Talk:Two by Twos/Archive7

Fortt

The article currently contains nine facts where Fortt is the only reference cited.

• [In other countries, the church's names include...] "United Christian Conventions" (Australia and other nations).[23]
• The extemporaneous preaching of the ministry is considered to be guided by God,[87]
• Significant weight is given to the thoughts of workers, especially more senior workers.[89]
• [T]hey refer to the movement as "The Truth" or "The Way."[122]
• Following baptism, the partaking of bread and grape juice (or wine) is also permitted, which in some fields occurs between the elder's testimony and the final hymn.[132]
• Female workers operate in the same manner as male workers. However, they may not rise to the position of head worker, do not lead meetings when a male worker is present, and occupy a lower rank than male workers.[136]
• Partaking of the emblems (a piece of leavened bread and a cup of wine or grape juice)[141]
• Some leaders in the group have actively discouraged the keeping of records, even encouraging their destruction.[146]
• [The hymnal] contains 412 hymns, many of which were written or adapted by members of the church.[151]

Even in my lack-a-daysical encounters with other sources --primarily TMB and TTT, and not all that many pages on those websites -- I've seen similar assertions.

Also, please note that the guiding principals of VERIFIABILITY NOT TRUTH and NPOV. I'm assuming good faith about verifying that Fortt references contain the info being cited, and so I think the only case to be made on removing these facts would be that without backup references, Fortt is being given undue weight, and by including these facts, the article is being unfairly biased.

I've got to say: I don't see a bias problem because of undue weight here. I've seen lots nastier facts and lots more of them cited in articles I've worked on, and these have been retained "as balance to an otherwise mostly positive view of the subject." --Nemonoman (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What you appear to be saying is that if we know the above statements sound reasonable (e.g. as you said "I've seen similar assertions") then it doesn't matter if the source is not reliable. But WP:V states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So if the source is not reliable it doesn't matter how true you think the material is.67.43.140.124 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It also means IMO that we need to focus on the reliability of the source FIRST, and if we know the source is reliable, then and only then, should we consider material from that source, and any POV issues in material from that source. 67.43.140.124 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The only questions are:

• (a) are the facts above verifiable? WP:V and
• (b) are they Neutral, or neutral within the greater context of the article? WP:NPOV

Let's consider (a):

• ? VERIFIABLE ONLY MEANS: Does Fortt support the facts above on the pages cited in the references. To which I answer: HOW WOULD I KNOW? Don't have a copy of Fortt. SO I'm assuming good faith. If there are specific doubts that the facts have been accurately cited as coming from Fortt, that would be OK to raise.
• ? Why would I doubt? I've seen similar assertions from persons 'pro=' and 'anti-' in various places. In fact some of the facts above have been "approved" by UserX, right on these talk pages. So it's not hard to assume good faith on the part of the editors who cited Fortt above. The facts seem very much in accord with what has appeared elsewhere, so no WP:V red flags going up.

As to (b) above:

• Does it show bias to include any of the 9 facts above? I don't see that their inclusion causes bias.
• If any of the facts above present a negative picture, is FORTT the only source asserting that negative picture? And if so, does including the fact, even properly cited, result in an generally biased article? My answers: No, and no. None of the statements seem to me individually POV, and particularly not within the context of the overall article.

The question of Fortt as reliable source is not germaine to my questions. I believe he is and my discussion is based on that assumption. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Fortt regard this church as a "cult" in at least some sense of that word? Yes, it certainly seems so. Fortt explains his use of the "c" word at some length (he's big on defining things), ending with: "The word 'cult' where it occurs in this document has not been used with the intent to invoke the normal shock response that is usually associated with that word by the reader, but is intended to be a straightforward statement resulting from examination of the theology of the group compared with the teachings of Scripture, and based on fact rather than emotion or personal opinion and disagreement, no matter how harsh it may seem. It is not my wish to make the members of this sect appear as ogres, but as genuinely deceived yet wonderful people deserving of love and much prayer. They are not stupid, but blinded and in bondage." (p. 288-289). Certainly PoV.

But is that any worse than many, or even most, other sources out there? Not at all: this same PoV conclusion is expressed by many others out there that know of this church (including the Wm. Paul booklet cited by Melton). Those from other religious viewpoints also express profound disagreement with this church on many important points, without going so far as to use the "c" label—which has acquired a new and derrogatory flavor over the past few decades (it used to be a perfectly good and valuable sociological term, though Jonestown spoiled that). The CC's are hardly the only group which gets labeled with the term or which finds itself having areas of conflict with other religious viewpoints. The CC's aren't even the only group that claims not to publish anything. And articles written about other groups (non-creedal and those with significant opposing views) quite reasonably use the available sources, which can seldom be claimed as neutral.

Is Fortt's view of the church any worse than the many members who consider Fortt (and just about everyone else who doesn't eventually join their group) "damned to hell"? Doesn't seem so. So a pro viewpoint would also need to be used with that in mind.

More importantly, is the article a reflection of Fortt's view that the church is either a cult or that the church's views are "unbiblical" or otherwise "unsound"? No.

And, putting aside Fortt's expressed viewpoint, is Fortt accurate? From what I've heard from members, former members, the other sources I've come across during the last months, personal experience, and including the discussions here, it seems so. Fortt claims to have been a member, and thus would have a working knowledge of his subject. Fortt quotes (extensively) from church leaders. Fortt is referenced by others—and as most of it is a simple explanation of terms, it is easy to understand why. Moreover, much of Fortt's terminology section, at least, seems to be confirmed by the geographically broad mix of current and former members on the TMB that's been repeatedly held forth as some sort of consensus. Having a viewpoint doesn't make someone a liar or an unreliable source.

If anything, some of the diatribes here seem to confirm many of things Fortt described, which I would otherwise have thought were just his personal views or speculation (e.g., "…in exposing the general terminology used by the group, I will be accused of lacking understanding by its members and workers" -p. 14). And frankly, "polemical" describes this continued witch-hunt against references more accurately than anything in any of the sources, including Fortt, which I've read to date.

If there are statements in the article which are sourced by Fortt which are clearly inaccurate (rather than impossible-to-verify "somewhere at some time there might be some members who may not exactly hold to/do something" type of ambiguities), then let's look at those and find a reference which contradicts or better states. The unconstructive "attack the messenger," and "delete any statement I don't like on my unreferenced say-so" approaches have long since sounded hollow. • Astynax ^talk 17:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I very definitely get the impression that the RSN won't give us much to work with. As they say on the top of the page, in some cases it's better to contact the appropriate WikiProject, which in this case is probably WikiProject Christianity, which is where I first saw note of this dispute. Sorry, but I don't think I've been of much help in solving this issue myself. It strikes me that there are basically three, maybe four, things that could be done. One would be to find alternate sources, like through Google news and Google books linked to above, which don't have these problems, and add material based on them. Another would be to initiate an RfC or mediation. For either of them to work, it would probably be best to have short statements detailing which sources are questioned, why some believe them acceptable, and why others don't, so maybe adding new sections with short comments regarding these matters would be useful. So far as I can tell, the last one, which has the least chance of success, is to find a friend who lives in or around Santa Barbara and ask them to contact the UCSB library, specifically the American religion section, and ask someone there which sources they have and/or which they consider reliable and check out or otherwise use whatever information can be gotten from them or their materials. Right now, to the best of my knowledge, that's the only specialist library in the country which deals with material like this, but I think or hope that they probably do have some materials regarding this subject. Would such be agreeable to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I also wonder, how many of the facts presented above which apparently are "bread and butter" could be sourced from Melton, Parker or one of the other known and agreed reliable RS? One of the reasons I'd like resolution is to acquire my own copies of the known RS. If TTT is used, it has the advantage of accessibility so that all parties can review the sources for POV issues. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Melton lists one other source - William E. Paul. However, I don't have the book here and can check tonight to be sure. I'll modify this comment at that time.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the ongoing threads on RSN is that reliability is very much based on context. A source is not defacto reliable -- a peer-reviewed journal on astrophysics is not guaranteed to be reliable for a citation about archeology, even though the journal might contain a 'fact' abut archeology.

In Wikipedia, the bias of the source is not an issue associated with reliability. Science Magazine regularly runs peer-reviewed articles with a heavy political bias: scientists using well-documented peer reviewed research that they then use to draw politically-charged conclusions. The bias of the authors is clear; the research, however, is expected to be reliable. Typically letters or follow-on articles will reference the research and draw different politically-charged conclusions. It would OK to reference the research as NPOV, and OK for Wikipedia to reference conclusions with a phrase like "the authors suggest that the research proves the Welfare is Evil" or what have you. "Welfare is evil" would NOT be an acceptable fact for Wikipedia.

Which is why I asked the questions about Fortt: since as you state one solution to referencing Fortt 'would be to find alternate sources', seconded by UserX's statement 'If TTT is used...', the question that occurs to me is: What's the problem with using Fortt in the 9 instances where Fortt is the single references? There seems to be some concern that other things Fortt has said, not referenced by this article, might be biased. This is not a concern for Wikipedia Verifiablity or Reliable Sources. It is an NPOV concern. But the comments above suggest that the 9 Fortt Facts are not particularly biased or POV.

