Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Christian Conventions/1

Christian Conventions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No action. See below for further remarks. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor that created the original Good Article Nomination and so I was disturbed that the lead reviewer would be a person who made major edits to the article, who had led long discussions of the article, and who felt that the consensus version did not reflect his beliefs or knowledge of the group - of which he is an active member.

JesseLackman (talk) opened the GAR and failed the article 48 hours later, after a SINGLE ASSESSMENT by an uninvolved editor.

What in the world are you talking about, "major edits"? I looked at Mr Lackman's stats below and he has only made 9 edits compared to over 200 for the top editors. And I believe 8 of those edits were reversed if I read the chart correctly. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This lead GAR reviewer editor had worked on this article and this article alone in the last 18 months.

• He stated his membership in and his allegiance to the group.
• He made it very clear that he had a complete lack of faith in any source material from outside the group.
• He agreed that the article SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN since the group itself releases no public literature.
• He held that edits that altered material from the way he wanted it were indications of being "Anti".

He seems to have created his own interpretations of GA criteria specifically to fail the article. For example here is his "FAIL" of the Stability requirement. (When reading this "Fail" please note that the article had been virtually unchanged in the 3.5 months following its peer review before this comment)

Stable Fail. GA review guidelines clearly state if the article is “the subject of ongoing edit wars, it is unstable, and thus should not be passed.” Stable does not mean wearing down other editors with instant page edit reversals and a deluge of progressively lower-quality citations until they give up. This article’s edit history seems to tell this story as do comments here and in the talk pages.

The bias and hostility shown in this comment are consistent with the whole GA "review".

I invite other editors to read his review, and I request a reassessment of the article by a disinterested editor. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

Quote;

• He stated his membership in and his allegiance to the group.
• He made it very clear that he had a complete lack of faith in any source material from outside the group.
• He agreed that the article SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN since the group itself releases no public literature.
• He held that edits that altered material from the way he wanted it were indications of being "Anti".

~

If any are interested in verifying these charges (you should be) please read my contributions [1] or ask nemonoman. The one I will admit to here is "He stated his membership in ... the group". The rest require the proof of specific quotes to back them up. I'm interested in seeing those quotes myself.

Also check these revision history statistics -> [2] to see if I am a major editor of the article.

This -> [3] is the low quality "source" I mentioned in the stable section of the GAR. Read through the whole thing and objectively think about if it actually meets the wiki guidelines I referred to in the GAR, if any think it does, please explain how.

Please take the time to read the GAR itself [4], the article [5], AND the talk pages including the archives[6].

Last but not least note in the GAR that nemonoman himself suggest that I fail the article, and that he would resubmit it. I'm happy to see the re-nomination asks for a a community reassessment, something I support. I actually thought about asking for that myself.

Any further questions please ask.

thank you,

JesseLackman (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As per usual nonemoman makes up things to make his case. It'll be interesting to see what he comes up with to substantiate his points. How many edits was that you made Mr. Lackman? Also, I noticed the Good Article nomination has been pending since July. Let's face it. Wiki is too big and editors are leaving in droves so no one has time for the headaches this article induces. The RSN issue was never resolved. And no one will provide a GA review, and if they do it will be to count commas or something like that. Also, interesting that not one point in the Review is addressed by nemonoman who immediately resorts to 'ad hominem' attacks since actually responding to tangible issues would take something like work. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As the continuing stream of comments made by members of the group on the Talk page indicate:

1) This is an article prepared by one ex-member of the group from SPS materials written by a) other ex-members and b) anti-cult movement groups who publish prolifically on religious movements. Look at the contributor history since Spring 2009 will verify this.

2) There is little serious academic research on the group; it is a simple home church movement that flies under the radar.

3) There are serious discrepancies between the wiki article and Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. Melton writes that there is no suitable material to make a judgement on the doctrine of the group.

4) Members of the group can only register their disagreement on the Talk page; they are not permitted to make deletions to SPS material in the article.206.130.91.154 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking through the article I agree that there are problems with poor source usage. There are a bunch of odd websites used that should probably be removed as a source, and (if anything) kept as an external link or further reading suggestion. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt for taking a look. The websites were included as backup sources for particular statements already cited using one or more other sources. This was in response to challenges on the talk pages to even the most mundane and documented of observations.

• tellingthetruth.info has been included as RS by consensus of both sides in the discussions.
• thelyingtruth.info is used as a backup reference for an article in the LA Times.
• religio.de is run by a German theologian and academic; backup for a single statement.
• religioustolerance.org I recall as having been raised and found as RS for other articles.
• veteransoftruth is a backup of other sources for a statement which members contested in talk.
• bibles-direct.com prints the hymnal used exclusively by this group, and the website confirms the title and publisher.

The links to workersect.org and anotherstep.net link to copies of documents (a letter to the Selective Service by one of the workers, and incorporation paperwork for Canada and Sweden).

