Otherwise not. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And personally I don't accept RIS as a reliable source. They are turkeys the same as you and I are. No better. It's a joke to cite these amateurs as reliable sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Like if I said things don't fall down when you drop them, I wouldn't and couldn't be asked to show a reference for that -- because that would be asking me to prove a negative right? So if somebody in the gravity article says "things fall down", and backs that up with a half dozen references, I could delete it just by saying -- no they don't?

The person does not have to prove, as you seem to insist, that things don't fall down. If "things fall down" is backed up, then fine, if not, then remove it. Simple as that.RSuser (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to paraphrasing primary sources for a suitable 'origin' statement its perfectly reasonable to look at what others have come up with. Why repeat all the same discussion here? That discussion was held on TMB with a dozen or more individuals and their paraphrase based on primary sources was not "Irvine was the founder". In my mind that group did come up with an accurate precis of what occurred whereas the "Irvine founder" statement is a contentious and also highly contended thesis.RSuser (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

TMB on the Irvine as founder

My collegial fellow editor RSuser wrote on my contention that the article's correctly states that Irvine was the founder of the CC. He denied the validity of that highly referenced statement by saying: That discussion was held on TMB with a dozen or more individuals and their paraphrase based on primary sources was not "Irvine was the founder". In my mind that group did come up with an accurate precis of what occurred whereas the "Irvine founder" statement is a contentious and also highly contended thesis.

I finally found TMB, I think, which appears to be an acronym for Truth Message Board or Truth Meeting board, and which may be found here.

The founder discussion starts here with a poll in which 11 persons voted and 9 agreed that Irvine was the Originator of the movement (as opposed to Architect, author, creator, Father or inventor of the movement, which names all received 0 votes, or the Entrepreneur or Maker of the movement, which names received 1 vote each). Although the topic of the poll and subsequent messages is "Founder" the term "Founder" was not included as an option on the poll.

This message thread is 20 pages long -- 556 messages. So long in fact that a second thread called Founder part II was started. That thread is 1750+ messages long. More than a dozen is an understatement: 20 unique posters appear on the first two pages of part II.

Even a cursory reading, however, shows that a consensus has not been reached. As late as yesterday this message appeared. It's pretty clear that the same faith-inspired contentiousness evidenced by Members who are editing this article is reflected on TMB as well even now. RSuser is disingenuous to assert that a consensus exists on TMB which should be reflected here even if it contradicts documented facts.--nemonoman (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The thread demonstrates that this is a controversial issue. Controversial issues require highly reliable source to resolve. I haven't seen one so why would wiki state something that is still being argued?

The statement was Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as "the workers" or as "Christian Conventions". A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later. The discussion related to it begins on the Founder part 2 thread, page 13 and goes from post 340 to around post 400. Quite a few posters endorsed it. Of course, the debate about various aspects goes on and not everyone will agree with the statement.RSuser (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversial issues require highly reliable source to resolve. I haven't seen one. What's the old phrase? None are so blind as will not...er...look at footnotes 1-10 of the CC article. I THINK that's how it goes. --nemonoman (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, for Pete's sake, this is OK:William Irvine with a few others started the ministry? but it's not OK to say he founded the ministry? Are you seriously getting to this level of nit? --nemonoman (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not getting to this level of nit. I've been saying this from the very start. This is just a repeat. You're the one making the big issue about it.RSuser (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Read the first paragraph above. All I want is an accurate as possible statement based on the best sources. Incidentally, that poll you saw did not include the founder word because it's purpose was to find the best word that was not "founder". The group likes to say that the founder of their faith and also of THE church is Jesus Christ. That's why all the argument. Because we say Christ is the founder of the church, the anti- sites including astynax like to be provocative, and say, no, Irvine is the founder. But there is no reliable source that says this. RSuser (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you also quite identifying TMB with members of the group? It's an ex-members discussion group. 99.99% of the 100,000 or so members do not go on TMB, and they could care less about TMB or wikipedia. There's just a few of us members on it and on here. RSuser (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a goodly percentage of the active posters claim to be members. But then, I've only read threads which seemed to have something to do with this article. Regardless, I didn't see a consensus there, either. Even if the few people posting in that forum did come to a consensus, I don't see how it would change anything - doesn't speak for the group's leadership, doesn't speak from the ex-member critics, and doesn't generate or change the historical records, although some interesting stuff did get mentioned. • Astynax ^talk 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you also quite identifying TMB with members of the group? RSuser, YOU were the one pointing to TMB. I never heard of it. I just googled it after 3 tries today. YOU were the one who said: That discussion was held on TMB with a dozen or more individuals and their paraphrase based on primary sources was not "Irvine was the founder"....and you said this to indicate to me yet another way that I was 'not informed' about the nature of this group. My frustration level is climbing. You make these assertions about the article and the group, and when I follow them up -- the truth is different than what you say, and when I mention this, you tell me I'm an idiot for finding out. --nemonoman (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RSsuer says: Because we say Christ is the founder of the church, the anti- sites including astynax like to be provocative, and say, no, Irvine is the founder.