One must demonstrate that bias or falsehood exists in the 9 Fortt Facts to dispute or remove them, in my opinion. So far, I have not heard a convincing argument about bias or falsehood on any of these facts. Nor can I understand why if bias is being charged for one or more facts that a simple: "According to one source (ref), [insert bias-asserted fact here]" would not suit the case. After all, despite lots of free-form accusations floating around the interwebs, the editors have made an extreme effort to keep the article positive; and the article is in danger of becoming biased if we do NOT to include some documented critical items. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually reliability is built on reputation. That's the central concept as it exists in academia. Reliability of a source, for most of us, is not based on assessing the truth value of statements, or that bias does or does not exist. It has to rest on reputation. You, Nemonoman, have little basis for assessing bias or falsehood, as a novice in this area. You can however assess the reputation of the source. Melton has a sterling reputation and a few web searches, as well as discussion with people in this area would establish that for you. And as a result of that work, you now have a reliable source, and one you can trust as you learn about new religious movements. OTOH, we know nothing about Fortt. We don't know his credentials or his ability in the area of theology or history. To try to work backwards, to assess the quality of the information first, is beyond the ability of the ordinary person. We try to rely on who the experts say are the experts. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And this is what pains me about wikipedia, and why I no longer believe in it. You would think people would just know this stuff. But they don't, so you end up trying to work with individuals who begin with completely different premises and a great deal of unnecessary conflict results simply because of stupidity. There are far too many aspects of the wikipedia concept that make it totally unworkable, IMO. I make these comments as markers of my frustration, but also for the consideration of those who are wiki believers.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gatherings section

Over and over, the Gatherings section indicates that attendance?participation? is "restricted" to "[approved] members". Where does this assertion come from? People may gawk at a woman in stiletto heels with gobs of makeup, big dangly earrings, painted-on jeans, and a shoulder-length perm wandering around Convention, but unless such a person is intentionally disruptive, their presence is not restricted. At the same time, I've witnessed multiple professing people quietly expelled from Convention before. (Usually this is a result of someone showing up drunk at Convention, and being rowdy or obnoxious...call it sweeping it under the rug if you must, but these things do happen, and frankly, I don't blame the workers for trying to maintain decorum [although I do think the issue should more frequently be frankly addressed from the platform]...) I have, on multiple occasions, seen people ["outsiders"] come to meeting with professing friends, who have taken part, not only during testimonies, but also taking the emblems. No objection was made at the time, no effort was made to discourage their doing so, nor was there ever any acrimony or consternation after meeting...a lot curiosity, definitely, but never the idea that either attendance nor participation were verboten to the unwashen unprofessed. Tomer^talk 09:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've also known cases of attendance by outsiders at convention happening, although restricted to a certain day or sessions, and only by invitation and permission of the workers in charge. This was also noted a hundred years ago, and seems to still be the modus operandi. The same is sometime the case for Sunday meetings. But neither of these gatherings are, in any sense, open gatherings where noobies just walk in and take a seat. The current language in the article seems to adequately describe the situation (i.e., the use of "generally" reflects that occasional, limited exceptions are made). • Astynax ^talk 16:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctrine and practices according to critics and ex-members

Readers should know that the church or its members have had no hand in the compilation of this section. 207.34.161.133 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound harsh, but if that's the case it's irrelevant. Regardless, from previous discussions it is obvious that church members have had a hand it writing and reviewing the article. Donama (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That was true at one time, but not anymore. It is now a one person article. Since that is the case the article should say so. 207.34.161.133 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant because the article has a lot of lies, especially the Doctrines and Practices section. 207.34.161.133 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Which bit, precisely, is a lie? Does it reference a citation. If so do you disagree with that source? Donama (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

External links (discussion #5 with this heading)

Note first the previous discussions of external links:

External Links Section #3 (copied from archive 5 on 1/Oct/2009)

I have doubts about the External Links section. I'm not sure it's consistent with overall Wikipedia spirit to have so many links to so many sites, some of which are fairly poisonous in their content about this group. I've tried changing this before, and been reverted. Since we've attracted one or 2 new faces, I'm going to try again to reach some consensus to reduce the number of links, totally eliminate the links, or put a big "poison" sign on some of them. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Per WP:EL I would remove them. --Tom (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In case it helps decide this, I refer us all to previous discussions about the external links:

• Talk:Christian_Conventions/Archive_1#External_Links
• Talk:Christian_Conventions/Archive_1#External_links_2

Back then I expressed the opinion that the entire list of external links was no good for Wikipedia, but was happy to compromise and keep some there just because the scholarly sources were much skimpier back then. At this point I think they can be all removed, given none can claim to carry any official or academic weight. Donama (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted this section. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

External Links #4 (copied from archive 6 on 1/Oct/2009)

Deleting the external links section was not a good move, I feel. There are two or three very good web sites, one of which (TTT) is a reliable source in my opinion. Also, some of the further reading references make a pretty poor substitute. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to discuss any changes to the external links here first, given the same links keep being added and removed based on the whim of individuals rather than via any kind of consensus. I'm reverting the most recent change for this reason. Donama (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to restate for the benefit of new editors: one of the problems with adding links to websites is that to create a list of Internet links, no matter how relevant, is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles.

That said, I'm also wondering about the existing links. Should the Telling the Truth link be removed from that section? That site is already used as a reference-with-link within the article, and it seems redundant to include it again, excellent though it is. Also, is there information on the "Truth Meetings Board" link or is it only a discussion board(s), which is seemingly inappropriate for an external link? One allowable use of the External Links section is to point to an outside "directory of websites or organizations" which is relevant. I'm wondering if we shouldn't just change the "Veterans of Truth" entry to rather point to its Links page (which has hyperlinks to both these other sites as well as others), and leave it at that? • Astynax ^talk 07:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm always ready to remove the external links. They are no help. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed it per my above suggestion, along with correcting the heading. I agree that these links sections aren't of much use, as readers are usually able to use Google and other search engines to get to the same info. For that reason, it might be better if the External Links section were to be entirely eliminated. • Astynax ^talk 19:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just deleted what remained of this section. If anyone has good reasons for putting it back, I'm willing to learn. • Astynax ^talk 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to WP:NOTPAPER, regardless of its eschewing any pretense of neutrality or its supposèd "poisonousnesss", the Telling the Truth website is sufficiently notable in its own right as article fodder, as the first site with any sort of following that discussed the sect in question in any but the most vague of terms. Tomer^talk 09:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Rejection of Trinity"

In regards to section:

    Christology
    The group has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity since its inception.

While I would agree that most everybody in the fellowship "rejects" the idea of the Trinity, I have to disagree about there being any unanimity on this subject. I know of instances where workers have preached that "Jesus is God." Also, to say that "the doctrine of the Trinity" was rejected since the inception of the group is not entirely correct either. In the 1930s-era hymnbook, one of the hymns specifically uses the word "Trinity." Also in the 1950s hymnbook, one hymn says, "Cease not to praise God: the Father and Son, the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." (Thus calling them all "God"). There are still a couple of hymns in the (English) book that refer to Jesus as God.Eddie Tor (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also met a couple of isolated individual members who have made more-or-less trinitarian statements. One of those posts regularly to the TMB site (without garnering much agreement to his views). Some of the workers that I've seen held up as espousing trinitarian views have also made strong non-trinitarian statements, so I'm not certain whether or to what extent even these would be considered trinitarian. In most religious groups, you will find some (especially converts from other traditions) who have a few differences with beliefs held by the main body, so that there would be individuals here and there who deviate isn't surprising. As for the hymns, the first hymnals were adapted from the Faith Mission's Songs of Victory, and included many hymns which were only slowly reworked or dropped to bring the hymnal into line with the group's views. The TTT site referenced does a rundown on the hymns, noting that hymns which were removed or had their lyrics altered. I'd be curious to know to which hymns you refer, as I don't recollect coming across any (though I'll give it another read-through). Seems strange, though not impossible, that a group that mostly rejects the concept would leave in hymns with explicit trinitarian wording. Is there a more recent English language Hymns Old and New than the one copyrighted 1987? • Astynax ^talk 08:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I've finished reading through the 412 hymns in the 1987 edition of Hymns Old and New. The "Cease Not To Praise God" hymn is not in the 1987 edition, and I have been unable to find any other lyrics in the current hymnal portraying Jesus as God or similar trinitarian reference. If such wording is there, the title of the hymn which contains this would be relevant to the article. I'm assuming that the 1987 edition is still current, but cannot confirm, as the publisher website has now passworded all its pages regarding this hymnal. • Astynax ^talk 08:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The 1987 edition is the most recent English-language hymn book. ScottLeibrand (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That statement really illustrates how the mainline churches and particularly the anti-cult movement have infiltrated wiki. These people seek to define other movements and religions in terms of their religion. There are a number of terms in this article which have absolutely no currency within the movement. The preaching of the movement has no overt position on such doctrine for or against. Note that all literature about the movement has been largely written by mainstream denominationalists or those associated with the anti-cult movement. (The Anti-cult_movement are a group of mainstream church types who label Mormons, JWs, Christian Conventions as cults and spread disinformation about these groups.) The most accurate way to describe the teachings of the movement would be pre-Trinitarian or pre-Nicene. No such word of course, but because the teaching and doctrine is based entirely on primary sources (that being the Bible), there is no particular Christology in force. 64.7.151.77 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if any "conspiracy theory" regarding the so-called anti-cult movement would garner other than rhetorical traction. Groups which get pasted with that label often regard their fellow "anti-cult" movements as "cults," based upon one or another criterion, so that the idea that they or "mainstream denominationalists" are somehow managing to coordinate to "spread disinformation" via Wikipedia just doesn't seem realistic. Even those former members of your group who run various sites seem to run the gamut from atheist to agnostic to protestant to catholic, with quite varied beliefs.