The websites might be superfulous, were it not for repeated challenges by members of the CC church to even the most pedestrian of statements and/or sources within the article. We've been through a seemingly unending series of discussions where it has been intransigently argued that no statement can stand in the article simply because facts regarding the group must be spiritually assessed in order to be valid, and similar faith-based and personal experience-based positions. I understand the frustration in making a case resting on pillars unverifiable by those outside their sphere, but those are an insupportable foundation for challenging statements or for the article itself.

Since the background has been dredged up here, please allow me to note for the sake of balance that one editor in particular, who for whatever reason contributes under multiple accounts and IP's, has in the past argued that the article itself be AfD'd because there were no acceptable sources. Despite his repeated aspersions as to my involvement, my main work here has been to find references for statements already made in the article. This editor made positive statements regarding my initial rearrangement, but quickly began to undercut that assessment by raising a variety of assertions (his knowledge of an exception here, or of a difference there). Refusing to provide any source (apart from an online discussion group) to backup his blanking and proposed rewording, he argued the position that statements be allowed without citing resources. Meanwhile, citations continued to be provided for every statement. Next, he adopted a tactic of attacking the sources being cited as non-RS and/or SPS, again without offering any backup for his attacks apart from his say-so. He shopped this to WP:Verifiablility and WP:RS, and again raised the same objections during the period peer review was underway, contending also that, as the group does not publish historical or other documentation for itself, no sources are valid and/or are biased. And now the same arguments are repeated here, which looks like poisoning the well, intentionally or not. These are not new issues, but have been dealt with extensively in the past, and continues to be discussed episodically on the article's talk. • Astynax ^talk 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is preferable to use independent reliable secondary sources instead of POV websites which may be seen as having agendas to push. Were there any WP:RSN discussions where previously uninvolved editors came to a consensus to accept these questionable sources? Cirt (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was raised here in a huge multi-part thread which veered between website and printed sources. Mostly dominated by involved editors, though. • Astynax ^talk 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It was also a point in the AfD discussion raised by the same editor (different account) for the related "Cooneyites" article, for which many of the same sources would be used. • Astynax ^talk 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor John Carter also posted a thread regarding RS here, although responses there consist entirely of those made by myself and the two involved editors who have already posted statements above. Not very useful, but for the record. • Astynax ^talk 20:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that past stuff does not help much as it is dominated by involved editors. Therefore I would remain in the position of not including these poor sources in the article. Cirt (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I should very briefly comment on astynax's description of my activities, which is pretty much all true but defensible and all done in good faith. I won't bother to defend, other than the point of multiple IDs. I originally posted under my real name. I then changed to a pseudonym for personal reasons. I was then outed by nonemoman and astynax back to my real name so I now post only anonymously. Can't help the multiple IPs. At no time have I posted using sock puppets or multiple IDs simultaneously.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is fine, but the text is guarded assiduously by astynax and nonemoman. The original article was replaced wholesale in March of this year by astynax, and is pretty much a single author article. See [7] 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A brief article could be built out of a few defined secondary sources, esp Melton. My greatest objection is to sources from RIS esp Fortt and the retro-engineering of the movement's doctrine. The John Carter initiated RSN thread is very useful to anyone that wants a survey/bibliography of almost all sources available on the subject. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I reserve the right to believe that wiki is mainly a bad thing.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Using self-published websites to back up contested statements is not a good solution. Looking at the websites mentioned above, I would let religioustolerance.org pass, because it is well cited in scholarly literature (even so, it might be best to use it with explicit attribution where statements are contentious). Like Cirt, I can see no good reason to use the others (do try and convince me if you think I am unaware of good reasons why these websites should be ranked alongside academic sources). Attributing the statements to their sources ("According to Author X in Work Y, ...") is a good step forward where editors contest the accuracy of what the sources are saying.
• JesseLackman has not been a major editor of this article as far as I can see. However, he may have a conflict of interest with respect to it. It is not really appropriate to act as a GA reviewer under those circumstances. While I understand what may have compelled him to do so here, it probably would have been better to let another editor review the article and, if necessary, ask for a GA reassessment afterwards. It's not a big deal though; we are all talking now.
• Academic sources like Melton (I have his encyclopedia on order) should be used preferentially. Paker & Parker seem well cited: [8]
• Hope this is useful. It will take time for outside editors like me to get up to speed with this subject matter; please bear with us. --JN466 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell from http://www.workersect.org/index.html RIS appears to be a dedicated countermovement to this group. Such sources are unashamedly partisan. In this, they are comparable to a movement's own sources. Extensive use of either type of source is inappropriate. Good WP articles are based on high-quality third-party sources that have listened to both movement and countermovement sources and have assessed their various claims, and have put them into context. Exceptions should be made where a countermovement source is very widely cited for statements of fact by top-quality sources; but this does not seem to be the case for RIS: [9][10] --JN466 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to the new, uninvolved editors for their comments. I opened the reassessment, but I do not mean to be the GAR lead or to be the one making the final determination of pass or fail. If the article does fail, I hope there is a list of to-dos that can be done to bring it to acceptable GA status.

