Talk:The Fellowship (Christian organization)/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions about The Fellowship (Christian organization). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Fellowship's Archives
Has anyone thought to supplement the information in this article with facts derived from the organizations archives, which are referenced in Jeff Sharlet's Harpers article [1] ??? --Btaylor0000 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
National Prayer Breakfest
Under the section of National Prayer Breakfest, the following statement, In 2008 the Fellowship and its Congressional allies received widespread media attention and public criticism for involving military officers in organizing events surrounding the National Day of Prayer, particularly since no one was allowed to be involved in organizing an event unless they were a "Born Again" Christian (prospective leaders were required to sign contracts to the effect). I would like to know the source or sources for this statement. User Calslib June 24th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calsman (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Some of the information in Sharlet book references original source archives that were available at the Wheaton College library in Wheaton, Illinois. I just spoke with the library. The items have been withdrawn from public review per the request of an unspecified individual. Therefore, it's challenging to provide some sourcing. Since Sharlet did make copies of some of the documents before they were locked away, it might be advantageous if he released them. Jcsamuels (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
NPOV and secrecy
The following is not NPOV:
- The organization, which strives to be "invisible", has been the subject of recent media attention as being overly secretive. This attention though is generally the product of journalists who despite being extremely intelligent, seem completely unable to make the distinction between an organisation which is secretive about its activities, and a group which chooses not to publicise its activities.
The above makes implications about the journalist's intellegence with regard to the secrecy/invisibility issue that are opinion and not NPOV. What is meant by "invisible" needs to be clarified. The alledged secrecy issue is debatable and their are those who claim that the group has a secret plan to create a bible-based goverment, free of the seperation of church and state. This article should address the controversial aspects of this group better. --Cab88 15:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you prefer, we can label it Original Research. Under either label, it is an opinion of the writer, not of a reliable public source.--Cherlin (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is interesting that the only documentation on this group anywhere comes from left leaning groups. This comes as no surprise since the membership of the group, overwhelmingly right leaning, maintains a great interest in secrecy. As a result, the available literature on The Family paints them as an extremist, sometimes fascist organization. This fact makes it very difficult to paint an unbiased picture of the group --Nscheibel 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is interesting that this complaint completely ignores the evidence of what members and leaders themselves say, and makes elementary errors in logic and character assassination.--Cherlin (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Other "The Family"
Isn't there a cult that calls itself "The Family"?
- Yes, the Children of God, also known as the Family of Love, follows a leader called Dave Berg (a.k.a. "Moses David"). --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Throughout the history of the United States there have been several groups of whom have used the term "The Family", including organized crime syndicates dating back to the 1920's Mafia, communal groups such as Charles_Manson Family, and religious organizations with names like Family International, formerly known as the Children of God, The Christian Mafia and sometimes called The New Chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdog09 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
--Watchdog09 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Fellowship
You recently re-added some misleading information to the "Fellowship article" that I had removed based on my research of the orgins of this organization (including Vereide's biography) and personal contact with some you are associated with this group. Based on primary sources, that has also been summed up in their archives, Vereide organized breakfast groups "to pray about perceived IWW and Socialist subversion and corruption in Seattle, Washington's municipal government. Group began to meet regularly and expanded to include government officials, labor leaders, etc." To highlight socialism as a primary reason of gathering is misleading and affects the integrity of this article. In fact, just as the information at the archives suggest, labor leaders were also included. In fact, one of the biggest breakthroughs for this group (whose primary focus has been reconciliation) was gathering big business leaders and labor leaders together to pray...and to continue to meet in that spirit of reconciliation. You will also find in the archives evidence that socialist-leaning politicians also participated in some of these prayer groups. The huge success of this movement was because of the reconciliation that brought people together from different beliefs and backgrounds. If you do proper research, you will see that this is one of the biggest criticisms of the current National Prayer Breakfasts by many christian leaders; muslims, jews, buddhists, etc play key roles in the program among christians. I would ask that you remove these statements for the integrity of the article. Thank you Politico777 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence rules the day. Got citations? PRRfan 23:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, please read our policy on attribution. Doing your own personal research, based on personal contacts, is an unacceptable source of information (see our policy on original research) and a violation of our guideline on reliable sources. You may not agree with such policies and guidelines; if you do not, please go elsewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, one of the legends pushed by the Family is that their meetings were "inclusive" because they included both leaders of industry and also "labor leaders". Jeff Sharlet addresses this in his book "The Family", and he considers the story to be bunk, a legend with a tiny kernel of truth. After the big strike of 1934, Vereide led a prayer session with some big captains of industry whom Vereide had organized to break the strike. One "labor leader" named "Jimmy" (no last name given in Vereide's biography) shows up, and basically asks the rich guys and God for forgiveness for his (Jimmy's) "sin" of leading a strike. So Vereide inflates this story to create a picture of his organization including labor leaders. Sharlet (p.112):
In the years to come, Abram [Vereide] would tell polished versions of this story hundreds of times, in dozens of countries, to CEOs and senators and dictators, a parable of "cooperation" between management and labor, the threat of Christ and capital subdued, order restored. That was where it began, he'd say: Jimmy the agitator confessing his sins before a room full of businessmen, God's chosen men.