It's not a conspiracy. It just stands to reason and is in accord with language philosophy that the language of mainstream theology marginalizes "other" religions and groups. And yes, there is an anti-cult movement, look it up in wiki. I can tell from your writing that you are a mainstream Christian or have acquaintance with it from the language you use to describe our group's teaching. Language which is not in the Bible, and does not describe our group. For example you attempt to categorize our group in terms of your terminology relating to Christology, terminology which does not adequately characterize the teachings of the workers who are not reductionist, rationalist seminarians. They teach from first principles, the Bible itself. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As to the group eschewing this or that term used within the article: again, Wikipedia policy is to avoid the jargon of particular groups, except by way of explanation. Indeed, the group doesn't use terms used in the mainstream to describe its beliefs, but it is reasonable to assume that Wikipedia readers are familiar with those terms (and if not, there are wikilinks for more information). I don't think there is any question that the group is non-trinitarian (and even anti-trinitarian among many), certainly in sources and likely as well among the vast majority of members. It was one of the things noted about them in early sources and continues to be observed today. So, it seems to be a reasonable statement, unless you have a citable source to the contrary. I suspect that the vast majority of churches declare that their "teaching and doctrine is based entirely on the bible." It doesn't follow that this means that "there is no particular Chistology in force." On the other hand, that different groups hold different Christological views does not mean that the bases of those views do not rest in their own interpretations of biblical passages. As to the group being Ante-Nicene, the group's doctrine/position that its roots go back to "the shores of Galilee" is mentioned already in the article. • Astynax ^talk 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no particular Christology - check this link: [1] "Names of 2x2s workers who teach Jesus is God listed by ex-workers and friends. Jesus is God the Son NOT God the Father. Jesus Christ the Son of God NOT God the Father: George Walker, Jack Carroll, Dave Christie, Tom Lyness, Tharold Sylvester, Leo Stancliff, Mable Gibson, Leslie White, Stan Chamberlain, Maurice Close, Everett Blair, Carson Cowan" How do you explain the difference between this statement and yours? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as use of jargon, this article is full of mainstream theological jargon, used to marginalize the actual pure language of Jesus and the writers of the Bible.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, lack of a written doctrine in a non-creedal group does not equate to lack of a Christology. The link you provided, while interesting, seems to confirm the non-trinitarian Christological view. Note how Wegter makes the distinction that the word "God" in referring to Jesus is only a "title" and goes on to say "'God' is not necessarily used as a proper name denoting one particular individual as we think of individuals, but is rather one particular spirit or nature." I've read other sermon notes from Mr. Stancliff which give a more explicitly non-trinitarian view, and members with whom I've talked also approached such material from the "god is just a title" angle. When the terminology is used in such a limited way, what might seem to be trinitarian clouds over. Moreover, it seems that the person on TMB who put up that page hasn't made headway in recruiting other members to the "Jesus is God" camp. Rather it is former members or members who have said they are in the process of leaving who agree with his position. I recall one of George Walker's illustrations of "the trinity" being like a clover's leaf, three separate parts united in one purpose and spirit. Worker Sydney Holt put it: "The Trinity is one in purpose, but not in essence." "The Holy Spirit is not God." and Jeff Reid put it: "Jesus is deity in that He was Godlike. He is the Son of God and has the character of His Father." Some of the other workers referred to may have made similar statements, which may vaguely sound trinitartian, without being so. Such statements really don't impact the various sources out there. Or perhaps a worker has or is clearly preaching a trinitarian view? If you have a source to cite for that, it should definitely be in the article. It would be interesting and remarkable in any Christian group that widely opposed Christological views were held simultaneously, well worth noting as surely someone will have explored this somewhere. As for the article containing "jargon," I do realize that your group prefers to use its own terms, rather than those used here. However, the terminology in the article has been in every English dictionary since Samuel Johnson's, and is thus appropriate for general readers. And I strongly suspect that even most members are quite familiar with the language used, though some, like you, may dispute such terms. • Astynax ^talk 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that there is no "creed" and yet you think you can characterize the Christology of the group. I would certainly take the viewpoint of a retired worker on the link I provided over yours as you are working to discredit the group by misrepresenting its doctrine. There is no specific Christology taught on a consistent basis. Check the TMB thread on doctrine and you will find that this is so.206.130.91.154 (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I always find your rebuttals interesting as you discredit all other sources then re-assert your own viewpoint. Sound like OR to me.206.130.91.154 (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"As for the article containing "jargon," I do realize that your group prefers to use its own terms, rather than those used here. However, the terminology in the article has been in every English dictionary since Samuel Johnson's, and is thus appropriate for general readers."

So, you mean to say, the terminology used by your brand of Christianity is in the dictionary, while the terms we prefer are just our own.

We say 'worker' and you say 'pastor' or 'reverend'. Which one is in Scripture? And aren't both in the dictionary?

We say 'meeting' and you say 'service'. Aren't both in the dictionary also?

You use words like 'Christology' and 'Unitarian'. Is that everyday English or specialized theological language from your brand of Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, there are non-Trinitarian groups which still describe Jesus as God, just not the God. On that basis I would have to say that the simple application of the word "God" to Jesus does not implicitly say anything one way or another. And in Christian creeds which have multiple "lesser gods" in addition to the main capitalized God, the distrinctions could be difficult, particularly if the comments are in oral form, where the capitals are much less obvious. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"No Official Literature"

    The church has no official headquarters or official publications. Its printed materials are      
    produced by an outside publisher. Printed invitations to its open gospel meetings are the only 
    written materials which those outside the group are likely to encounter.

While there is no "official literature" produced by the group, there is a large body of unofficial literature that is well circulated amongst members of the group. There is an archive of this material at the following address: http://sites.google.com/site/trutharchivist/

I suppose you could consider any official correspondence or published lists to be "official literature."

Eddie Tor (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make this point, but other editors have argued that documents for internal circulation is not "publishing" as they interpret that term. I'd also argue that an "outside publisher" who prints materials which are distributed only within the group is clearly publishing those on behalf of that group. But it seemed to me to be an esoteric point not worth pursuing without a source being cited. • Astynax ^talk 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of external links

It seems highly suspicious that the article now shows the imprint of only one writer, while external links to the work of other credible researchers have been removed. Why? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed endlessly. You might find an answer in the previous discussions. See Talk:Christian Conventions#External links (discussion #5 with this heading). While you say that "credible researchers" have been removed, there is little proof when it comes to demonstrating the credibility of most of the external websites and authors, particularly when material with obvious bias in included on a website. It's worth reading WP:EL too, to understand why external links are to be kept to a bare minimum. Donama (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just suspicious that the references remaining point to one single topic publishing house and all the other self-publishers were removed. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And this article is heavily biased much more so than a site like TTT. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article?

The article is based entirely on the research and work of ex-members of the group which gives it a decided bias. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is your opinion and personally I doubt it very much. The very fact that it has been contentious at times is I think an indicator that current members have been actively editing it. Through external communication I know current members who've been editing this article. Anyway, not that this point really matters. This article aims to avoid bias like every other on Wikipedia by observing WP:NPOV. If you think there are non-neutral statements in the article then please go ahead and edit. Donama (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Total rubbish and you know it. Anyone can go back and see how anything that was there a year ago is totally gone, and all edits since are by astynax with touchups by a couple of mentors who know nothing about the subject.206.130.91.154 (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Corrections to make a Better Article.

"Workers do not engage in any formal religious training.[132]".

Pretty bold and exclusive statement from 1955, I wonder how this statement would fare if verification with reality in 2009 was attempted.

"Union meeting: restricted to approved members, this is a gathering of several congregations, and follows the format of the Sunday morning meetings."

"Special meeting: restricted to approved members,"

Generally there are *no* such restrictions, and there are no verifible sources for the statements listed.

JesseLackman (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually know of any new practice regarding formal religious training being required, or even encouraged, of those entering the ministry? And if so, do you have a source? Otherwise, the existing citation seems valid.

"Restricted" points out that there is no open access to participation by the public. We don't need to parrot the exact language in the sources. Nevertheless, I've changed the wording to reflect the difference, noted in sources already cited, between gatherings open to the public, and those closed to the public. • Astynax ^talk 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't move the goalposts away from what the referenced statement actually says.

Publishing the opinion "Workers do not engage in any formal religious training.[132]" in 1955 does not make it true then or now. It is a broad brush collective statement that offers absolutely no data to back it up, it is opinion, not fact. All it takes is one worker with any formal religious training to falsify that opinion. Obviously the statement rests on the shifting sands of personal opinion/interpretation, not on solid bedrock truth. The reference, and now the article, hold up the statement as universally true - it's up those who want that statment in the article to back it up, not me. What does the article lose without that statement? Why do you want to include it?

Second point. At my home convention (which is held within city limits) people from the neighborhood have wandered in and took in meals and meetings. If any meetings are indeed "closed to the public" how is it inforced? Police at the gate checking membership cards and turning "the public" away? You know yourself this isn't the case. It would be best to never use ambiguous statements in the article. What is the downside to leaving those references out? Is there any? None that I can see. Any restrictions on "the public" in our meetings is not much different than in any other denomination, why imply it's different? Bias? It's another statement that reality really doesn't support. Workers meetings would probably be the only ones that are "restricted" in the sense the text implies.

Paying objective attention to details like these will make the article good... or not.

JesseLackman (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No goal posts have been moved. The reference shows the group declining to participate in religious education. I'll add one or two further references to underline the point. Again, if you have references which show something different, let's have them.

As to your personal experience with people wandering in uninvited into private residences or gatherings, I would be happy to discard my skepticism that that actually occurs if you can cite a source. • Astynax ^talk 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, as if you have any reliable sources. Please read following on how you distorted Melton.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Astynax, I don't care how many references with which you "verify" the statement - the statement simply is not true as it's stated. Why fight it? If you include further references please quote their sources and the methodology those sources used to arive at the conclusion. I don't think you can because the fact is there are workers who have engaged in formal religious training, I know because I have met them. Why do you want so bad to include statements that are not true and wouldn't really add anything of value to the article even if they were true? Why? I don't understand. But then I'll never understand the concept "verifibility trumps truth".