The subject matter of this article is about the strangest one can imagine in an encyclopedia. It's like Fight Club: the first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club.

Thanks for the effort, wiki colleagues. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Jayen466. I agree that the RIS publications are often PoV. As to them being cited elsewhere, they are in a few places which I noted in one of the discussions somewhere, though it is a miracle that any of the few books on the group, including Parker and Parker, are cited at all. Unless I and my reference librarian have missed some over the last months, there aren't all that many works which deal with the group in any detail at all. Parker and Parker have been referenced in more places, but that may be due to the age of their work, and their inclusion in Melton's widely distributed and available article (which itself doesn't seem to have been updated since at least the early 1990's).

I've (and I believe the few others who have bothered to actually provide references) have tried to be avoid using material from RIS and similar adversarial sources to reference controversial material, and have provided backup references where there have been even weak challenges. As Parker and Parker deal almost entirely with the history, and because the encylopedia references which I've seen to date are very brief and in some cases barely outlines, the RIS books provide references which I've not come across in better sources elsewhere. I'm all for better sources, however.

Unless I'm mistaken, that RIS materials are adversarial does not preclude them from being used as sources, rather they must be used carefully. The RIS materials are referenced for items such as the CC weekly rounds of meetings, hymnal details, quotations from primary sources which are otherwise only available on internet sites, etc. (and I suspect they were used for similar backup when referenced in the U. of Virginia's web article on the group or in the religioustolerance.org article). A few times they've been cited simply because the better sources already cited have been challenged as being not enough. Most of the statements being sourced haven't been singled out as controversial (yet), even though a couple editors have made a point of contending that any statement made about the group is inherently invalid. The acrimony directed at RIS seems to me more a case of partisan insistence that anything coming from RIS publications be banned. • Astynax ^talk 07:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll follow on Astynax's comments. I and a couple of other editors have really pushed into this concern because the subject is not often researched by Big Time Publications. The members of the group pride themselves on their secrecy, from all accounts, or that at least is the conclusion I draw; and they often say that a fact documented all over the place cannot be verified because -- well for dozens of reasons. While few Major Publications have published on the group, there is All Kinds of Material Out There. So I and a couple of others have pushed into Wiki guidelines that would apply in this situation. What to do when there is an mountain of reference material available, but so little from the sorts of sources that WP (and I) would prefer.

There are relevant guidelines, actually. The guidelines for BLPs offer a lot of help: what sorts of sources are acceptable when the Big Players have not yet developed publications about facts widely reported by Little Players. Since that's basically the case with this subject, I have tried to assure that less desirable sources, when used, are used with extreme care and qualification. As Astynax says, these sources are NOT used to describe questionable activities within the group, though many of the sources seem to have a whistleblowing slant; but rather as sources of generally available information about the history and basic practices of the group, and wherever possible this information is given multiple independent citations. We have worked like dogs to NPOV the article content, in my opinion we have overdone this. We don't use lesser sources to conflate accusations of wrongdoing or mismanagement by the group: just neutral facts insofar as possible.

Another useful guideline is that sources' reliability are not GENERAL in character, but based on the specific areas being quoted. The New York Times may be a Reliable Source for an article about, say, New York FIre Department actions on 9/11. It is not necessarilyh a reliable source for information on say C++ programming constructs. IN addition to the source and the fact, one must consider the source/fact relationship. The neutrality of a source is specifically NOT AN ISSUE in RS guidelines, if the fact presented is not POV in character.

My summary of acceptablity guidelines, based on extensive review of the relevant wiki guides:

• Wikipedia articles must be neutral in their point of view.
• The sources cited in Wikipedia articles are not required to be neutral.
• Sources cited in Wikipedia articles must be reliable.
• However, "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."

I believe the article follows these guidelines. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tell me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly, but the argument seems to be that since we don't have good, reliable sources we are forced to use poor ones. To me, the doctrine section of the article certainly reads like that is the case. (Very few issues with the history section). What this does is "trojan horse" in all kinds of statements which have not stood the normal tests of editorship, fact-checking and/or peer review. Untrue statements are deemed "verifiable" and thus will stand. Certainly it was the intent of the policy writers of wiki that verifiablity would create a subset of all that is true, and not be used to admit conjecture, amateur research and private theories? 206.51.24.208 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman's opinion is that the web sites, Fortt and the RIS authors are reliable sources. Can we put this issue to rest, and then we can move onto some real issues.206.51.24.208 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

206, you and I have gotten into to some nasty arguments and I found it best to just disengage from discussions with you, but with some trepidation, I'll address what you say: the argument seems to be that since we don't have good, reliable sources we are forced to use poor ones. I should say rather that we must use the best sources available to present as complete a picture as possible. Also that there are existing WP guidelines for doing this, and also how I believe those guidelines apply.

it was the intent of the policy writers of wiki that verifiablity would create a subset of all that is true, and not be used to admit conjecture, amateur research and private theories. Sort of: the intent as I have come to understand it is to prevent a situation where articles are written entirely out of personal knowledge (ie., Original Research). Verifiable not true is the key paradox. The editor must encapsulate what some other source has said. The editor cannot add information s/he "knows" to be true, but which cannot be found in sources outside the article. And I think the converse applies, information cannot be removed from an article simpy because an editor "knows" that it isn't true.