1. Asyntax is not a site, anti or pro
2. I see no evidence that Asyntax is trying to be provocative/ What's your basis for saying this?
3. I see no evidence that Asyntax is anti the group. I think you just said this. What's the basis?
4. My thesaurus gives these synonyms: beginner, starter, founder, conceiver, originator. Why is STARTED ok? ORIGNATED ok? And FOUNDED not OK? What's the subtle distinction that makes this word provocative when apparently you will accept STARTED and ORIGINATED as Politically Correct. And if that's all it takes to make you happy in this instance, I'm sure Astynax will bend a bit. --nemonoman (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I think it unnecessarily awkward, using “Originator” as a synonym for “Founder” isn't a big problem with me here. That is, as I've mentioned before, if the Christianity section that maintain the infobox can be persuaded that it is a better word than “founder” (it's their project template, not mine, and it serves a lot of different groups). • Astynax ^talk 07:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the Irvine as founder topic in Archive 2, you will see we already had an identical conversation as we're having now. Here was astynax's response to my suggestion: Regardless of the varying sensitivities within the group, it is unreasonable to expect the average reader to have to tolerate vague, parsed wording in an attempt to soothe certain members who adhere to either an apostolic successionist or restorationist viewpoint This is an example of how 'astynax' is anticipating a certain ideological bent, claims made by the group, which he is trying to thwart with his writing style. Anyone in the group who reads this article can see that. You can't, which is what I was trying to tell you but you got your shirt in a knot about it. Astynax doesn't want the apostolic successionists (who claim the movement goes back to Christ) to gain an inch. The "Irvine is Founder" statement thwarts that claim. However, that particular statement also lacks accuracy. To understand all this you need to know where the ideological battle lines are. Some members would see certain of 'astynax's statements as fightin' words. The more detached of us just see that it's not the best statement to make, because a) it is deliberately provocative, and b) it is not the most accurate statement. (b) is the greater concern. The reason we say "and others" is because there were a number of men who had significant roles in the early movement. Irvine was definitely the first leader as of 1902 or so. The apostolic succession idea was a myth that crept into the movement about 30-40 years ago that has been largely discredited now - thanks to some of the anti- web sites and publications actually. I do resent that he automatically assumes that I'm arguing for the succesionist line of thinking.RSuser (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Now partly we are going in circles because you think you have got reliable sources. I don't think you do. Let's see what the experts say on the RS Noticeboard.RSuser (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is unreasonable to have readers wade through vague terminology. We use terms with which most readers are familiar, and use them according to standard definitions of those terms - not narrow, nuanced definitions as I've seen argued on TMB's founder threads. Otherwise, we end up with an article that says little or nothing of value to the readers who come here for information. Nor is there any need to paper over facts on which the sources agree, and there is no research of which I am aware which contradicts that Irvine was the originator the organization which is the subject of this article. The view from within the group is noted already and, as I've said before, can certainly be expanded. But the insider view is a matter of theology, not history.

As to Jaenen's 2 sources, as a member of the group,[15] I wouldn't expect him to be unbiased, and indeed his book does seem to be documenting a restorationist premise which some segment of members support (i.e., that there is a line back to the new testament, but that it may only be observed here and there along the way). That doesn't make it non-RS in my view. As I've said before, I do have a problem with his encyclopedia article simply because it doesn't clearly say much of anything regarding the group, and my problem with the book you mentioned has more to do with citing it as supporting things which it does not say. • Astynax ^talk 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Founder vs Originator. I do not see how saying that the group had its origin in 1897 is going to improve matters, or that it was started in 1897. Or whatever other verb is suggested.

On the other hand, I NEVER understood why 'colored person' was an insult and 'person of color' was a compliment. But eventually I got the memo, and changed my speech. It mattered to the people it mattered to, and it was only a minor annoyance to please them.

My concern is that RSuser has 'modified' his story about consensus. Apparently a Politically Correct term is NOT generally agreed on. So I can't see that any action to accommodate the language will stop the madness. To use the example above, we could call Irvine a 'person of color' and still ignite a firestorm.

Unless and until there is a clearer indication that there is one and only one acceptable, politically correct term of art to describe his actions, I think the word "founded" should be used, as that's the word most commonly used in similar articles.

Further, now I'm doing my own digging, when the "anti=" Irvine crowd steps in, the basis appears to be:

• It was Irvine plus so-and-so. Somebody said this in a letter a few years later
• Irvine attended a meeting and stole all his ideas from that. Again, this is from some letter somewhere.
• Somebody remembers or remarks on itinerant preachers before 1897
• Then there's the whole back to Year 1 AD or Year 6000 BC argument.

No reliable evidentiary argument can be made for the last item, apparently, but for some this is a matter of faith, and therefore anything said even to suggest a later origin is just gasoline on the fire.