- Note that in Abram's telling, the (single) token labor leader must confess his sin of leading a strike, but the captains of industry do not need to confess to their sins of withholding wages or using horrible violence to break strikes. Sure...they're equal.
- So now you tell us, "In fact, just as the information at the archives suggest, labor leaders were also included." Oh yeah? Labor leaders? How many? What percentage? "Jimmy" and who else? And what's "Jimmy's" last name anyway?
- You write "To highlight socialism as a primary reason of gathering is misleading and affects the integrity of this article." Actually, to LEAVE OUT anti-socialism/violent opposition to the labor movement as the primary reason for Vereide's organization, that would damage the integrity of the article. The evidence shows the group included dozens of rich men and once tolerated the confession of a labor leader who lead a strike, and will strike no more. So this "reconciliation" you talk about is still anti-labor movement by a different means.
- Frankpettit (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Politico777: what is your source for arguing that socialism was not a major factor in Abraham Vereide's organization of the movement that would come to be known as The Family? Vereide was almost literally haunted by the spectre of organized labor's power, which was significant on the West Coast in the early and mid-30s. I'm guessing I'm the only commenter here who owns and has read a copy of "Modern Viking: The Story of Abraham Vereide, Pioneer in Christian Leadership" (Zondervan, 1961), by the revivalist (and Vereide associate) Norman Grubb, and nearly certain that I'm the only one here who has a copy of "Abraham, Abraham," a privately published account by Vereide's son, Warren Vereide, with Claudia Minden Weisz. For the political tenor of the early movement, I refer readers also to a July 24, 1951 letter by Edward Cabannis to Vereide on the involvement in the movement of the American fascist sympathizer Merwin K. Hart, located in Folder 6, Box 166, of Collection 459 of the Billy Graham Center Archives. (For more on Hart, a "field associate" of what was then known as International Christian Leadership, I recommend Max Wallace' "The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich (St. Martin's, 2003). Another useful document is Vereide's 1942 pamphlet on the movement titled "Finding the Better Way," available for public review in the periodicals section of Collection 459 at the BGCA, which declares a coming "age of minority control," which Vereide welcomes as an antidote to America's "present curse of spiritual indifference and moral decadence."JeffSharlet (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton?
What is her purpose of participating in this organization? Did she do so just in order to make her platform more attractive to the conservative side? I've lost all the respect for her.
- See Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's professor at Georgetown. A caricature of his work is conspiracy theories, about CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the like, but he was a scholarly professor of history. Quigley warned about elite cliques forming; but the impressionable and ambitious Bill took this as a roadmap, rather than a warning. Hillary's quest for power follows the same path.
Douglas Coe merits a biographical page
Coe was the founder of this group in the 1960s. He is a hero of Al Gore. Who is he? What was his education? His roots? Parents? Upbringing? Siblings? Is he married? Kids? His own beliefs? Career path? Surely this merits more than a redirect to this group.
Fisher-Smith: Who are the people who inspire you? Who have been your heroes?
Al Gore: Jefferson. His essential genius, and his understanding of the human spirit. About heroes I might have right now [...:] Alexei Yablokov is the leading environmentalist in Russia, and a real tower of integrity. Sherwood Rowland, the scientist who alerted us to the problem of ozone depletion, is a hero to me. [...] Wangari Matthai, a woman in Kenya who started a tree-planting movement [...]. Outside the environmental movement, I have a friend named Doug Coe who devotes his life to the message of Christ in a completely nondenominational, noninstitutional way. He just lives it, and is incredibly loving and strong.