Lastly I'll say this: the questions you raise have been settled for the most part as regards the content of the article. It is highly cited, and the citations have survived a lot of scrutiny. The question is reasonably re-raised by you however, as regards the nomination for Good Article. I'm interested in seeing how non-involved editors sort through this thicket. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The self-published countermovement websites are not acceptable sources for a GA. As far as I can tell, the RIS authors Fortt and Daniel are little cited by other authors (unlike Parker & Parker), and at 33 citations between them currently seem overused, especially compared to an authoritative source like Melton, who has a bare handful of citations {WP:DUE). --JN466 17:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify. If the article doesn't present PoV, then how do the sources cited become a matter of WP:DUE? Again, there is very little information contained in the overviews given by sources such as Melton (which I'm having trouble finding cited in existing GA articles in the Christianity project). So, you are saying that we could qualify as GA by shortening the article—ripping out NPoV material for which there is not support from the likes of Melton or Chryssides? The RIS books currently account for less than 17% of the citations; what percentage would you consider would keep it from falling into WP:UNDUE territory? I'm not asking to be confrontational, but this would be valuable to know in the case of articles dealing with other NRMs and non-creedal groups for which there isn't a whole lot of external source material—there should be some guidelines for this. • Astynax ^talk 21:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the result of a google books search for Fortt: [11] Google Scholar: [12] The book is only mentioned in two Italian-language books by Introvigne (who is a highly reputable, Catholic religious scholar, and runs the CESNUR website), but it is just listed, rather than having any content cited to it. It is the same for Daniel: [13] [14]; again Introvigne is the only non-RIS source to mention it. Neither author seems to have any track record beyond these books. Here, for comparison, is Parker & Parker: [15][16]

If the content based on the 30-odd citations to Fortt and Daniel is standard, NPOV stuff, then the same points should come up in natural progression in all the other, more standard, sources as well, and the article would benefit from having these points cited to these more standard sources. On the other hand, if most of these 30 points are only sourceable to RIS books, then the article is giving Fortt and Daniel undue weight, and we should make a briefer summary of what they are saying, and otherwise focus on the points made in the other sources.

As for numbers, I would say, off the top of my head, given that it's hard to find any third-party books citing Fortt and Daniel, they shouldn't have more than a handful, at most 10 citations between them, with in-text attribution.

If there are specific items of content that you are concerned about losing, do mention them, and we can look at that together. --JN466 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Nemonoman. I've long since concluded that the problem isn't you or me, it is wiki. I believe wiki is to knowledge what Communism was to achievement. Egalitarianist schemes quickly become unworkable once the initial euphoria wears off. In this case, the euphoria just hasn't worn off yet, at least for a diminishing number of editors. All that, just to say, nothing personal.209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The only point I will make is that RS judgements should be no different for a non-GA article than a GA article. Why should they be? The standards are supposed to govern what gets included in wiki, not what makes a GA. So these issues have been there all along. Yes, I will keep re-asserting the same old arguments and I intend to keep re-asserting them until the article is V and NPOV. I'm not interesting in wiki, but I am interested in Christian Conventions. Given those are our differences in interest, our interest in achieving V and NPOV is the same. I sincerely hope you do achieve your GA for all your hard work, but I won't rest until I feel V and NPOV are met.209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Williston book under "Further Reading" should go. It is a fictional account, self-published via Lulu.com, which exercises zero editorial oversight. --JN466 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's gone. Because another reviewer in the intial review appeared to not like "Further reading" sections, I've blanked that entire section. Just as with "Related links" sections, people continually add and delete items, and it is difficult-to-impossible to read and verify every possible work which mentions the CC church in some way. But if there is a good reason to have it, it can be reverted sans Williston. • Astynax ^talk 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through the article and replaced references where I could. But I'm not going to get the number of citations down to a level you would consider as not becoming a matter of WP:Undue without starting to blank information.

It isn't that the information isn't out there—it is, in spades—but those sources don't make the RS grade (primary sources reproduced and statements in SPS books and/or on websites with some degree of advocacy).

The contention that NPoV information in this article being referenced to Fortt, Daniel and even the TTT site, would have been picked up and published by academic sources might hold for other groups or WP subjects. It just doesn't apply in this case (and I suspect other cases). There aren't that many sources out there: we have the single Parker book, newspaper articles, and mentions of very limited scope in encylopedias and sociological studies.