And about convention visitors, I'm lying. Great, another personal opinion/interpretation. Good to remember skepticism doesn't change the truth of a matter.

These discussion pages stand witness to the the truth about sources that are clearly a whole lot of broad brush personal opinions and interpretations published by non and former members. The titles alone convict them as such...

JesseLackman (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that Astynax is generally right. At conventions, the public is not welcome, workers do turf out anyone who's not been explicitly invited by a "friend". Usually the workers can enforce this easily because the conventions are on private property. Youths who've grown up in the church but decided not to profess are, at a certain age, politely asked to stop attending conventions since supposedly they're only there for social reasons. Special meetings are harder to police, but the same guideline (rather than rule) is applied. No, I can't prove any of this. That's why verifiability is important and I'll support anyone who insists on verifying anything for this article. -- Donama (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (NB: Jimmy Wales himself agrees with you that verifiability trumps truth. Harsh but that's how Wikipedia works).

Again I ask, "verify" with what, more subjective opinions and intepretations by non and former members?

Wow, this is rich! Verifiability? for this article. It's all based on SPS by critics and ex-members of the group. There's no verifiability. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW I'm 49 and have never seen workers "turf out" anyone at convention nor have I ever even heard of anyone "politely asked to stop attending conventions". That sounds a lot like some of the personal interpretations and opinions cited as sources for this article. JesseLackman (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Donoman has never stated her connection to the group but definitely shows anti- bias with those statements. A total fabrication. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Lackman, you are quite aware that, excepting "gospel meetings" where the public is encouraged to attend, other meetings and conventions are private affairs. Even assuming you have indeed observed people walking, uninvited, onto private property to attend unadvertised gatherings, that does not turn those into public affairs—any more than a gatecrasher at a State Dinner turns State Dinners into public gatherings. Indeed, there may be good reasons that conventions and other meetings are not open to the public (planning for seating and meals among them). But, no, you prefer to dispute any and all statements—even the most innocuous of facts such as this—on the bases of your detecting PoV behind everything, and contention that all sources are invalid. Pushing these tired arguments again does nothing to advance the article. • Astynax ^talk 16:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a small advance for the article, how about stating it this way, "Not open to the public but anyone who wants to attend is always welcome."

thanks, JesseLackman (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken people to Sunday meeting at times who are not members of the group. Obviously, no sign goes up as these are house meetings. I've handed out invitations door-to-door for gospel meetings. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I recall a flap several years ago when an outsider was "escorted" off convention grounds. And even the early articles mention that some meetings were closed to the public during convention (which I also recall being the case locally during the 1970's). So I'm not sure that the suggested language is accurate. But those may somehow have been exceptional instances. A source supporting your suggested wording is needed. • Astynax ^talk 06:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No a source for your wording is needed other than the stuff you wrote yourself. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton

Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religion contains a good article on this group ... one which this article could use as a model of unbiased non-prejudicial writing.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article cites Melton 3 times (he is one of the few sources who is authoritative and not an ex-member of the group with an ax to grind.)206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Each time the wiki article does not accurately capture Melton's writing. I use the 1996 edition for this comparison.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Melton indicates that the group originated with Irvine, but does not name Irvine as founder. Yet Melton is listed as a source for the Founder: Irvine box.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

2) Melton makes very clear that the idea of the movement's Christology being Unitarian comes from "critics, primarily former members, have published excerpts of sermons". You can support ANY Christology you like using this method.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Melton states, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY IN GAINING AUTHORITATIVE MATERIAL .... NO ASSESSMENT OF THE DOCTRINAL ISSUE IS POSSIBLE.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

3) Regarding baptism, Melton states only that ex-members of other churches have been re-baptized; he does not state it is necessary.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

These may seem like minor points but it's really important that if you try to capture the doctrine of the movement you do so fairly and not marginalize the teaching which is based on first principles and pre-dates the later theology developed 2-300 AD and later. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a serious academic and leading authority on new religious movements would indicate that there is not enough information to assess the group's doctrine. Yet one wiki editor who wrote 80-90% of this article is doing just that. Sounds like OR to me. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)) 15:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't OR, because he is basing it on sources, just not J. Gordon Melton. And Melton's conclusions, while certainly valid and important, are not themselves necessarily authoritative. Speaking as one of Melton's biggest fans here, I have to say that I think Melton's statement about how he cannot draw any conclusions is something thst should be included, but that does not mean that we should not include information from other sources which apparently disagree with him. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it doesn't. But we should a) capture Melton accurately when he is used as a source, and b) use only reliable sources. There are not all that many reliable sources, so the fact you would put the article in opposition to Melton, WHO DESCRIBES THE DOCTRINE OF THE GROUP ONLY IN A VERY QUALIFIED AND LIMITED SENSE, indicates OR. The OR is not necessarily on the part of 'astynax' but on the part of the non-academic self-published and religious literature being used. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I should probably let this latest tirade attacking sources pass, but for the record, this is a complete twisting of what Melton's article says. The "doctrinal issue" to which he is directly referring in the paragraph is a charge by critics that the group "presents a false front of evangelical orthodoxy when in fact it is completely heterodox." He doesn't mention the christology in that or the preceding 6 paragraphs at all. To connect this statement in paragraph 12 with a separate statement in paragraph 5 is absurd. In paragraph 5, it is Melton who draws the conclusion that the group holds to a unitarian view (though he notes that he based this on sermon notes from CC workers provided by "critics"). Moreover, this article has only undergone minor updates during the last two decades. Since that time and according to newspaper reports, Melton has gathered one of the largest known archives on the CC's, and has been interviewed on various aspects of that group since. So at some point I presume he'll be fleshing out and updating that entry. • Astynax ^talk 17:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Melton makes unequivocally clear that the description of a "unitarian theology" comes from critics only. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no direct link between paragraph 5 and 12, and nor did I make one. However, consider -206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The scope of his statement "no assessment of the doctrinal issue is possible" is arguable as the immediate paragraph references several issues. But Melton does state "because of the difficulty in gaining authoritative material about the group, and the contradictory reports about its normative beliefs, no assessment of the doctrinal issues is possible". The point of reference is the 'contradictory reports' and the lack of 'authoritative material'. Obviously the phrase 'normative beliefs' does not pertain to a single narrow issue.206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2) And piecing together bits of sermons, which is the basis for the inferred Christology, IS OR. The point is that the article states this as a simple fact with Melton to back it up. And yet when we look at Melton we see something QUITE DIFFERENT. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

3)As far as Melton updating his entry, I am sure he has all the same crap you do; in fact, I know for a fact he does. Many of these sources are very old and easily obtained. The fact he has not changed his entry all these years speaks volumes for his academic integrity. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As it makes more sense to trust a signed editor, who can be penalized for lying, than an IP, I take your word, particularly considering after the fact that seems to be what I remember from Melton myself. I can try to verify the quotation tomorrow, because in a case like this it may well make sense to include a direct quotation in the reference citation to ensure that no further misrepresentation of the source takes place. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You can find out more about me from my IP than you can from an anonymous editor who wrote the entire article, AND may very well be sourcing his own work. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the reference to 2003's 7th edition used in the article—it likely won't have changed in whatever you locate to independently verify, so to save re-typing: "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." • Astynax ^talk 18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you work that quote into the article? thanks, JesseLackman (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It was attempted and was reversed.206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you expect anything else in the article to be correct, when even the most basic source is not captured accurately? The doctrine section of the article is especially flawed. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"I can try to verify the quotation tomorrow". Still waiting, Mr Carter. I think you'll see that if you look at the article that my quotes are accurate and that in those 3 cases a better job could have been done in capturing Melton's remarks. Astynax question about the scope of Melton's remark "no assessment of the doctrinal issue" is a reasonable one. Even if that is taken at its most narrow sense, the question of heterodoxy masquerading as orthodoxy, the group's preaching on the Incarnation/ Trinity is central to that narrow issue. However, coming as it does in the closing paragraph of the article I believe Melton's caveat is more general in scope.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he did in the "Church doctrine" section below? John Carter offered a good suggestion that the "Doctrines and practices" section of the article lead off with the quote. Nobody has done it though... JesseLackman (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability and Truth

When you complain that the article has used unreliable sources, then the cabal will say, "Prove it by showing what is not true." When you show what is not true, they will say, "Yes, but truth does not matter. We have sources, so prove to us that they are not reliable". And so the merry-go-round continues.206.130.91.154 (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASF under WP:NPOV deals with the issue of fact vs subjective opinion/interpretation in sources;

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." (More at link [2])

"By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." (More at link [3]) (In my opinion the reason there is dispute is because the article asserts many source's opinions/interpretations as absolute objective fact.)

"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made." (More at link [4])

Imagine for a moment if the article was written according to WP:ASF - i.e. attributing the personal opinions/interpretations to these publications in the article itself;

• Benton Johnson asserts in Sex, Lies and Sanctity: Religion and Deviance in Contemporary North America...
• Ronald Enroth's Churches That Abuse offers this opinion...
• In Wm. C. Irvine's Heresies Exposed (1929) its put this way...
• Casper B. Nervig suggests in Christian Truth and Religious Delusions (1941)...
• William E. Paul states [quote] in They Go About Two by Two: The History and Doctrine of a Little Known Cult...

Even though editing the article text like that would be according to WP:ASF edits like these would likely be reversed, does it even pay to try? Surely any objective reader or editor will understand, this is probably why there was no resolution when this issue was discussed in the Peer Review [5] and on WP:RSN [6] [7].