DBrnstn (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I second that, but according to a recent NBC report, very little is known of Coe. However they did obtain exclusive footage showing his rather curious speaking style - he compares devotion to Jesus with the blind allegiance the Nazis had for Hitler. He also compares Jesus to China's Mao.VatoFirme (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Based on this discussion, I've created a stub article for Douglas Coe. Note that according to the Family article (and other sources) he did not found the Family, Abraham Vereide did. mennonot (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Legal interpretation
The assertions that The Fellowship is in violation of the United States Constitution is unsubstantiated and unverified. The allegation is completely uncited and the constitutionality of the group's practices is subject to significant debate. I flagged the article for NPOV. Valkyrynele (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The Family organization has created a network of politicians throughout American and Foreign governments, they use this organization to force individual politicians to turn towards their own right wing views. For instance, no President has been elected who has refused to attend the groups prayer organization or doesn't have of the governments prayer groups supporting them.
Under the Laws of the United States Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953[1948]) it is a crime to engage in conference with foreign governments on behalf of the United States without authorization.
Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS, which authorized the arrest and deportation of ALIENS and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. [1]
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/8357/Logan-Act.html#ixzz0OH8vvrPi
To this day there has never been a prosecution of any individual or group that has clearly violated this law.
In 1984 Democratic presidential candidate Jesse Jackson met with Cuban president Fidel Castro and later described a ten-point agreement the two had reached. His negotiations with Castro may have violated the Logan Act, but Jackson was not prosecuted.
Former President Bil Clinton's rescue mission to North Korea is the latest example of a violation of the Logan Act.
--Watchdog09 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)watchdog09
to quote, "The Family organization has created a network of politicians throughout American and Foreign governments, they use this organization to force individual politicians to turn towards their own right wing views." The first part of this statement may very well be true...however, to say that they use the organization to force individual politicians to do anything is inflamatory and unverifiable. Since the crux of the argument relies on this the statement falls flat on its face. You are making an assertation that they are involved actively in committing high crime. Therefore, they are not guilty of committing actions against the constitution or any law otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.160.90 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
How trustworthy a source?
Just wondering if Jeff Sharlet is truly trustworthy as a source. Looking over his books and papers, I sometimes wonder if he has an axe to grind with Christianity. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- His personal opinion of christianity, or any religion, is less important than the substance and veracity of his works. He is viewed as trustworthy by at least one major news channel. Wikipedia is not in the business of independent verification, we must let our citations speak for themselves. One could also very reasonably argue that this group's dogma is quite unchristian.--Eion (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Eion, can you share your reason for claiming that he is viewed as trustworthy by one major news channel? Which channel? Has this news group used his material as a source of reporting or are you referring to the use of him as a interviewee and discussion point. News channels engage sources in a variety of ways, and most often the appearance of a person on a news channel does not indicate their trustworthiness as a source. btaylor0000 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Moreover, I disagree that Wikipedia is not in the business of independent verification. An article that presents itself as encyclopedic content should be reasonably verifiable, which is dependent on the verifiability of its sources. According to what you are proposing, a person could write a blog entry, purporting itself as news, then write a wikipedia article that sources that blog as, all the while everything that has been written has been false. A good editor has a duty in this situation to delete the unverifiable entry. This is why we have an "unreliable source" tag. I maintain that Jeff Sharlet is a dubious source at best and his information would be a hell of a lot more reliable if there were corresponding sources or documents beyond IRS forms to back up many of the claims he has made. btaylor0000 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you maintain that Sharlet is a "dubious source at best"? Do you have any evidence to back that up? His book has tons of references and citations, including lots of citations to specific folders and boxes in the Family's Archives at the BGC. So, following your logic, since there are indeed, "corresponding sources or documents beyond IRS forms to back up many of the claims he has made", it logically follows that he is reliable. Frankpettit (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously. I think the very least this page should do is make the sourcing more transparent. I have a strong feeling 99% of the sources all derive from Jeff Sharlet. If the book is the source, put the book down, not some interview he gives the Las Vegas Sun.