The problem comes with the academic sources out there. None of these treats the group in-depth. They are either short glosses in dictionary or encyclopedia type articles, providing little in the way of detail (the preponderance of which merely repeat factoids found in the other articles of similar nature), or they are short sections of longer works which focus on the sociology of NRM's, theology in a couple of cases, and religious history in one other. That type of info does not go far, and it is a shame.

The Parker book, while apparently a SPS by a non-academic who apparently hasn't written anything else, does at least focus entirely on this group, and did have the advantage of being listed in Melton's article back in the 1980s. Since then, it has been mentioned in other articles, many of which go little further than to duplicate information already in Melton. The Parker book does an excellent job in 125 pages, but only includes a few passages toward the end where it ventures beyond its primary focus on the origin and early history of the group. That type of info, also doesn't go far as far as a resource for describing other aspects of this article's subject.

So, unless someone wants to do the legwork to find alternative supporting references, I'm at a wall. The information in the article is well-referenced, though the sources may not be to the standard to which a GA is held. I'm still having a problem getting my head around the concept that 30 (now down to 16) references for NPoV statements citing Fortt and Daniel, out of some 200 references, creates a problem of WP:Undue, but 10 references does not. But I'm willing to learn, and even accept that GA isn't possible until better sources become available. • Astynax ^talk 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no need for us to go further than the reliably published literature. The moment we use information only available in questionable sources, there is a real risk that the information we put in the article is incorrect. These other sources and advocacy sites are only a google click away and can and will do their thing; it is not as though our not mentioning their claims would prevent them from doing so.

About the numerical thing, I am really sorry. Of course a number like "10" is absurd, but you asked me for a percentage, above; I simply counted the citations Parker & Parker got, for example, and compared them to the number of citations for Fortt and Daniel. NPOV (see WP:YESPOV, cf. also Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship) means representing opinion and information in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. So if Fortt and Daniel only get two brief mentions by Introvigne out there, compared to, say, several dozen for Parker & Parker, then our achieving NPOV (given that this has been questioned) should mean achieving roughly similar proportions. --JN466 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We may be able to find more sources in google books. Here for example is one giving the "Christian Conventions" name under which the group registered to avoid military service (this info is currently only cited to the workersect website). --JN466 16:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Two cents: The article needs to be neutral, not its sources. Many articles contain references to non-neutral sources, which often contain useful information. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is less about the neutrality or otherwise of the sources and more about Fortt's and Daniel's lack of track record and scholarly credentials, and their not having had any appreciable impact on the writings of more reputable authors. We shouldn't give a source, especially a biased source, more weight than the best writers out there are willing to give it. --JN466 23:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The "best writers out there" aren't writing about this secretive group. And can you blame them. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The group is not secretive at all. It's not highly notable so has escaped the notice and serious study of the academics. By notable, I don't mean notable as wiki sees it, but as a reputable encyclopedia such as EB would define it.209.162.236.197 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, most observers do not have sufficient bearings and knowledge of the group to have a sense of what NPOV for the article should be. We have had this argument before, but NPOV is not an absolute concept in topics which are inherently culturally conditioned to the core.209.162.236.197 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the reference to the workersect site in the "Name" subsection using JN466's suggested source. I've also uploaded to Wikimedia a page from the public record document shown on the workersect site so that readers don't have to go there to see it. I've also eliminated a link to the same site by uploading another public record shown on workersect. My copies aren't as good as those on the workersect site, but should be good enough to illustrate the statements in the article text.

As no one has taken on the task of publishing anything of much depth on the CC church recently, it isn't surprising that fortt/daniel are mentioned a very few times in other works. When those more recent resources don't exist, mostly recapitulate Melton's 20-year old article, or only give a quick exploration of specific aspects of the group's sociology, newer sources don't get mentioned—simply because no fresh work has been published which would be expected to include them. There are other NRM's out there (though few of this size) that don't come up on the radar of big-time publishing scholars (despite there being source material out there which doesn't get referenced or updated in academic publications).

Yes, Nemonoman, some do seem to be determinedly secretive. I've already referenced Melton's quote (echoed elsewhere): "The Cooneyites, also called the Two-by-Two’s, have developed the shunning of publicity into a fine art." So it probably isn't the easiest project to take on. • Astynax ^talk 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag 'Christian Conventions' article for poor sources