That there were earlier itinerant preachers is a matter of interest, possibly to this article. Not a contradiction of Irvine as founder, and there is no reliable source apparently concluding so.

There appear to be source documents (letters mostly) suggesting that Irvine worked with or was inspired by others who shared similar ideas. And RSusers "consensus" phrasing: William Irvine with a few others started the ministry. The phrase with a few others is apparently a term of art and dog-whistle for some individuals who fill mentally who the others may have been when they hear this statement. But I am very reluctant to include the phrase unless the unnamed others are identified by their roles or actions in the article. And from what I've seen, there is no clear consensus who the 'others' may have been or what role they may have played.

John Carter is a major contriubutor to christianity articles...see here. A few days ago he left this comment addressed to User:Tmtsoj:

You should know that any information to be added to any article has to be able to be sourced to a reliable source as per WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RELIABILITY, and WP:RS. If you cannot provide a source which meets WP:RS standards to support the assertion that the church traces its origins to Jesus directly, then all we have is your own assertion that the information is wrong. As we cannot know beyond any doubt that you yourself are reliably informed on the subject, we would have, basically, an unsubstantiated assertion by you that the information is inaccurate. Such assertions are in no way grounds for any sort of tagging. It is, basically, incumbent on you as the person wishing to change the content to provide other sourcing which supports your contention, then there is no just cause for the tags to remain. I realize that, with the group having no sort of official site or publications, that this is difficult. Unfortunately, by wikipedia policies, that is what is required. On that basis, I would think that the best approach for you at this time would be to find some reliable source from a minister of the group or possibly just one regarding the group. It might be possible to tweak the wording of the statement to make it clear that the group traces its formal history to Irvine, but, at least regarding that point, that would be about all that could be done without some sort of sourcing to the contrary. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think is a reasonable guideline for us to follow in regard to the Irvine as founder question.--nemonoman (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I go back to the point that there are no reliable sources that state that Irvine was the founder. No academic work has been done, just some work on web sites by amateurs. The first problem is that these amateurs have picked on and dug up information on William Irvine, but have ignored the other men and women involved especially Edward Cooney and John Long. RSuser (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The second point is the choice of the word 'founder'. This does not reduce to political correctness. For example, Irvine wrote no book and shows no departure point in teaching or theology. The main concept of a homeless ministry along 'faith lines' has come from John Long. John Long [i]did[/i] write extensively but you have ignored his contribution entirely in your write-up. The other essential point - church meetings in the home - has come from Edward Cooney. Irvine did emerge by 1902 as the first leader in the movement and I concede that point quite readily.RSuser (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we be doing this kind of original research here at wikipedia? RSuser (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The origin statement I have advocated is: Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as "the workers" or as "Christian Conventions". A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later.RSuser (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC) It looks to me that the "wiki as a joke" process has now begun. We reject reliable sources and all play amateur historian and writers.RSuser (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And what is being sought here is a reliable source for the origin statement you advocate. Which so far you have not provided. --nemonoman (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaenen. I provided this at least a week ago.RSuser (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you did not. You took Jaenen's mention of groups of people and extrapolated from that he says Irvine did not found the group, and that they founded it instead. John Long shows Irvine starting the movement, and doesn't claim to have done so himself. At the time Irvine began it, and far from inventing a method of ministry, John Long's own mission activity during that period was as a Methodist coleporteur (IIRC from the discussion on tmb). Nor have I seen one iota of evidence that Cooney started home meetings (he was among the last preaching that everyone should sell all in the newspaper accounts). None of these people invented the concept of a "homeless" ministry or the concept of gatherings in homes as opposed to churches. Irvine did, however, originate this organisation with this ministry and this method of meeting in homes. The secondary RS sources of the period and later back that up. • Astynax ^talk 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote that fairly captures it is this: "John Long, Fred Hughes and William Irvine decided to launch out 'by faith' like the Twelve Apostles. Others joined them including Edward Cooney ..(Jaenen 524)". I've read John Long's journal and my impression was that he never deferred to Irvine. In any case that is an academic debate now, because I don't think Jaenen can trump Melton. Until I heard Melton I sincerely believed this was the best RS quote going. RSuser (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And before we leave this, why did the group come to be called Cooneyites, hmmm? That was a surprise, even appearing in the New York Times.RSuser (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cooney and the home meetings. Check your Jaenen - around 1885 Cooney was having home meetings. RSuser (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, many churches also have various home meetings and/or home bible studies as a matter of course. In 1885, Cooney was a member of the Church of Ireland (Anglican), and would be for another 15 years. He was also employed in his family's business, which entailed travel all around Ireland. During that time he would occasionally preach (often in local churches). What he was doing wasn't anything new, nor was it apart from established churches. Nor does Jaenen noting that Cooney participated in such non-novel meetings constitute him saying that Cooney founded either home meetings (he didn't), or him stating that this somehow negates Irvine's role as founder of this organization. That's reading way too much into what is said there. • Astynax ^talk 23:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with that; I was mainly responding to your comment about "one iota of evidence". I think this would count for at least two iotas on the iota scale.RSuser (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nemoman, how about you read what is ALREADY on these pages before making your wild assertions. For example, you accused me of "lying" about the consensus on TMB. Yet, I posted this a week ago, and provided a link to the material in question. Had you read that you could have read the link yourself and decided what kind of consensus it was. Instead of your big story above about finding TMB and how I am misleading everyone.RSuser (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You also are asking me to discuss content, and yet I defended the minor edits above in the section "First Paragraph". I know you have said you had trouble following it, but maybe more effort is warranted along that line, so that I don't have to keep doing work on your continuous string of faux pas.RSuser (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To quote J. Gordon Melton, on page 428 of The Encyclopedia of American Religions, 2nd edition, "The Two-by-Twos originated with William Irvine ...". I have to say that given that gentleman's almost unimpeachable credentials, and the fact that no other party is named as a "co-founder", although Cooney is mentioned as having later "joined him", that it is reasonable to list Irvine as the founder. Granted, it isn't the word the source itself uses, although there is, frankly, little difference between the two. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have been looking this past week for a copy of Melton without success. If he states it I will accept it. We should double check the 5th edition though in case he has changed his view since the 2nd, although unlikely. (Not having a copy of Melton, I agreed to this conditionally a day or two ago, so I will be good to my word.)RSuser (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest dropping the SPS sources for the Irvine as founder quote, and just use Melton.RSuser (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And based upon my reading of Melton's article, that would leave this article about a third its size, and eliminate most of the descriptive references that others have put in, and with which you have no problem, because Melton either does not go into describing those or because a great deal of unwanted (by Wikipedia) editor synthesis would be required. • Astynax ^talk 16:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry! I'm not suggesting that at all. What I meant is to reduce the 10 citations on the 'Founder: Irvine' sentence ONLY down to one or two strong ones. If you don't agree I can give more reasons. I have no problem using SPS for straight facts and especially where there are primary sources in evidence. See below also. Secret Sect also considered RS as per Carter's argument below although to be used cautiously. RSuser (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis on SPS