- btaylor- If you actually read the book before eschewing it, you'd know that Sharlet repeatedly points out the disconnect between the teachings of Christ and the belief structure of those in and involved with the Family. He has no axe to grind with Christianity, but is suspicious of a group using the religions leader as an empty signifier (emptied of the very teachings Christians believe in, many of which Sharlet views positively) to destroy the barrier between church and state. Sharlet goes to great lengths in the book to emphasize that the issue is NOT Christianity, but that these men and women are NOT Christians (i.e. not bound by the moral restrictions of those who do follow the teachings of Christ). I'm not going to debate the reliability of Sharlet as a source because your mind seems made up; however, I will point out the irony of questioning the reliability of an established academic who studies religion at a prestigious university, wrote a publicly accessible book, has made himself and his work open to the public while finding nothing dubious about an organization who maintains an insistence on and devotion to secrecy of funding, membership, and global operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.174.157 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As the source under discussion here, I'd like to respectfully respond to some of the queries. 1. Firefly322 wonders if I have an "axe to grind with Christianity." Hardly -- I regularly speak at churches of many different denominations on the subject of this book, and I've been a guest on numerous Christian radio shows, including conservative ones, to discuss it. The Family has come under criticism by many Christians, liberal and conservative. And in my capacity as an editor, I regularly publish work by Christians from across the political and theological spectrum. As I've argued in countless interviews, the most effective analysis of the Family comes from Christians themselves. 2. btaylor0000 asks which major television network used me as a source. In 2008, I collaborated with NBC Nightly News' Andrew Mitchell. In 2009, I discussed the Family on numerous MSNBC programs, CNN, HBO, and Comedy Central's "Daily Show." I've also been a guest on public radio's "Fresh Air," "Marketplace," "Diane Rehm Show," and "Here and Now." I've been a quest on the BBC, the CBC, and ABC, the Australian national radio network. I was the source for Time magazine's inclusion of Family leader Doug Coe in its list of 25 most powerful evangelicals. I've consulted for ABC news and CBS news as well, and written about the Family for numerous national publications that go through the fact checking (and, in some cases, legal vetting) process: Harper's, The New Republic, Rolling Stone, and Mother Jones. Yes, those are liberal publications; yes, I'm on the record as a liberal writer. I make that clear in my analysis. That doesn't change the facts. 3. Those facts are available for independent verification because I've included extensive footnotes in my book. That's the scholarly apparatus. It's worth pointing out that one of the best reviews the book received was from the preeminent journal of academic American historians, The Journal of American History. It's true, as noted above, that I take pains to distinguish the theology of the Family from that of mainline and evangelical Protestantism. You can dispute that analysis if you like. But if I quote a document, I provide the source. JeffSharlet (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Jeff Sharlet
A BOOK to consider
[2] The Family The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power By Jeff Sharlet I heard this guy speak and read his book summary (but have not read the book). It may be a source of good research on this topic. (Author is mentioned above but not the book.) Propkid (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
broken link
The last reference links to a non-existent page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.40 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Capitalization: the Family, not The Family
WP:MOS says:
- "Use of "The" mid-sentence: The definite article is not normally capitalized in the middle of a sentence; but there are idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of works of art, which should be quoted exactly. Common usage should be followed on a case-by-case basis. As usual, it is a good idea to consult the sources of the article."
It is clear from the context that "the Family" and "the Cedars" refer to the organization that is the subject of the article and to the lodge owned by it and discussed in the article. Adding further capitalization that is contrary to the general rule of WP:MOS, i.e., The Family and The Cedars, does not add any clarity for the reader. Whether or not the Family chooses to capitalize "the" is immaterial: Wikipedia follows its own style guide and not those of organizations or corproations who may be the subjects of articles -- see WP:TRADEMARK. Ground Zero | t 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think WP:TRADEMARK is the correct guideline - I think WP:MOS#Follow the sources is more directly on point, it suggests that whether other sources capitalize the "the" is relevant. However, it appears that you may be right about the capitalization itself - a quick look at a few of the sources suggest that a lower-case "the" is used more often than an upper-case "The".