Speaking as a member of this fellowship and also one with some academic training (B.A. English - Dean's Honours List) can we flag this article until such time as the sources are upgraded? For the last six months the article has been used by readers who have seen a reverse-engineered and distorted explanation based on advocacy sites misrepresenting the church.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
We have looked at only two of the sources in detail, Fortt and Daniel, and found them wanting, and one reliable source (Melton) which has not been accurately captured. But there may very well be even more issues; these are just the ones that have been examined in detail. The problem at this point is that it will take time to acquire some of these obscure sources to prove what we members pick up as false through our direct knowledge of the group. Direct knowledge is of no consequence here; we all know that.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
On top of all this, we believe that the author is a counter-advocate of the group himself. He is a good writer and researcher and we believe he is honest, but has a bias all the same.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of fairness to the group, and on the basis of the record so far, about which you have no doubt seen me lament and wail (just look for Carter's deletes of my comments), I believe the article should be flagged until such time as it is reliably sourced.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
And now I wait for the counter-arguments, which I will answer, and then be accused of weighing too heavily on everyone's time and energy, and possibly be asked to apologize. I know and anticipate the dreaded gauntlet. Let the 'ad hominem' attacks begin.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts about (re)assessing this article

First let's consider the goals of Wikipedia. This project is designed to be a place where editors can collaborate. Working together they share and merge information. WP is supposed to be a place where information is collected and described -- without original research; with the text maintaining a neutral tone.

Second let's consider the subject of this article. Here's a church with several tens of thousands of members, apparently. This church has no name, no place of business, no publications (I'll note that I've painted with a broad brush, and there are isolated exceptions to these characterizations). It strives to stay beneath the radar; it prides itself in having stayed beneath the radar.

And yet it ISN'T entirely under the radar, as the work of several editors have shown. Through collective efforts, a number of editors have found 165+ citations for facts in the article. While some of questioned the reliability of those sources, there have been few if any complaints about their verifiability. And although there are challenges about wording, etc, there it's clear that the editors involved have successfully made a Good Faith effort to be neutral in the presentation. (Note: I'm describing the successful effort, not necessarily a successful outcome.)

Pause and reflect Through the Wiki-process, this article has become the single best compendium about this church. It exemplifies and epitomizes the goal of Wikipedia in that a relatively obscure topic has been researched and described about as fully as could be hoped. Sharing between editors has resulted in a collective article that merits GA consideration at the very least.

Consider the source... When one becomes familiar with the nature of the article's subject -- a church that shuns publicity or even outside knowledge of its existence -- a lot of questions are answered, and more are raised.

First, it's not surprising that academia hasn't published a lot of information about this organization. There's not much to be found at most libraries, from the look of it...and when it comes to writing academic works about topics where there's lots of information -- and topics where the information is hard to come by -- I think we all know how the judgement will go. And has gone.

So, second point, it's also not surprising that the information about this church comes from non-academic sources. The Academy wants practically nothing to do with the Church, and that suits the Church just fine. So instead of academic sources, most of the sources about this church have been produced by persons with less credentials than might be found on other topics.

Precedents We might prefer that all articles in WP are sourced with books written by highly recognized experts edited by impeccable publishers. On many topics, however, this ain't going to happen any time soon. Two examples come to mind instantly:

1. WP's many articles on notable but obscure persons, especially living persons, and
2. WP's many articles on new video games, movies in preproduction, etc.

And I suppose I could come up with a few more topics, and so could you.

The nature of New Religious Movements is that they are notable long before they are documented by academics. (This one has been around longer, but it's simliar in nature.)

"Reliable Sources" aren't: When I first got involved with WP:RSN, I did some backgrounding. Here's my take: there is no guarantee of reliability in sources. I have personal knowledge of the fact-checking and digging done by the New York Times. Yet a quick search of the RSN archives shows just how often the reliablity of the New York Times has been questioned, sometimes successfully -- in fact this shows the question as still open

• Not a good source if it is propogating generally held but wrong beliefs.

• This topic notes that the NYT as a publication is generally reliable, but that pages on its website are not reliable.

• This archive NYT not reliable for scientific data.

Further, there is discussion here about noting that while the New York Times WEBSITE contains lots of non-reliable data.

And do I need to note that the New York Times is constantly being criticized as unreliable in these discussions because it is BIASED.

The Take-away: Is there ever going to be an unquestionably reliable source? Or one not criticized for bias? Even the New York Times faces the same RS questions and criticism as the more obscure references cited in the article.

But note some useful comments from these discussions:

• "If a fact reported in the New York Times turns out to be incorrect, that does not make the source unreliable"
• "At any point of time we should use the most authoritative available sources on a topic, assuming that these sources at least meet the minimal threshold set by WP:RS"

(For the record: I think the RSN discussion on several of the sources used in the article established that they "at least meet the minimal threshold set by WP:RS.")

Summary:

1. This work is a great example of the collaborative editorial process that Wikipedia espouses.
2. Let's not get carried away by the fact that some of the sources are obscure. If they are the most authoritative available sources, they should be used, as they have been.