"In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity." (More at link [8])

"It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is."(More at link [9])

There's more along these lines at WP:UNDUE

JesseLackman (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of poisoning the well regarding sources, tracing far back in the discussions, well before my involvement beginning last March. One user who has posted using multiple accounts and IP's has shopped his unsupported theories as to all and/or most sources being non-RS and/or SPS to several WP forums, as well as using that rationalization to argue for having this and related articles Afd'd. There have also been assertions that all the sources are subjective opinions and/or that they are sloppy research in which authors parrot a few old and hostile sources. No backup for these tendentious statements have yet been given, just more unsupported aspersions. Similarly, suggestions have been made to forego citing sources and open up the article to unsupported statements. I have long since found it difficult to assume good faith in such tactics, particularly on the part of editors who would "rather see no article" and who dispute well-documented and obvious facts based upon hypercritical parsing (i.e., someone, somewhere, somehow may or may not hold or have expressed a different view—extrapolating a supposed or possible exception in an attempt to invalidate a statement of a normative view or practice).

As the second opinion reviewer stated, the article currently seems almost too positive. Yet, this is apparently not enough for some members. As of today, there are approximately 178 citations backing up the statements in the article, gleaned from 30 books, 7 separate websites, and 35 separate articles in periodicals. There are more out there. Yet, without the slightest bit of backup, these are all dismissed out of hand on the flimsiest of bases. The accusers purport to know the sources, verification, editorial controls, motivations, etc. which went into those referenced works. They keep holding forth that we must consider the neutrality of sources, and argue the PoV of any source of which they disapprove (which seems to be most everything out there). That just won't play in Peoria. If this nit-picking is characteristic of group members, then I suppose these talk pages stand as a confirmation of some of the most negative assertions made by "critics." Perhaps such tactics work, but they certainly are a big turn-off.

Finally and somehow, when I or others make concrete observations—here on the Discussion pages, not in the article itself—backing up the sources cited in the article, we get accused of WP:OR. But when IP-guy or Mr. Lackman give us the benefit of their un-referenced speculations and observations, we are expected to accept that alone as evidence of verifiable fact. As has been endlessly restated over the last months, Wikipedia is about what sources say, not about what anyone believes, thinks or is willing to accept as "fact" based on individual perspective. Have a point to include, find a source. • Astynax ^talk 21:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To all this drivel I would simply say, if it's in a reliable source, put it in the article. If it's in an SPS written by either the anti-cult movement or non-academic researchers, most of whom are simply ex-members with an ax to grind, then don't. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding truth, see WP:TRUTH. Frankly, we can only know what the reliable sources say. If someone wants something true to be added which differs from what the reliable sources say, then the best thing for them to do would be to try to get some other RS to say that. And, regarding the RSN, they aren't infallible, although they are very good in general. But, particularly when dealing with rather obscure sources they haven't encountered before on a subject they don't know, they are as fallible as anyone else. Regarding Jesse Lackman's comments in general, I tend to agree, with the one proviso that it can sometimes be hard to tell what is "opinion" when the number of reliable sources, and sources in general, is as scant as it is here. By saying this I am not necessarily criticizing or disagreeing with him or anyone else, just noting that there this is a very difficult subject to find a consensus of reliably sourced statements or conclusions regarding in large part because there is so little information available in the first place. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No one wants anything added. Just cut the crap, especially in the Doctrine section. Significant statements in this section, particularly about Christology, are not from reliable sources.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

At times I've seen requests in the Talk page to use reliable sources to refute nonsense in the article from non-reliable sources. Of course, wiki is a joke, everyone knows that, the rats are deserting the sinking ship, as the Wall Street Journal wrote last week, but at the same time wiki still has a lot of influence. Anyone with actual credentials and knowledge is paid for their work, and that's why such shoddy amateur research gets in here. This is why I don't use a log in; the multiple IPs cannot be avoided unfortunately. No way do I want to be associated with this crew.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not one of bias, but of shoddy amateur scholarship.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a question: If you have nothing substantive to say about the article, can you avoid the really pointless insults of others? Please note that there is now a template atop the page that all off topic comments will be removed. John Carter (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That particular statement needs to be said as my comments continue to be misconstrued as concern about writer bias and about bias of sources. The concern is not with the bias of the source but with the quality of the source. This is not a pointless insult but a general concern.

Let's face it the article has not had good editorial oversight, pathetic in fact, and it looks like wiki is stretched way too thin. That IS relevant and it should be discussed. For example, NO feedback on RSN issues, no feedback on GA nominations, and continued ad hominem attacks by nemonoman and astynax in response to any and all criticism, please see above for one more example. The only one with a sense of detachment is you, and you seem stretched very very thin.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For those reasons I do not see why someone would then nominate the article for GA???!!?? Further I believe the article should be flagged until such time as someone PROPERLY evaluates the RS question.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There are perhaps 5-10 amateur researchers, mostly ex-members, in North America working on the group. Collectively, they exhibit very little in the way of academic qualifications. They all know each other and share sources and theories. They either publish on web sites or into SPS books like those used to compile this article. I would be very surprised if astynax, the sole writer of the current wiki article, is not one of these researchers but as he is anonymous there is no way to tell. Again, amateur not proper academic research! 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Church doctrine

The following quote from page 611 of Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, 7th edition, strikes me as potentially relevant, particularly appropriate perhaps for the beginning of the "Doctrines and practices" section. "The Two-by-Twos originated not as a doctrinal movement, but as a response by young Christians to follow the example and admonitions of Christ in their life. Membership in the group involved the acceptance of a pattern or renunciation of the world rather than allegiance to a creed. Beginning with the evangelical faith common to free church Protestants in England at the turn of the century, the group took the Bible as their only crred and have allowed considerable variation in expression and belief. The most orthodox presentation of their faith appears in their hymnbook. 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."

This would indicate that, at least at the beginning, doctrine was not given particular attention because practices, not doctrine, were the focus of the movement. Such absence of doctrinal definition in the beginning would allow for any number of variations within the movement, as that is what tends to happen without firm doctrinal definition. This of course would not necessarily rule out the possibility of overseers, either individually or collectively, covertly defining doctrine through encouragement and/or discouragement of individual preachers, but I'm not sure if that is necessarily indicated by any RS's. However, this clear emphasis on practical conduct rather than occasionally almost impenetrable theology would lead to a rather ill-defined belief system, at least for the group as a whole. I guess I can't rule out given overseers "defining" doctrine within their field. And, guys, believe me, theology gets abstruse once in a while. I remember a quote from Meeting of Minds regarding Aquinas to the effect that something he said was clearly, logically, articulately, and pretty much definitively proven, but that the person speaking didn't have a clue what he was actually talking about. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that partially defines the situation in the early days of this church. The material in early newspaper and other accounts mostly deals with the expression of views regarding the many doctrines which they opposed, rather than doctrines which they supported. Of course, opposition to doctrine is in and of itself the expression of a doctrine, contorted as that may be.

And your suspicion that there might arise differences in some points of doctrine between the top overseers is correct (Parker, pp. 82-90). This is more notable in items which would probably be considered issues of Practice, rather than Doctrine. For instance, these is the position regarding divorced members who remarry in North America: those in eastern N. America who remarry following a divorce may continue to participate in meetings, while those in the West are barred from speaking or receiving communion unless and until they divorce their second spouse(s) and remarry their original partner. Another is the view towards consumption of alcoholic beverages.

However, I think it would be wrong to conclude that the group is deeply disunited on doctrine, and there appears to be a mechanism for resolving doctrinal differences (i.e., occasional international conclaves of the most senior overseers to resolve serious differences). "Unity" actually holds an important place in the sermon notes which I've read. Specifically regarding the Christology issue, Melton's description of that as "unitarian" seems to be a reasonable and accurate encapsulation of the brand of non-trinitarianism which is the standard view. Although Melton is the only source who uses the "unitarian" term, that the group is non-trinitarian isn't really in question (both current and former members have expressed this in the discussions here and elsewhere, and sources other than Melton are referenced for that statement). I know of no source which portrays the group's Christology as trinitarian. • Astynax ^talk 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the trinitarian discussion took place before. Trinitarianism itself is a doctrine which was only defined a few hundred years AD, so it would make sense a "Bible-only" group might not hold with it. It might be interesting to know if they have any particular position on the Comma Johanneum, but I rather doubt there are any particular doctrinal statements in that regard. Would it be erroneous to say it believes in sola scriptura, or might that be an overstatement? So far as I can tell, "sola scriptura" at least describes the conduct, if not the dogmatic position. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is anything in the article which puts a negative (or positive) spin on their non-trinitarian stance, then it should be modified. It is, or should be, just an observation as backed up in the sources, and is an important point to many readers (of either persuasion). I think debating the pro's and con's of trinitarian vs. non-trinitarian views goes way beyond the scope of this article. As for the position on the Johannine Comma, I haven't come across a resource delineating a view (although it has been discussed on various chat boards). They do not hold a literalist view of scriptures. Crow (p. 31) puts it "[T]heir concern is for general 'spiritual' rather than literal meaning." Fortt (pp. 145, 192) notes that although they produce no new scripture, there is a belief in continuing revelation (including through the inspired sermons of the ministry), quoting worker Bob Ingram: "Keep His words. Not only the Bible's words but also what is spoken when He feeds us through His ministry." Again, I think this something not unheard-of in other faith groups. The CC position as to the Bible being its "only doctrine" may sound like a "sola scriptura" position, but doesn't really fit. There may be a better term to describe, but not one which I recall from being used in the materials I've read thus far. • Astynax ^talk 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The group has no published doctrinal position on the question of the Trinity. End of story. Some workers have spoken in non-Trinitarian terms. Personally, I am anti-Trinitarian as far as the question of the Incarnation is concerned. Other friends I know are convinced Trinitarians. But a great percentage of followers have never given the question a moments' thought. Keep this colloquial evidence in mind. The workers' sermon extracts are accurate but nothing in general can be inferred from them. The only thing I can say for certain based on attending meetings in several countries and many states and provinces is that Jesus is considered divine, and seated with God before the Creation, and since his Resurrection.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Johannine Comma I would be surprised if this was ever excluded from any oral exegesis. Reason - KJV is considered authoritative and used in all English speaking countries in all services.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you will get into trouble using terms like 'sola scriptura'. It does fit how workers work and speak, but the problem is that it's not a specifically endorsed term by the workers so an attempt to use it in this article is a retrofit. It smacks of OR, as do many theological terms used in the article which are not common parlance in group teaching. If there are reliable sources that have done extensive research to show the teaching is 'sola scriptura' it would make sense to quote them. But quoting from a polemic and SPS by an amateur researcher like Fortt who has stated that the group is "blinded and in bondage" is bound to lead to POV writing. (And astynax continues to be surprised that I resent Fortt being used as his main RS). 206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement at the end of the 7th edition might be useful as well:

"Only in the late 1970s did substantive literature on the Two-by-Two's become available. Since that time, individual researchers have appeared who have gathered the scant literature (such as notice of conventions). To date (2003? when the edition was published) only one book, by an ex-member and his wife, has appeared (though at least one other major study is projected). In the United States, Threshing Floor Ministries, headed by a former member, is collected data (which has been reviewed in preparing this item for the Encyclopedia). Critics of the movement have charged that it has concealed its origins, especially hiding its association with Irvine and its recent origin, and that it has presented a false front of evangelical orthodoxy when in fact it is completely heterodox. Because of the difficulty in gaining authoritative material about this group, and the contradictory reports on its normative beliefs, no assessment of the doctrinal issue is possible. There is, however, little doubt of its rejection of its early (and to some extent) unhappy history." (from p. 612 of the 7th edition). John Carter (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

John, is that quote Melton? thanks JesseLackman (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Membership

From George D. Chryssides Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, Lanham, MD & London: The Scarecrow Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8108-4095-2, p. 331, "Membership statistics are uncertain; estimates for U.S. membership (probably a third of the world membership) range from 10,000 to 100,000 (1998)." John Carter (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another article I haven't seen! I've added this to the note on membership population. • Astynax ^talk 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Melton has an estimate of about the same magnitude.206.130.91.154 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Doctrines and practices" section - maybe split into two?

For what it's worth, I copied Melton's entry into my computer's memory, for easier reference. However, having read it again, I personally think that the above named section should be split into two, one for practices/structure and another for doctrines. Of course, the name should still be changed to "Two-by-Twos", as I think that is the way most of the sources refer to it, but that is another matter. However, I think that the information regarding the structure and "official" practices of the movement is probably much less contentious than information on beliefs, and that there is probably enough relevant information to expand the sections a bit as well. For instance, information about how they dress simply and largely avoid television, etc., would be reasonable.

Also, this would allow the remaining information, much of which is potentially dubious, to be perhaps organized into a single section. Right now, I see "Doctrines", "Christology" and "Baptism" as three separate sections, in that order. I think Baptism and information on the Lord's supper, both of which are included in fairly unambiguous reference in sources, could easily be placed first in that section, with disputed or unverified claims of former members added thereafter. This would place more emphasis on the more accepted information first, which also tends to be the more important, and allow the contentious material to be discussed after adding something to the effect of "this information is disputed."

The one problem I see that Melton might add to the discussion is how he states that the KJV is that the group "recognizes the King James Bible as its official textbook." John Carter (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: On quick review of the article, I find the material before note 68 to require reworking. As phrased, it is apparently the "policy" of the group to "not reveal" its name, finances, doctrine, or history. This is argumentative language. One, because it seems to convey that there is some sort of name, when the fact of the group having so many different official names indicates it does not have a single name, and also provides a reason for not placing much emphasis on any single name. They are self-described "Christians" not seemingly interested in factionalism as they see it, so they would have no particular need to emphasize a denominational name.

It's alleged policy of not revealing doctrine similarly seems to imply that there is a clear and defined doctrine, but the available evidence would seem to indicate otherwise, although individual overseers might at various times try or have tried to formalize it. Their actions, of course, could be reverted by the next overseer, and different overseers working at the same time might potentially substantially disagree with each other as well.

Not wanting to discuss its history is, I think, understandable, but I question whether it is any form of "policy". The Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, don't stress the number of times they've predicted the world to have ended by now either. Understandably, I think. And, of course, because they do not apparently see themselves as a "denomination", and officially aren't apparently a single coherent denomination internationally, there would seem to be less cause to discuss what they might reasonably think as the comparatively minor events of their own specific history.

On a note related to my post starting this thread, I think one area in which the article does need work is about the organizational structure. Melton and others place rather greater importance on the conventions than this article seems to. I think, given the standards of such conventions in Christianity in general, that it might be at such conventions that overseers are selected. I seem to remember someone other than Melton saying it was at the conventions that the various ministers were selected for each area. But the overseers are potentially the most important members, and it makes sense to go into whatever detail is available regarding how and when they are selected. Standards of such conventions in general would seem to indicate that would be at the conventions, but I don't see anything in the article addressing this matter at this point. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments John. Splitting it into two sections would be fine. I'd also agree that "Two-by-Twos" is more usual in the references ("Cooneyites" is still used in more U.K. sources). The title of the article was decided way back, and I'm not sure the reasons were that compelling. As to inserting a note claiming that information is "disputed," I think that would be WP:UNDUE without some reference to support there being a dispute for a statement. The argument that the group doesn't use the word "unitarian" or that there may be variations in some unspecified somewhere or someplace don't rise to the level of requiring such a note, IMO. Melton's "unitarian" precisely delineates what has been described to me by relatives in my extended family who are members, and I recall Donama stating that this is the case in Australia also.

I'll also note that statements which would be regarded as "Practices" have probably been more contested than the brief "Doctrine" noted. Just about every statement has been challenged at one time or other. As you can see above in the Corrections to make a Better Article section, the most obvious and well-documented items get argued using very stretched reasoning.

The word "policy" was either picked up from an earlier editor, or was from the source used for the sentence (I'll check into it later). I'm not averse to changing it, so long as there is a better way to note that the workers don't discuss (or deny) such things to outsiders. The reference to Bryan Wilson/Eileen Barker has to do specifically with hidden finances, which they hold up as a paradigm of "deception" in contrast with groups such as the Rajneeshies. That they have registered under several official names isn't all that different from mainstream denominations who have also done this from country to country (e.g., the Anglicans, Baptists, etc.).

Conventions are where new workers and the assignment of fields to workers is announced (printed lists for the coming year are distributed). However, the decision on worker assignments is made by the regional Overseer prior to that. I agree that it would be a good addition, and I'll try to check for a source, too. There seems to be a layered structure within the overseers, with certain senior overseers being over areas subdivided into regions headed by junior overseers. The senior overseers appoint the juniors, and elect replacements when one of their own circle dies. There is no involvement on the part of the membership, or even the ordinary workers, in the process of selecting overseers (or for that matter for deciding major issues of doctrine and practice). The source for that was SPS, so I'll have to look to see whether that is stated elsewhere. • Astynax ^talk 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to "disputed", what would you think of something like this, and it is just an example: "The lack of any sort of official documentation or statements by the group makes speaking about its beliefs difficult. Some critics of the group and former members of the group have made statements about its beliefs, although these points have rarely if ever been responded to by anyone actively within the group." At around this time, I think it might be worthwhile mentioning that the hymnbook is about the only source which the group is actively invovled in producing, as Melton and others point out. Also, this quote might be useful for the doctrine and practices section from page 330 of Chryssides' encyclopedia: "Two by twos use the Bible as their sole source of authority and have developed no statement of belief apart from Scriputres. They practice the Lord's Supper (communion) weekly and practice believer's baptism, rebaptizing new members. Their lifestyle includes modesty of appearance, avoidance of worldly activities such as watching television, and usually pacificism." I think it would make sense that the information on doctrine start with a statement that they have no official statement of doctrine. Also, this doesn't conflict with Melton's statement that the doctrine has not changed, because of the 1914 prediction. I'm assuming that the group is no longer anything like doctrine. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion but it will take a very long time to make this an objective article. First, it has taken many months to begin to determine what can and cannot be used as reliable sources. Without that common ground it was and to some extent still is impossible to write or critique a verifiable article. What's the point of discussing the truth value of this or that point, when it may very well fall outside the scope of what has been covered by reliable sources?209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Then once the common ground is established, it appears that there will be an uphill struggle to decide each detail. For one example, how to best capture Melton's statement about critics' view on the group's Christology.209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Melton's "Two by Twos" article hasn't been updated since at least the early 1990s—the first time I looked it up, the library only had a very old edition, with the same outdated statement about available sources, and a glaring error which has yet to be corrected. I will be very interested to see whenever a new and fuller version appears. Apart from primary sources such as the sermon notes which they distribute internally, journals, etc. (and which have been quoted since both in books and on sites such as TTT), there have been a few newspaper interviews with workers which have touched on doctrine and practice, and which I've used to reference or backup citations for some statements in the article. In any event, according to what I've read, Melton has gathered a lot of material since those statements were penned. That doesn't mean that I think that he is wrong, just that the article is incomplete.

As to the line "although these points have rarely if ever been responded to by anyone actively within the group" I think that some in the group are quite open to responding, even stating doctrine. And certainly former members and former ministers (some of whom are indeed hostile) by definition know a thing or two about things inside and their statements cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. Others think it's not their "place to say."