- But before a rename is done, can anyone point me to a source that "the Family" is even the correct name for the article or for the organization? Several sources, including this and this indicate that the correct name for it is "the Fellowship Foundation" and that "the Family" is simply a nickname for the group. This is also suggested (yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a proper source) by the use of "The Fellowship Foundation" at National Prayer Breakfast. Thoughts? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Wilberforce Foundation != Wiberforce Forum
Hi everyone,
What evidence links Wilberforce Foundation to Wilberforce Forum and Wilberforce Project?
Do they have directors or properties in common?
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not being familiar with any of the above, perhaps someone simply heard multiple names in use and just assumed they were different terms for the same group? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, which usage(s) should be used in this article? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- This article should use Wilberforce Foundation.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, which usage(s) should be used in this article? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Associates and Close Friends
United States Presidents of both parties, including Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had connections to the Family.[13]
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Sharlet, Jeff (May 20, 2008). "Book Excerpt: The Family". Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/book-excerpt-family?page=3. Retrieved on August 3, 2009.
This paragraph leads someone to think that Jeff Sharlet states that Barack Obama has connections with the Family. When reading the article, there is no mention of Obama. I have the book and there is no mention of Obama in the book either.
I think that Obama's name should be removed from this paragraph.
- While the article might not cite Obama have having spoken there, the picture on the right seems like pretty good evidence. —jfry3 (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the sentence could be rewritten to be more clear. I agree that the phrase "United States Presidents of both parties, including Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had connections to the Family[13]" sounds like these presidents were possibly members of this organization, or at least supporters. Because the citation immediately follows this sentence, it also gives the impression that the Sharlet citation supports this statement, but the citation never mentions Obama.
- As the poster above mentions, the wikipedia article does contain a picture of Obama speaking at a prayer breakfast. However, this picture isn't cited as a reference in the sentence, and the placement of the Sharlet reference at the end of the sentence gives the impression that Sharlet discusses Obama. So I agree that this sentence should be changed.
- Also, it may be that the phrase "have had connections" is simply too vague. While some might argue that speaking at a prayer breakfast might be a "connection", others might disagree. I suggest rewriting the sentence to be more specific. Perhaps "President Obama gave an address at a recent prayer breakfast sponsored by the organization," with an appropriate citation. The same could be done with the other presidents: "George H.W. Bush spoke positively of the organization at ____ date", with a citation, or something like that. The phrase "have had connections" could mean anything, so it's probably better if we provided specific examples for each president; then, the reader can make up his/her own mind about the level of each president's involvement. Just my two cents! :) --74.66.80.186 (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) User:74.66.80.186, you're right, the phrase "has had a connection" (and variants) is sufficiently vague and weasel-word-ish that it should be excised from the article. For that matter, the entire section Associates and close friends could probably be removed or shortened to a sentence or two. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- With reference to Obama, the picture accompanies an official White House blog post and a transcript of Obama's remarks and can be found at whitehouse.gov here. --Philosopher Let us reason together.
- Obama's name should definitely be removed. It is only listed as an unverified comment on the book's excerpt. Unless someone can scan in a copy of the book, it is just heresay to make that assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.75.113 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not believe President Obama's name should be removed. I take your point, however, about adding clarity to the connections of President Obama and other Presidents to this organization and have added detail in each case. In fact, as is now noted, shortly after his inauguration, President Barack Obama was the keynote speaker at The Family's National Prayer Breakfast, at which he stated "I know this breakfast has a long history in Washington, and faith has always been a guiding force in our family's life, so we feel very much at home and look forward to keeping this tradition alive during our time here." Please remember that although this organization operates publicly at times, such as in the case of the National Prayer Breakfast, it also is secretive about some of its activites. Therefore it is not always easy to find sources about its activities and members. I believe that for this reason, among others, it is important to have a section on the organization's members and connections to people. Likesausages (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced stuff
This article is awash with unreferenced statements. I just removed a whole pile of "associated with a dictator" statements that simply had no backup. In view of the controversial nature of the subject I strongly recommend that anything not backed up by a solid reference is removed. We also need to check the sources - I found a whole load of statements that were 'referenced' by the Harpers article, but had nothing in that article to back them up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
"Christian Mafia"?