--Nemonoman (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have no objection to your line of reasoning if wikipedia self-promoted as Jimbo's Giant Compendium of Trivia. But it purports to be more than that. And until it finally implodes, hopefully anyway, we should work within its own stated objectives which differ from yours.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that "this article has become the single best compendium about this church" seconded by other wiki overseers of this article, when the article was essentially written and researched by one writer, makes me think that it must violate WP:OR, especially with the large number of primary sources used, many of them not referenced in other reliable secondary sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I don't follow your line of thinking that an article could be verifiable based on unreliable sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree. Our objective is to provide verifiabile information. We cannot do that by using sources which are not themselves reliable. In a case like this, we are I beleive much better off saying nothing, because we cannot find a reliable source to use, than saying to much based on nonreliable sources. In this particular case, most religious groups have something like a "Criticism" section in their main article. This one does not. Such a section, in this particularly case, could I think reasonably include the snippet from I think a newspaper that the group has managed to avoid a lot of external notice by not using a brand name, but thast also has reduced the amount of information available in total, and add what Melton said about the lack of independent sources. That section could also include some sort of reference to the numerous sources which exist which do not clearly meet RS, and might even go into some degree of discussing their claims, to the extent that they have been noted elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why "unfortunate"? That's the instinct of a writer and researcher speaking, not an editor. Fair comment?209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And Mr Carter, it could be worse. There is no advocacy writing for our group. If there was you could adjudicate advocacy writing versus counter-advocacy like is done for Scientology. Sound like fun?209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally, there 'is' quite a little parcel of material in RS that can be worked for the article. And clear labelling and citing of counter-advocacy where there is a vacuum of other information is also a good approach.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not trying to stonewall here, but the church (I have no capacity with the church I hasten to add) is dealing with an informal group of amateur researchers who all work with each other and feed each other information with varying degrees of integrity. The wiki article was beginning to read like a counter-advocacy web site, especially in the area of doctrinal argumentation.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As an example of not stonewalling, I wanted a link to a church-related CSA web site that would have been of assistance to readers of the article but was told this was out of line. Not sure why. CSA in the church is a particular concern that should be featured in the article I believe.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable, in Wikipedia, means that a user can find the source. Not -- read the policy -- repeat not that the information is true.

There is also plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for using sources that are not academically perfect where the topics are not yet the subject of academic discourse. The disputing consistently has been not with the facts being cited, but concerns that the citations are poisoned because they come from biased sources. Facts do not need to come from unbiased sources, but the way the facts are reported must be neutral, and this article is neutral regardless of the bias of its sources.

Lastly I see absolutely no validity to any accusation of Original Research, in that practically every sentence is cited and many have mulitple citations. On the contrary, those objecting to article contents continually reference their own experiences. I have no reason to doubt them, but using ones own experience for reference is specifically what is meant by Original Research -- not the careful compilation of sourced material as has been done here.

The suggestion that the article is the work of a single editor is also patently ridiculous and provably so. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where are these "large number of primary sources used"??? • Astynax ^talk 09:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The way that Melton was cited indicates synthesis going on. For example, Melton indicates Irvine was an originator of the group, but Melton is used to back up Irvine as founder. Melton never said Irvine was founder. 2) Melton has never said that the group was Unitarian; he only reports that critics have said this. 3) Melton never stated that it was "necessary" that outside members be baptized. If we can't quote Melton properly, what about all these other sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2) Regarding synthesis using primary sources (WP:OR), there are a number of letters to the editor, official looking documents and so on that have never been authenticated by academics.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I could find more, but I will need to acquire the reliable sources first. It took 6 months to achieve consensus on reliable sources, and thank goodness I will not need to purchase Daniel and Fortt now and provide financial support to a malevolent counter-advocacy group. Do not mind purchasing from legit sources.209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding single editor. Here are the stats since 03-19 around the time everything was blanked and restarted. [17]

• Melton indicates Irvine was an originator of the group, but Melton is used to back up Irvine as founder. This distinction without a difference has been discussed ad nauseum and consensus was reached that the use of the word founder was appropriate for Wikipedia. It is typical of this editor's criticism that he will continue to argue and disparage any consensus conclusion that differs from his desired version.

Yes I will, and occasionally I am successful. :) Sorry, but the article has not had the attention from editors who actually understand your standards. You clearly don't as I have shown before. I am told that this is a widespread problem at wiki, but in any case, it is why I have to keep harping on the same point. Had you not nominated for GA and this was brought to my attention, I would have let the sleeping dog lie.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted also that we have repeated our familiar pattern, as I predicted, of argument, rebuttal, ad hominem attack, ad hominem counter-attack.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Melton has never said that the group was Unitarian; he only reports that critics have said this. Regardless, Melton is a reasonable source for the fact, especially since the church itself refuses to publish its beliefs. Does Melton then deny that the church is unitarian? Are you suggesting that Melton is unreliable in this case?

Melton does not deny or admit of it. He only states what he has heard critics say. He has reserved opinion on the matter, unlike this article which not only states it unequivocally but also lies about what Melton said.209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• It took 6 months to achieve consensus on reliable sources -- I'm quite confused by this comment since this editor continues to assert that there is no consensus on reliable sources. The RSN discussion on sources for this topic DID reach consensus, I believe, but my impression appears to differ from this editor: a reluctant acceptance of the sources being cited, noting the absence of academically vetted sources which all of us would prefer.