I think what I obtained from the RS noticeboard is that RIS and other anti- or SPS sites can be used to cite simple facts but not controversial issues. I would add my own thoughts: as long as the simple facts have legitimate primary sources. RSuser (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am taking a time out but I will be back.RSuser (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Even there, if there is a better source out there, like, for instance, Melton or his sources, they would be preferable. The sources Melton used are Hymns Old and New, Glasgow, Scotland: R. L. Allan and Son, 1951; Doug Parker and Helen Parker, The Secret Sect, Pandle Hill, NSW, Aust: The Authors, 1982; Keith W. Crow, The Invisible Church, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, M. A. Thesis, 1964; and William E. Paul, They Go About "Two by Two", Denver, CO: Impact Publications, 1977. As those sources are themselves used by Melton, they would also very likely qualify as reliable. That includes even the Parker book, which I would myself have reservations about otherwise. But I suppose it could be useful for noncontroversial material however. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's two home runs. Care to venture into the Anti-trinitarianism debate? RSuser (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished Doctrine

The statements made in the Unpublished Doctrine section look like they SHOULD be simple to cite. I don't have any of the books being tossed around above as RS, and I'm a little wary of finding cites from anything else these days! Somebody want to generate a footnote for those obvious statements.

PS. Does that section seem mixed up to anyone else? There IS a continuity, if you really look for it, but I eschew subtlety.--nemonoman (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I placed citations for the tagged items. However, they only reference those individual sentences. I'm not sure some of the other sentences can be supported. E.g., “atmosphere of mutual respect” may be accurate but not an observation I can recall reading anywhere else, similarly “each adult member is responsible for his or her own standing with God” may be accurate, but I don't recall a source (anyone else?). • Astynax ^talk 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree that without citations those very reasonable sounding sentences smack of POV. Does a reference provide any support for that kind of assertion. If this were the Quakers, I'm sure we could find a half-dozen. --nemonoman (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious Concerns

I have serious concerns about the editor, Nemonoman. In his own words, he is attempting to "stabilize" the article, and has threatened to lock the article if necessary. Yet in the talk below, and on the RS Noticeboard, he has:
- stated RIS and www.worksect.org were reliable sources,
- confused WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB,
- did not know about Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information [[16]],
- stated Melton was a non-reliable source.
- has no concept of assessing source reliability
I would expect better knowledge of wiki policies from someone who is attempting to referee disputes. I know he'll say he is impartial but the "dog" that too many editors have in this is that they are simply over-protective of their writing. This overprotectiveness is one thing, but combined with Nemonoman's totally spurious response whenever an issue of policy comes up wastes a great deal of time. In addition, his continued arrogance to all members of the fellowship makes me concerned that if something is not said, the situation could escalate to a ban of all members of our group, as happened with Scientology. This is why I raise these concerns now.RSuser (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate actual quotes of me saying what you say I said.