The intro claims that the group refers to itself as the "Christian Mafia". This claim is not found in any of the sources given. Instead, it appears that this term was used as a subjective characterization in an independent sociology journal article -- http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/2/390 The group itself does not seem to refer to itself as the "Christian Mafia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.50.81 (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Family leader Doug Coe used the term to refer to the Family, as cited in the article. Source: "Behind the closed doors on C Street". Las Vegas Sun. July 19, 2009. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/19/behind-closed-doors-c-street/. Retrieved July 27, 2009. PRRfan (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Logan Act
Concerns about the Logan Act may belong somewhere in this article, but not in the Secrecy subhead, so I removed this text: "At the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, President George H. W. Bush praised Doug Coe for what he described as 'quiet diplomacy, I wouldn't say secret diplomacy.'[2] Bush was apparently unaware of one of the nation's oldest laws, the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens to influence foreign governments lest foreign policy slip out of democratic control.[2]" PRRfan (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm quoting directly from the Logan act here: it forbids any intercourse "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government". It is easy to imagine diplomacy that is not intended to influence a foreign government, and that isn't in violation of the Logan act. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Problems with the article
Chief problems with this.
1. It is way, way, WAY to big for a single article. Barack Obama is the President and this article is larger than either of those. 2. NPOV- This has been brought up here before. Consider two statements about, lets say, Obama's health care plans.
"Obama's plan has met significant criticism, with scholars stating that the plan would lead to senior citizen death panels, health care rationing, with millions of americans loosing their existing coverage while illegal immigrants gain access to tax payer provided care."
Compared with
""Conservative media figures such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'reilly have attacked Obama's proposal fearing it would lead to coverage for illegal immigrants, death panels for senior citizens and single payer health care."
Which statement is more NPOV? The first uses weasel words to hide the identity of the accusers and state their opinions as fact whereas the second presents their views in a much more balanced manner. There is a whole lot of that going on in this article.
3. The "scandals" sections are completely and totally irrelevant to the organization. It is about a handful of of polticians with moral failings and ethical lapses, Oh and they also happen to be a member of this organization. Their membership here is completely and totally irrelevant to those scandals and should be removed from this article. Those scandals belong on the bio pages of the people that committed them, not here.
4. Way too many section headings. Discuss away EricLeFevre (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I just deleted point five, please do not edit my discussion sections, if you want to discuss this, please sign them rather than pretend your thoughts were written by me. EricLeFevre (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I believe both are equally NPOV. It is a matter of fact that the people named did attack Obama's plans with those awful, idiotic arguments. It would be POV to try and hide that here. Also, I think the "scandals" section is completely fine as is because a connection can be made between the scandals and the organisation. --77.180.180.15 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fervently disagree. In the scandals sections, The Family organization is not even listed in those sections aside from the fact that the people who committed those scandals were associated with The Family. Should I include a scandals section on the Teamsters page every time one of its members commits and unrelated crime? Guilt by association is one of the chief logical fallacies. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- An argument can be made that the scandals are a direct outgrowth of the Family's ideology, the belief that it's members are chosen by God and are thus infallible. Furthermore, those scandals brought a new level of attention to the Family's activities and it's secretive nature. I think that the scandals section should be modified, but it shouldn't be removed altogether. --Strannik (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is one problem with that statement: it is not true at all. Lisa Miller in her most recent Newsweek article bluntly states that Jeff Sharlet's book (which happens to be the source of ~three-fourths of this article's overheated rhetoric) serves no other purpose than to "confirm the darkest fears of the secular left." She goes on to describe it as "alarmist." This whole article is nothing more than one giant coatracks article designed to expose the evil tentacles of some vile Christian conspiracy. EricLeFevre (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- That is not what Lisa Miller wrote; did you read her article? Her words were "Though Sharlet raises real questions about the Fellowship's methods and mission, his book's tone, overall, is alarmist: it confirms all the darkest fears of the secular left." She is complaining about his tone, not the accuracy of his facts, which she does not contradict. Moreover, Miller gives little indication of having read past the first chapter of the book. Many commenters don't read past the first chapter. Why should we trust Lisa Miller, who is judging Sharlet's book SUBJECTIVELY and does not cite evidence of any inaccuracies on Sharlet's part? Frankpettit (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- A