I am wrong, sorry. Even excluding myself who will never conceded that Fortt and Daniel are RS, I don't think based on that comment that there is consensus even now. Unless you think that your comment reluctant acceptance is equivalent to another editor's comment on reading the same, far from a clean bill of health. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding single editor. Here are the stats -- and what better proof of collaborative authorship could you ask for?

--Nemonoman (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Melton says (2nd paragraph) "The Two-by-Two's originated with William Irvine"—that's not synthesis, nor is Melton the only reference to back up the statement that Irvine was the founder.

Again, Melton does not say that "critics have said this" regarding the theology. He only indicates that he has sermon notes provided by "critics, primarily former members"—a huge difference. Regardless, it is Melton who draws from these sermon notes the statement that these indicate "a unitarian theology which denies the Trinity and emphasizes the role of Jesus and human example". No worker sermon would itself include the words "unitarian theology", and it is not synthesis to cite Melton's conclusion. Tying together the statement regarding the "unitarian" outlook with an unconnected statement 5 paragraphs later to make an assertion that Melton "has reserved opinion on the matter" would indeed be synthesis. The article doesn't do that.

As to the article being blanked, that is an offensive mischaracterization, as are contentions that the article has an anti-CC bias. This editor repeatedly raises this charge, then runs off when asked to cite instances. Nor have better, or even alternative, sources been provided to support tenditious claims that "reality" is somehow different than what the sourced statements say. • Astynax ^talk 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All good points. 1) Originator is not founder. We can argue about the difference but they are not the same. Certainly in the language of the church they are quite different. At this point I argue only with using Melton as source for statement that Irvine is 'founder'. The other sources might be sound. 2) You are right that the sermon extracts, and I have seen some of these, clearly indicate, at least a non-Trinitarian stance, and possibly Unitarian, depending on how you define Unitarian. And Melton also indicates those sermon extracts are Unitarian; I stand corrected. BUT to extrapolate from that, that the group doctrine is Unitarian or that Unitarianism is commonly preached, is a leap that Melton does not make. 3) Blanking can mean different things. This is not meant as an accusation. It's just to establish that the edit statistics before March-2009 are not relevant because any work performed on the article before that time was removed. Purely stated to support the single writer thesis, which I'm sticking to.209.162.236.197 (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing remarks

This community GAR seems to have digressed considerably from initial concerns about the suitability of the reviewer to philosophical questions about the meaning of truth, reliability, verifiability, collaboration, and the nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Unsurprisingly, it then ground to a halt. Community GAR cannot handle any of these issues: all it can do is determine whether the article under review meets the GA criteria or not. I'm sorry that I have been too busy recently to help editors focus on this main point.

Anyway, this article does not meet the criteria at present. Leaving aside discussion between the most actively involved editors, it is clear from comments by Jayen, John Carter and Cirt that there are concerns about the sources. I spent about 3 hours myself reading the article and checking sources, before reading talk page commentary and specific concerns. I came to similar conclusions about the sources, and noticed other GA issues. I summarize these below.

1. The prose is hard to follow, with many parenthetical statements (1a). The lead does not adequately summarise the article, and there are some problems with words to avoid such as "pass away" (1b).
2. Fortt, Daniel, Parker&Parker and Roberts are essentially self-published sources: no editorial oversight, and no reputation for fact checking. As such they should not be used to support disputed or controversial information in the unqualified narrative voice. Such sources can be used with attribution "According to...", but the neutral point of view cannot endorse them (2a/b). Citations are used in a very uneven way: some sentences get 6-8 citations, while e.g. Christian_Conventions#International is completely uncited (2b).
3. The article is much too long (3b). Major editors have expressed the view that the article should be as "complete" as possible, and that may involve using less than ideal sources. No. Wikipedia articles are not the place to be "the best" as that leads to original research. Everything written here is based upon the work of others, and verifiability means that the reader can check that. However, there is no point in an encyclopedia reporting the observations of dubious sources unless they are notable and attributed. I suggest cutting the article considerably to content which is widely agreed in reliable sources.

The review of this article was flawed. While the reviewer had not made major edits prior to the review, one such edit and contributions to the talk page suggest a prior involvement that was always unlikely to lead to a widely accepted result. Nevertheless, the review contains helpful comments, perhaps more helpful than the second opinion, which appears to be wrong on several points (leads can contain references, "further reading" is not strongly discouraged, reference order is not a GA criterion).

None of the above opinion and advice is germane to the outcome of this GAR. A new and uninvolved GAN reviewer is needed. No action can be taken here. Geometry guy 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Geometry Guy for this helpful re-assessment. We Shall Return! --Nemonoman (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)