Somebody seems to think I'm an OK editor. I've got 2 GAs under my belt.

I don't have any problems with any members of this group or any group editing the article or any article in accordance with Wiki policies.

I'm very happy to get away from this rats' nest of an article. Give me a reason.

--nemonoman (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I don't intend to get into any further discussion about these comments about me, which get pretty speculative about what I know and what I will do in the future. My work is out there for all to see, so of course it's fine with me if my colleagues judge the quality of my actions. About my Wiki knowledge: If there's a test, I'll take it. Otherwise my actions speak louder than your guesses -- for or against. As to your speculations about my future intentions: they're just nuts.

This isn't about your overall quality as an editor. I would have no idea about that - you're apparently a brilliant guy and a good writer. It's specifically about your knowledge of wiki policies and your handling of the situations that have come up here. You can take what I said at face value and go from there, or if you feel I need to I will source the quotes to back up those statements. Also, I'm not speculating on your future actions. I'm just saying that if we go on, the situation will escalate because of the arrogance and capriciousness on your side. I won't say our side is perfect either, but the "established" wiki editors always hold the upper hand and set the tone for the place. Basically, you have the power. I would rather resolve the conflict now than let things escalate.RSuser (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I will source the quotes to back up those statements. Please do.

You have made a number of allegations. You call your concerns serious. OK, then these are serious allegations, and it is more than a courtesy: it is necessity to show when I where I have done the things you allege.

If you don't like how I work, a good place to complain would be my talk page. I acknowledge that I am unpleasant. I can be an asshole and dick with very little provocation. I often deserve to get yelled at. You should feel free.

However by raising allegations that I am a bad actor and disruptive editor on this page, stating them here for all the world to see, you impugn my reputation. You do so without documenting a thing. Further I sincerely doubt that you can document these allegations. Even if you could, I'm not sure that these would rise to the level of serious concerns to be placed before other editors as if bringing an indictment. As it is, it's just you making claims, and all too typically, not showing anything to back them up.

Your opening paragraph is a plea to other editors to stop me before something even more horrible happens. So to say I'm not speculating on your future actions. is not just disingenuous. It's a straight-up falsehood -- especially when your next sentence starts I'm just saying that if we go on, the situation will escalate...What is that but speculation?

Just so we don't lose thread here -- you owe me those quotes. Go ahead and find them -- if you can -- I even don't care if you take my words out of context if you can point to the reference. In some of your accusations, not only don't I have the thoughts you ascribe to me, and I don't even use some of the words you say I said. So I'm interested how you'll back up your accusations. Your serious concerns. I want references for each please. You owe me that. And if you can't document them, I'll expect you to say so, and an apology. --nemonoman (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please show where:

• I threatened to lock the article if necessary
• I confused WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB
• I did not know about Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information [[17]]
• I stated Melton was a non-reliable source
• I stated www.worksect.org was a reliable source

Also

• backup for your allegation that I have no concept of assessing source reliability
• an example or two of this: Nemonoman's totally spurious response whenever an issue of policy comes up
• while we're on the subject an example or two of this: his continued arrogance to all members of the fellowship

It would be a courtesy to explain what you mean by this:

• because of the arrogance and capriciousness on your side. What specifically are you referring to as your side?
• Then you might tell us what our side is (in your followup sentence) .

Would you please also explain what you mean by

• Basically, you have the power. What suggests to you that I have any more power than you or any other editor? Clearly I'm smarter, stronger, richer, thinner, more handsome, ultra-sexy, etc, than the average editor. But these outstanding qualities do not give me more power than any other wiki-editor, so far as I can tell.

Finally, my colleague editor, since you are calling into question my knowledge of WP policies and guidelines, I'll just mention one that might appear relevant in your current situation:

• WP:OWNER

You might also find these essays interesting:

• WP: TE especially this section.
• WP:SPA

RSUser, I think your serious concerns are ill founded and unfair. Nobody is perfect, but my sporadic watching of this article for several years now shows Nemonoman to be a valuable helper to the article. If your beef is with the validity of source please stick to that topic and don't engage in such nasty personal attacks. Donama (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

If you are honest and open about the following problems, I don't see why it would hurt your overall reputation. Continued defensiveness won't help though. I'm just trying to make you see that your interventions into a difficult dynamic make it very difficult for an editor like myself to make his point. The other problem is a propensity to lower the boom without warrant. 67.43.140.21 (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

* I confused WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
...

Hope I can help here Nemoman. You copied in the wrong policy, and missed the policy title. Read the title carefully. The actual policy is the first paragraph here WP:SPS. Basically you cannot use SPS. The policy says "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". Regarding RIS. I provided three links in the opening statement. You can see that the article is largely compiled from this self-published site (RIS), and that many of the citations in the article refer to books published by RIS. RSuser (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Self-published sources. Au contraire RSuser, I copied the EXACTLY CORRECT items relevant to this article.