The second paragraph of the Doctrine section currently begins "All the movement's teachings are expressed orally exclusively: the movement publishes no doctrine or statements of faith. Workers hold that all church teachings are based solely on the Bible." That could certainly be moved up to the first paragraph and/or expanded. Perhaps both the Melton statement and the Chryssides statement which you've quoted could be repeated in full as footnotes to those lines (or would there be a copyright problem with that?). • Astynax ^talk 05:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes individual members are willing to respond to questions about "doctrine" but generally do not like to speak for the whole fellowship. In this sense individual friends and workers are very much "live and let live". Individuals really can't speak for collectives, doing so commits the collective attribution/collective guilt fallacy. This is a problem with statements in the article, they attribute specific beliefs to a collective without the objective, statistical, research to back the attribution up. The lack of an objective dataset on which to base what's being asserted and/or attributed to the friends and workers fellowship (collective) defaults those assertions and attributions to personal opinions/interpretations. JesseLackman (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are short enough to pass the Fair Use test. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct. It does seem odd for an encyclopedia to quote directly from another encyclopedia, though. I recall a comment about unease with encyclopedias being used even as references—that was around the time of the peer review. But if there is nothing wrong with doing so, then footnoting with full quotes from Melton and Chryssides sounds like a great idea to me. • Astynax ^talk 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd because, in fact, it is odd for one encyclopedia to quote another. You might be interested in knowing though that we would not be the only ones to do so in this case. I remember seeing Melton's encyclopedia cited as either a source or further reading in at least one other source. As has been said above, there hasn't been much outside attention given to this group before the 1970s, and Melton himself indicates in that article that he is, in fact, more or less basing it on at least a few primary sources as well, so in this case it could be argued that his book might qualify to some extent as a secondary rather than tertiary source. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of us citing something like Encyclopedia Britannica, which I agree would be inappropriate. Reference works on specialist topics sometimes call themselves "The Encyclopedia of ..."; I think there is broad agreement across Wikipedia that it is fine to cite such books just like any other authoritative reference source on a specialist subject. Indeed, Melton's The Encyclopedia of American Religions is widely cited in Wikipedia [10], and it is also widely cited in scholarly secondary sources [11], [12]. --JN466 17:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to discount Melton and then use SPS like Fortt and so on. Also other reliable sources like Jaenen have been discounted as well by astynax.206.51.24.208 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And what about writers like Fortt and publications from RIS? Nemonoman states above that Fortt is a reliable source in his view.206.51.24.208 (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If we could ever pin the reliable sources issue down, then we could have a serious discussion about the article content. Otherwise, what is the point? 206.51.24.208 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead implemented John Carter's suggestion to split the section and also moved up the sentences from the second paragraph to the front with a ref to the quote from Chryssides. Just to see how it looks. It does read better to me. • Astynax ^talk 17:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is willing to work the Melton quotes John Carter mentions at the beginning and end of the Church Doctrine section above into the article? The second one is especially important and would go a long way in balancing the obvious source NPOV issues. Both should be in the article itself, not footnotes. John Carter's idea of leading off the Doctrine section with the Melton quote is a good one. thanks, JesseLackman (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What in particular is it that you want moved up from the Melton or Chryssides quotes, which is not already covered in the existing first two sentences? • Astynax ^talk 07:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Two-by-Twos originated not as a doctrinal movement, but as a response by young Christians to follow the example and admonitions of Christ in their life. Membership in the group involved the acceptance of a pattern or renunciation of the world rather than allegiance to a creed. Beginning with the evangelical faith common to free church Protestants in England at the turn of the century, the group took the Bible as their only creed and have allowed considerable variation in expression and belief. The most orthodox presentation of their faith appears in their hymnbook. 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."

"Only in the late 1970s did substantive literature on the Two-by-Two's become available. Since that time, individual researchers have appeared who have gathered the scant literature (such as notice of conventions). To date only one book, by an ex-member and his wife, has appeared (though at least one other major study is projected). In the United States, Threshing Floor Ministries, headed by a former member, is collected data (which has been reviewed in preparing this item for the Encyclopedia). Critics of the movement have charged that it has concealed its origins, especially hiding its association with Irvine and its recent origin, and that it has presented a false front of evangelical orthodoxy when in fact it is completely heterodox. Because of the difficulty in gaining authoritative material about this group, and the contradictory reports on its normative beliefs, no assessment of the doctrinal issue is possible. There is, however, little doubt of its rejection of its early (and to some extent) unhappy history." (from p. 612 of the 7th edition 2003?).

Then what John Carter suggests; "I think a simple summary of "Sources (list) may not be reliable, and on that basis the following statements are not reliably sourced: (list)" would be the best way to go."

That would accomplish much the same thing as the guidelines in WP:ASF I mentioned in Verifiability and Truth; [13]

Thanks,

JesseLackman (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Status of Research and Information Services, Inc. as a publisher

Could editors outline the arguments, based on WP:RS, which in their view speak for treating RIS as a self-publishing set-up publishing primary sources, and those that speak for treating it as just another publisher of reliable secondary sources? --JN466 17:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you associating self-publishing with "primary source". Someone could easily self-publish as a secondary source, and such would be orginal research. However, in the event RIS has published both primary accounts and secondary works.206.51.24.208 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RIS can be found at this link [14]. They have published only 4 books, all released between 1993 and 1996. No independent and ongoing editorial team, no research staff, no legal staff, publish on only one narrow topic. Note WP:RS states "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". There can be no confidence in a house that published a total of 4 books 15 or so years ago that any of that was done. The web site and method of printing (poor type-setting, fastbound binding) also indicate a barebones operation.206.51.24.208 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Look over the site, especially the content and nature of the books, and the polemical nature of the books becomes clear. In spite of the claim on the front page that their "only motive is to present truth", here are some back cover blurbs. From Fortt, "Persons coming into contact with the group for the first time usually have little or no idea of the heretical tenets held by the group. Nor should outsiders expect to communicate accurately with Two-by-Two members without a grasp of their esoteric terminology and doctrine." From Daniel & Quick, "the story of one man's journey out of the spiritual prison of psychological and emotional bondage". A legit publisher may very well use similar blurbs in an expose style book. But before they do, they've fact-checked and legal checked the contents. No assurance of that here. 206.51.24.208 (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the previous discussion regarding this source is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37#One topic publishing house acceptable as RS?. It's not a quick read, and refers to other sources as well. One of the arguments for inclusion there was the fact that one of the books has a foreward by an academic. I haven't myself seen the foreward to know what it says, or been able to verify whether this particular academic is in a field related to the subject. That would however be relevant. That's about all I can add though. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Egad. Just skimmed that over. And people wonder why I post anonymously?? :) You are right; it's not a quick read, and painful in fact.206.51.24.208 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that writers like Fortt and Daniel have no academic background in History or Theology, and have no reputation or standing in the academic community that would indicate their reliability. Nor do they have any kind of CV or track record other than just the one book each.206.51.24.208 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of difference between an ex-member writing a book, going to a printer, and setting up a web site, or, as in this case, three such ex-members getting together with their books going to a printer, and setting up a web site to sell the books.206.51.24.208 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at that RSN thread -- comments by uninvolved editors only -- the publisher was far from being given a "clean bill of health". Fortt and Daniel combined have 33 citations in the Christian Conventions article; Melton has 4. I'd suggest that that balance should rather be reversed. Parker & Parker are well cited in the article as well; but I think that is justified by the number of citations their book has received in reliable sources.

But later in the thread the case is made that those uninvolved editors only made that judgement because I (RSUser) had misled them. In fact, Nemonoman asked me to apologize to all the editors present for having so misled them. So the opinions went unheeded. I am very concerned that we will just repeat history here. Also, Parker and Parker is a good source basically although dated. 206.51.24.208 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me workersect.org is an advocacy site; we are not here to do their advocacy for them. Neither are we here to do advocacy for the Workers and Friends. My recommendation is to focus – in the main – on reliable third-party sources from established academic publishers, and/or the established scholars like Melton, Chryssides, Wallis, Wilson and Barker. --JN466 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the RIS website, they appear to have 5 books in-print by 5 different authors, and one out-of-print with no author listed. They also seem to be a distributor for Parker and Parker. I don't have extensive bibliographical tools, apart from whenever I can use the library's subscription services. However, I have come across the 2 cited books from RIS listed as references at the articles on the CC's at u. of virginia's NRM site ("new religious movements") while it is being revised), cesnur.org (where they are listed along with Parker and Parker and the TTT site as necessary, though adversarial sources, until more sources become available—which sounds familiar in relation to this discussion), and religioustolerance.org. I noticed the Daniel book listed in the references in Dair Rioga Local History Group's All in Good Faith, which although it doesn't show up in google searches like some others I've come across, is eminently RS (a project underwritten by the Irish government). The 2 RIS books cited in the WP article are also referenced in at least 2 works authored by Massimo Introvigne (who seems to be a highly respected authority on NRM's internationally from what I can see) here and here.