[And then you said about the above 5 points:]

Re what I quoted. I quoted WHEN self-published sources MAY BE USED. So I quoted the right part. Guideline is that self-published is not best source, or even a good source, but that they MAY be used under guidelines I quoted. I suggest that in the case of this article those 'may be used' guidelines are being followed for the most part

* I did not know about Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information [[18]]

I disagree somewhat with A premise of wiki is that you work with the material that is there rather than replace it wholesale. Another guideline is Be Bold. Also: No original research. Worth considering these guidelines as well as flexibility in how WP:V is implemented.--nemonoman (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Actually wiki editing policies state exactly that: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information. And the complete statement, check the page, is: Be bold, but be not too bold. :)

* I stated Melton was a non-reliable source

I'm interested in hearing the answer to this too, and perhaps RSuser can provide us with some insight into HIS reasoning. The book is actually titled Encyclopedia of American Religions ISBN 0787663840 for those interested. What interersts me is that it is published by Gacl. Gacl publishes a number of scholarly works, see here. However: no website. No googlable information. No information about who they are, where they are from, what motivates their editorial scrutiny, etc. In fact, as a former college textbook editor and former university press editor, I can state without much doubt that many of their books have extremely limited commercial value, if any, and the impression one gets of their backlist is that Gacl may be a respectable vanity press for academics. So RSuser, tell us why this is a Reliable Source? Or you can follow MY logic which is this: Content is King.

[Later ...] The Melton encyclopedia appears to have been cobbled together from contributions from various authors

* I stated www.worksect.org [RIS] was a reliable source

[Just after editors said this was an SPS]
I have checked the article, which now contains 74 footnotes referencing 24 sources of which two (2) are publications of RIS, the publisher that RSuser is worked up about (which by the way is NOT a 'self-published source' as he asserts).

[The following sarcastic comment implies you think it foolish to consider RIS a non-reliable source]
I think the simplest approach here would be to say: RSuser, you are RIGHT. Wikipedia will never accept as reliable published by RIS -- or by any other group that you consider to be 'anti-'. RSuser, being a member of this group, clearly knows best. If he says it's not reliable because it's 'anti-', I think think the best thing to do is to agree, as there appears to be no way to end this other than to simply accede to his opinions and demands.

[Another comment on RIS] As to the INFORMATION that has been quoted in RIS-published references and citations, I DO have an opinion. Those statements appear correct and correctly referenced, and are not influenced excessively by bias or POV -- at least that's how it seems to this observer.

* backup for your allegation that I have no concept of assessing source reliability See all of the above. I threatened to lock the article if necessary

I will get this article based on sources not member's opinions, and I'll make sure it stays locked down based on sources not opinions.

* an example or two of this: Nemonoman's totally spurious response whenever an issue of policy comes up

RSuser has provided personal examples of his preference for his opinions over even the most easily verifiable facts
This is a great way to slice through all that scholarship crap that really slows things down. It's a wholesale way to delete numerous documented facts that are not compatible with RSuser's personal view.

And based on my experience, this argument will continue unless and until RSuser gets what he wants. I recommend full compliance with his approach as soon as possible, and a revision of guidelines to give top priority to an editor's opinion of a fact (rather than the fact's accuracy)

And as RSuser has pointed out, these books HAVE been cited by OTHER sources -- which to his mind places THOSE sources under suspicion as well. What RSuser is saying that because some aspects of RIS may be less than OK RS, does that not throw ALL materials related to RIS under suspicion. And also any source that has cited RIS. Etc. And the sooner we agree with him, the better

while we're on the subject an example or two of this: "his continued arrogance to all members of the fellowship" It would be a courtesy to explain what you mean by this:

Members only please. This page may only be edited by members of this group! Wikipedia principles do not apply to this article. Scholarship must not interfere with opinions held by members of this group.

What specifically are you referring to as your side? Then you might tell us what our side is (in your followup sentence). Would you please also explain what you mean by "Basically, you have the power." What suggests to you that I have any more power than you or any other editor? Clearly I'm smarter, stronger, richer, thinner, more handsome, ultra-sexy, etc, than the average editor. But these outstanding qualities do not give me more power than any other wiki-editor, so far as I can tell.

The article is an ideological battle ground between the anti- and pro-movement editors. The WP:SPA who has now written 99% of the article describes his motive here.

[From asyntax:] I agree, the situation can be quite confusing. On the one hand you have the group insistent that certain things are so (such as that they do not publish any statements), and on the other hand do things which contradict their representation (e.g., publish materials for internal circulation). And they do often parse statements using terms to which they attach their own peculiar and/or narrow definitions (the Fortt book cited is largely a dictionary for that), which gives them a way to rationalize these discrepencies in their own minds. That also gives some a way to deny the most innocuous and easily observable facts, such as the claim (argued in the archived discussions here) not to have taken any denominational name, while having taken several official names over the years.

This describes his motive. To lay bare the claims of our movement and "expose" their true meaning.