I think that the article does cite mainstream sources as often as possible, with use of backup citations when the source falls short of an academic publisher. Again, the problem is that there are huge gaps in the coverage by academic publishers, none of whom seem to have published any in-depth exploration of the CC's (that I've come across yet). That doesn't mean that there isn't something out there, since publications from outside N. America often don't come up in results from the database subscriptions available at the library. But I've searched fairly extensively. Perhaps the lack of academic sources is a barrier to GA status, as there just may not be too much more out there. • Astynax ^talk 06:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also a question of WP:DUE weight. Like I've said, Parker & Parker are widely cited; they are not a problem: but we currently have too much weight on Fortt and Daniel, who are little cited and engaged in counteradvocacy. At the same time we have too little weight on people like Melton, who has no stake in this and is a widely recognised authority. I wouldn't say don't use Fortt and Daniel, but use them sparingly for what you think are their most important points, and use them with attribution and make clear who they are and that RIS is an advocacy set-up. --JN466 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. However, sources on Melton's level only summarily mention things like the organization and background in passing. Parker and Parker could perhaps be used to replace some of the Daniel references (though the small type, not adhering to a chronological narrative with the lack of an index make it a pain to use to look up references). The quote John Carter provided from Chryssides' dictionary makes a good replacement for one of Fortt's statements, and Melton can be used to replace another. I don't want to get this thread off-track, so ask about replacements for other statements sourced to Daniel and Fortt down in the "Other possible sources" section. • Astynax ^talk 19:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say don't use Fortt and Daniel, but use them sparingly. This kind of equivocation which is fuzzy just sets up confusion. You can see below the results of having made this statement. I'm not saying you are wrong, but as a senior, outside uninvolved editor, clarity is much better than accuracy.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Other possible sources

I'm having trouble pulling some of these up right now, but I doubt they are dead links:

• religioustolerance.org, which I think has been agreed to be acceptable as an RS, if not necessarily optimal
• Rick Ross Institute, pretty much the same as above
• Christian Research Institute, which I myself have serious questions about
  
• maybe some of the items here

Anyway, just some suggestions. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The religioustolerance article gives a broad outline. I already had obtained copies of the second and third Albany Times articles listed at rickross.com (though Rick Ross and the site are unfamiliar to me). The first article listed there (about the anti-education attitude) isn't something which came up when I was searching for refs. Interesting. CRI is a site I recall coming across before. Its article seems to backup several statements in the CC article, though it does seem to be presenting the information from a decidedly conservative or even evangelical position. Could be OK as long as that stance isn't imported into the article here. • Astynax ^talk 07:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you cite the newspaper articles, make sure to cite the papers themselves and link only to their original locations. The Daily Illini article is here: http://www.dailyillini.com/diversions/2009/02/24/ui-student-shunned-by-cult-for-sake-of-education --JN466 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org does have some specifically useful facts though, such as no church weddings, because ministers aren't authorized to perform them, and some other points. And I withdraw the claims about CRI. One of its related people is kind of notable, but definitely an advocate for his opinions. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for convenience, I've updated the list of Daniel and Fortt citations compiled by Nemonoman in an earlier discussion. Since these seem to be sources where it's been argued that replacements with better references or backup would be desirable, stronger and more complete references would be welcome...

citing fortt...

• 77 church buildings denounced
• 86 preaching considered inspired by god
• 88 and the corollary that their thoughts are given significant weight
• 104 backup for statement that ther are differences in practice between regions
• 111 details the common view, which backs up Melton's conclusion of a unitarian christology
• 113 those who have been approved by the workers are baptised by immersion
• 119 what the group calls itself: "The Truth" or "The Way"
• 126 official name in Australia
• 132, 131 terms used within the group (the only place I've found where this is given in one place)
• 136 ranking within the ministry
• 141 ranking within the ministry
• 150 use of leavened bread (response to a cite request)
• 151 backup for 2 other statements documenting their contention that they have "no organization"
• 155 discouragement of recordkeeping
• 162 hymnal description

citing daniel...

• 21 history documenting Irvine's "Alpha Message"—with TTT website as backup - could be replaced by Parker
• 26 early workers within the movement—with TTT website as backup
• 34 Irvine seen as interferring in the fields of overseers—with TTT website as backup
• 40 Irvine's ouster not announced or widely known even inside the group—with TTT website as backup
• 45 Weir (the third of the group of first workers to come to N. America) later ousted—with TTT website as backup
• 61 full text of letters documenting the taking of official names after WWII being done in secret and controversial
• 71 brings history section up to the 1990s
• 98 quotes a senior CC minister regarding participation of members
• 122, 124 name of group in Canada and New Zealand
• 129 claim that the group was founded by Christ in the 1st century—2 newspaper articles as backup
• 142 list of the types of meetings held (this is the only print source where I've found them listed together in one place)
• 154 detail on how funded
• 157 gospel invitations only material printed which outsiders are likely to encounter—with TTT website as backup
• 159 organizational structure

I think this is somewhat the wrong approach. What we should be doing is determining what can be sourced from the available sources which are pretty much universally regarded as reliable rather than try to determine which data from potentially less than trustworthy sources can be verified from other more trustworthy sources. I have sent Astynax an e-mail containing the full entries from the encyclopedias by Chryssides and Lewis, and I hope that he finds them useful. But I think the way to go here is to basically not deal with the material from the potentially troublesome sources, but just add and verify what we can from the sources which are cldearly and pretty much unambiguously reliable. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John here. --JN466 20:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article with additional references to Chryssides, Lewis and Wilson. That changed the numbering in the list above, which I've also corrected, just to make it easier to look up which statements are being supported. • Astynax ^talk 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proper attribution for Doctrine from Fortt/Daniel and other non-RS

I suggest looking at a particular problematic sentence to develop a guideline in how to proceed. The doctrine section states "The Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, except that its words be made 'alive' through preaching of its ministers". This sentence is problematic since this is an inferred and not an explicit doctrine of the movement through consistent preaching. There are reasonable grounds to make such an inference, but then - a) should it be attributed to a counter-advocacy group, or b) dropped altogether? This statement is arguable and invites contention especially because it is stated as an explicit doctrine in the face of the group having no such thing. To me, it would be more NPOV to indicate the grounds upon which this case has been made in concrete terms. For example, that the group has re-baptized members of other churches in some known cases. That is a known fact, has a reliable source in the Melton article, and allows the reader to make of it what they will. I am interested to know what outside editors think?209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps the lack of academic sources is a barrier to GA status". I personally think GA is attainable in light of RS that 'are' available. A lot of good work has been done by 'astynax'. At the same time, if there are RS issues, should the article not be flagged accordingly until these are addressed under the purview and to the satisfaction of non-involved editors (which is something we cannot take for granted will be forthcoming).209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

GA and maybe FA are available, at least potentially anyway. Maximus the Confessor may not appear to be much of an article, but it pretty much has everything that is known about the subject, and that's enough. Regarding the flagging matter, I think first it would be useful to have an indication on the talk page what specific material is to be flagged. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about the merit-awarding processes at wiki but I would agree. Often less is more. Regarding the flagging, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do you mean, which sources are not reliable and should be attributed when used, or do you mean which statements appear to be poorly sourced?209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean indicating the statements in the text primarily. I think a simple summary of "Sources (list) may not be reliable, and on that basis the following statements are not reliably sourced: (list)" would be the best way to go. Like I said, I just sent Astynax the two encyclopedia entries from Chryssides and Lewis' encyclopedias, and it may well be that the statements, or a slight variation on those statements, can be sourced from them. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To take the one statement above. No less than 6 sources, not generally or widely available, are attributed. Yet to me that is a strong and very novel statement which would demand incontrovertible sources if generally and universally true. Can I just express my skepticism and ask for a direct quote from the best source available?17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.236.195 (talk)

I don't see fortt/daniel used as sources for the statement "The Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, except that its words be made 'alive' through preaching of its ministers." The same with the rebaptizism statement—the Fortt statement only backs the method: "immersion." So why are these qualms under the headding "Proper attribution for Doctrine from Fortt/Daniel"? Off to check my email. • Astynax ^talk 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fortt and Daniel are not the only sourcing issues I believe. For example, the statement under contention is sourced from "The Original Dr. Steve's Almanac of Christian Trivia: A Miscellany of Oddities, Instructional Anecdotes, Little-Known Facts and Occasional Frivolity." Anyway, as I said, is there not a way to flag the article as not having reliable sources until such time as it is corrected? 209.162.236.195 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On page 330 of Chryssides' encyclopedia is the sttement, "They celebrte the Lord's Supper (communion) weekly and practice believer's baptism, rebaptizing new members." I think that should be sufficient to verify the rebaptism statement. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with using Melton to verify the statement? It's there in black and white. Are you clear that I used that as an example of a good, solid, verified and true statement in my first paragraph?209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)::

I don't think anyone made a concrete claim that sources were non-RS, but rather that self-published websites don't meet the level of reliability for a GA, and that materials from advocacy publishers, while they may be used, should in proportion to avoid [WP:Undue] (and I've asked for clarification on that point). What is the purpose of tagging the article?

I'm asking. I don't know if it should be flagged. I believe that Fortt and Daniel are not RS. Is the standard for reliability for GA different from the standard for inclusion in wiki? A standard should be a standard; either the source is reliable enough for inclusion in wiki or it isn't. GA should not come into it. So if the standard for inclusion has not been met, then the article should be flagged until it is fixed. Am I wrong or right?209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Chryssides and Lewis text just came through. Thanks John, having that typed-in is very convenient. • Astynax ^talk 18:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems the dialogue became confused; sorry if I was not clearer. I was trying to indicate that the sentence "The Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, except that its words be made 'alive' through preaching of its ministers" is a sweeping statement, whereas the supporting fact to that statement, that believers are re-baptised, is verifiable and also true. Somehow that was construed as me questioning the second statement. Again, the concern is about the first statement. Is there a good, reliable source for this statement?64.7.157.139 (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1. A standard should be a standard; either the source is reliable enough for inclusion in wiki or it isn't.
2. I was trying to indicate that the sentence "The Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, except that its words be made 'alive' through preaching of its ministers" is a sweeping statement, whereas the supporting fact to that statement, that believers are re-baptised, is verifiable and also true.

Reasoning like this is why my brain feels like a ping-pong ball.--Nemonoman (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You've isolated quotes out of context in a way that they lose their meaning. But I guess it just comes down to whether there is a reliable source to support the statement or not. It is that simple.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow that ping-pong analogy really works for you. So, you explain to me why the WP:RS standard should be different for a GA than for any other article. Read over the standard and tell me where it should be different.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)