No idea why you pointed to the section from WP:TE. I assume a deflection strategy on your part. If you think I did something bad in editing then just say it. Yes, astynax does tend at times to WP:OWNER but now we have solved the RS issue I think he will come around. Your power - you are an established editor. You can revert edits, lock page and are "in the fraternity".

The above: RSuser (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting me in context. And I will say 4 things about this first:

I have been a primary editor of at several articles where 'members' of a group believe that their membership in that group overrides the need for verifiability: Aurangzeb, Taj Mahal, Christian Conventions, and Meher Baba. In that last instance, I myself was an editor who screamed bloody murder when MY information was deleted as OR and uncited. I had a dog in THAT fight. I lost, and I agree now that I deserved to lose that fight. My response, after I pissed and moaned, was to get to work to find citations for the information I felt needed to be included. Like all too many reformed individuals, I am now a big PitA about this myself. Hence my attempts at sarcastic humor building templates to express my frustration. You can see them on my user page. The concern applies all over the place, not just here, not just to you. Also to the Sikhs, the Hindutva, the Caliphites, and god help me, even to Meher Baba followers like myself.

Can you point out a single edit where I have tried to insert something without sources? Your claim that I wish to edit the article without reliable sources is just a straw man here. I wish no such thing. I have asserted in the past that if consensus is reached without sources that is acceptable to me. But I have made no such edits. Your whole argument is just deflecting my point. RSuser (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As to your assertion that I did not know about "Try_to_fix_problems": I certainly did not recognize that policy from your re-statement of it (where you said: A premise of wiki is that you work with the material that is there rather than replace it wholesale.) Your version regrettably leaves out many important elements of that policy, like the second sentence As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained, and MOST SPECIFICALLY the subsection of that policy: How to handle problematic material. In any case, I did not respond to your actions by reverting, I responded by DISCUSSION.

RE: Melton. You were the one asserting that the PUBLISHER must be considered before the CONTENT of a reference. Some later editor suggested that lack of website information, and/or works created by multiple unnamed authors meant that a reference was not RS. Melton, of course, fits those Half-assed criteria. If you plan to throw out RIS or other publisher's work based on those criteria alone, you'll need to throw out Melton as well. It's a dopey idea, as I state: Content is king.'

Re:Threatening to lock the page. Holy Toledo. You appear to think I'm an admin? Even they are not allowed to lock a page without a Hugely Plausible reason. One admin, Jossi, got fired over this. "Locking down" doesn't mean locking, or locking out. One of the criteria for Good Article is Stability - see WP:GA?, item 5. Getting this article to GA status is my (unlikely) goal.

But it may indeed be that the quotes you have produced -- even when you quote other people and ascribe their attitudes and motives to me -- represent such terrible judgement as to lead you to assert that this article, your movement, and Wikipedia are all being threatened.

Anyone can look at my words and actions in the sections you quoted (and my words and actions throughout) come to a very different conclusion.

I continue to remember this line of yours: If I disagree with something or think it is wrong, the first thing I will question is the quality of the source. Why? Because it saves a lot of wrangling. I believe you're at it again. You have not been particularly effective in responding to my concerns about the quality of your editing. To save a lot of wrangling, you are now questioning My Quality.

I leave it to others to decide if your quotes back up the serious concerns you lay at my feet, and warrant the sort of nasty indictments you have made. --nemonoman (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to have a meaningful discussion about what would constitute reliable sources as a fundamental question before proceeding. Consensus on this important question is important and makes it much easier to achieve consensus on content issues. I would argue that without consensus on which sources are to be used content discussions are futile. The responses that I provided above show a pattern of mere gainsaying on your part on this important conversation.RSuser (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone .. can come to a different conclusion. I leave it to others .. As far as the conclusion anyone comes to I don't care. This is between you and me. I am not bothered all that much by your ongoing theatrics but I have to take issue with your lack of engagement in the dialectical process. This is not about you or me but the difficulty in reaching consensus. This conversation on SPS should have been over a long time ago.RSuser (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if anyone thinks I'm the bad guy here. However, at this point nemonoman I ask one favour. Can you summarize for me what we have learned about Reliable sources and the use of SPS as pertains to this article?RSuser (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: These are my last comments on this topic on this talk page

These concerns of RSuser would better have been raised on my talk page, or his, or as an RfA. I don't believe that they belong here. I have taken the liberty of responding here. but that's it for my response. I think the facts are now obvious. Now that RSuser has raised the issue, further discussion may be required -- I will only reply, however, to any further statements of concerns about Me, My Attitudes and My Agenda on some page OTHER than this talk page. I don't want to turn this into what it's turning into.

I respectfully apologize to my colleague editors that this discussion occurred at all, and more specifically, I apologize that it occurred here. --nemonoman (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I too would ask that any direct comments towards or about editors be kept on user pages. I have taken the liberty to merge this into one section here. Donama (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I put it here because it is relevant here. If put on the 'talk page' it becomes relevant to all future edits by that editor. If you really think it's better there then I will place comments there but I hope you see I did not put it here out of any malicious intent. I do think the exposure is more limited and relevant here. I will also be deleting any such comments placed on my talk page or change user IDs. I don't think if I work on the Shostakovich article that those editors need to see this mess on my talk page.RSuser (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To me much depends on what nemonoman says about the use of reliable sources and SPS in this article, and particularly about RIS which he can do by commenting on the "Synopsis on SPS". When we have that answer we can just delete this entire section. It will stay in the history (on the record) but future editors don't need to know. If everyone agrees. RSuser (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Donama, have you followed the debate on RIS as a SPS and do you agree with the synposis?RSuser (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think it's not straightforward. It's a difficult question, but still I'm satisfied with the use of sources as it currently stands. You can read my comments on that RS discussion page. Donama (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As I look at Nemonoman's talk page I am even more convinced talk pages are a bad place to have this kind of conversation. The conversation starts to involve other editors who know nothing about the topic and its issues, and re-inforces the kind of cliqueishness that wikipedia is often maligned for.RSuser (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that you're targetting one specific user. The article talk pages are supposed to be able the article content, not to be concerned with the biases of editors of the article. If this was about several editors then perhaps put it here, but singling out one editor for your criticism seems inappropriate, regardless of how warranted the criticism might be. Donama (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please!

Tattoo Talk:Christian_Conventions#Non-controversial_plea_for_help onto your typing fingers. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes very hard to not intersperse comments and everyone else is doing it. I just look at the history and see where the changes are, myself. I agree your suggestion is a good one, but hardly anyone does it actually.RSuser (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If everybody jumped off a cl... awwww.....forget it--Nemonoman (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)!

You'll see I've tried your approach, and also try to bunch up my comments as much as possible, but I'm not the only one interspersing. So I need to 'jump off the cliff' unfortunately in these particular cases. And when 6 or 7 replies are necessary as on your talk page just now, you would end up requoting the entire section below. RSuser (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

At the very, very least whenever possible, enter new comments at the bottom of the section..

Restorationism

The paragraph as worded refers to the "church view". If there is indeed a "church view" on this it needs to come from a reliable source, preferably one issued by the church. I'm not at all adverse to a sentence that indicates what many members think or have thought, or that states "Critics contend". But "church view" is very hypothetical. RSuser (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) There are many other such references in the article but I would like to see how this one works out before dealing with the others. RSuser (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite sources of other views. “Many members think or have thought” and “critics contend” gets into weasel territory. • Astynax ^talk 20:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't generally like it. A practical difficulty is that there often is a consistent 'group think' on a question but it's not documented. And 'group think' is not the same as how other denominations treat doctrine. It can shift subtly over time and over geography. But when you speak of members' attitudes I think it's important to reference that kind of concept. Note Carter/ Melton here though: Talk:Christian_Conventions#Melton_on_Trinitarianism. I personally have always advocated leaving doctrine out of the article, but perhaps that is not realistic either. RSuser (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

On looking at a second time I think that if you just replace "church view" with "view" you have a very accurate sentence. What do you think? Do you lose anything by it?RSuser (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

done. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Publications of the movement

The opening paragraph contains a false statement about the publications of the group. Either this should be sourced properly or removed. I tried to remove this before, but was reverted.RSuser (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a false statement, but I won't quibble with this one. I've changed it to reflect the group's claim, while mentioning that materials are circulated internally. • Astynax ^talk 20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those kinds of materials are circulated internally, but they come spontaneously from members not any central authority. If you like I will attempt a rewording. I also wonder why you think this merits inclusion in the opening as opposed to later in the main body?RSuser (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The hymnal comes “spontaneously from members”? No way. And that applies to the other materials as well. It merits inclusion in the leader because that is a general description of what someone who knows of the group (either as a member or friend/family of a member) might have observed. Go into more detail on down in the article, certainly, but moving descriptive material down into the body doesn't solve anything, it only shortens an already short leader. • Astynax ^talk 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I buy the principle that you need some of those instantly recognizable features in the intro. The hymnal is indeed published (rather hymnals - there are quite a number of them) by the ministry. So is a small list of convention dates. Believe me, though, the ministry does not publish anything else. And they have been known to discourage the distribution of sermon notes. Just trying to get this accurate, esp in the opening paragraph. RSuser (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RSuser. This statement is not right, and I am likely to try rewording it. I think people have heard the ministry has said that they don't produce doctrine (which is a major concern for some outside the group) but they have taken that to mean that they don't produce anything at all. Of course lists of meetings are produced and locations of workers are written down and I doubt that anyone will ever claim that this doesn't happen. I also doubt that anyone will ever claim that hymn books aren't produced either. People have always asked for the "doctrine" of the group and have been told that the group does not produce any such doctrine, but they shouldn't mistake that there aren't various other things printed. As far as the sermon notes, lists, and convention summaries, these are only things that have been written or transcribed by individual people and sent to their friends, but it isn't reviewed and endorsed by the "group" as if it of the group. 0oToddo0 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)