contributor dost protest too much, methinks :). In seriousness, though, the article is a bit alarmist in it's present form and far too overly detailed for my taste, but many of the facts stated stated in this article are backed by sources other than Sharlet's book. This includes evidence of some the more... dubious aspects of the Family's ideology. --Strannik (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Eric LeFevre suggests that Lisa Miller's Newsweek article is a more reliable source than my reporting for Harper's, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, and The New Republic, all of which went into my book, The Family, published by a reputable publisher (HarperCollins) and reviewed positively in the preeminent (and peer-reviewed) academic journal for American historians, The Journal of American Historians. What's LeFevre's basis? Feature writers for the magazines I mention above are fact-checked; columnists for Newsweek are not. How do I know? Because I've been a source for Miller in the past, and no fact-checkers contacted me. Moreover, my book is based on extensive -- and footnoted -- archival research. Miller's assertions are based primarily on the statements of politicians defending their reputations. I don't say that to cast aspersions on Lisa, whom I know a bit; I'm quite certain she'd readily agree that my book is far more researched than her opinion column. I raise these points to question LeFevre's repeated denunciations of my work despite not having read it (as evidenced by his multiple queries on this page about where I got my information. It's in the footnotes, Eric -- in the book.) As for Lisa's assertions that my book "confirms all the darkest fears of the secular left": I can't speak to that, since I'm not really part of the secular left. As an editor, I frequently publish work by religious believers of every denomination. As a public speaker, I frequently visit churches and speak on radio programs hosted by Christians from across the political and theological spectrum. The book was endorsed not just by figures on the secular left but by Frank Schaeffer, once a leading figure of the Christian Right and still a very devout man, who wrote: "I was once an insider’s insider within fundamentalism. Unequivocally: Sharlet knows what he’s talking about. He writes: ‘Our refusal to recognize the theocratic strand running throughout American history is as self-deceiving as fundamentalism’s insistence that the United States was created a Christian nation.’ Those who want to be un-deceived (and wildly entertained) must read this disturbing tour de force.” Brian McLaren, named by Time magazine one of the "25 most influential evangelicals" in the U.S., said of my work: “Jeff Sharlet [is] a confessed non-evangelical whom top evangelical organizations might be wise to hire—and quick—as a consultant. As an outsider, Sharlet sees what a lot of us insiders need to see.” Lisa Miller is a fine columnist, but in this case, I have to wonder how far her research went. The final two chapters of my book directly challenge secular leftist assumptions. I don't think she read them. I'm quite sure Eric LeFevre didn't. JeffSharlet (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Citations
Just about every single one of them is original research. 173.30.135.162 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- People outside Wikipedia can do original research; it's only inside Wikipedia that the policy applies... AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not quite. [[3]] as wiki defines it means that regardless of whether an accusation is "true" that the statement must be verified by a reputable source. Consider this statement from wiki's policy "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". What about the citations from major news networks about this? I have read some (not all) of those and all of the citations I have sampled are just Jeff Sharlet plugging his own book on some news show with little or no fact checking. Once again, original research. EricLeFevre (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Until this is resolved, I am tagging this article with the factual accuracy and poor citations. EricLeFevre (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Removed "one source" tag; citations include far more than Sharlet and Sharlet-citing works. PRRfan (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Removed "factual accuracy" tag pending listing of disputed statements and reasons for doubting them. PRRfan (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Affiliations
No one cares what other groups are affiliated with this, so the fellowship owns some property out somewhere, why should people care? I propose deleting that whole section, its just not notable. EricLeFevre (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I care. I want to know who is networking with whom, if they have political power, in Washington. You have THREE TIMES NOW deleted information showing the association between the Family and Traditional Values Coalition. Considering that the TVC is one of the strongest anti-gay, anti-hate crime legislation, anti-evolution organizations in the US, it is important for Americans to know the TVC uses the Family's C Street House for "private diplomacy." Who exactly are Brownback and Inhofe bumping into on their way in and out of C Street?
- You claim organizations cannot be affiliated unless they're so listed on IRS forms. Fine, I won't argue the definition of "affiliated." We can change the name of the section to "affiliated or Associated Organizations." Or you suggest a word if you don't like "associated." "Connected"? Whatever you call it, the info should be in there. Frankpettit (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Factual problems
As per request, here are the factual problems with the article. Including false claims and falsifying sources. 1. The group is called "The Fellowship" not The Family. [3]
2. It is not a "political organization, its IRS fillings specifically list it as non partisan. The group employs no lobbyists, and includes members as diverse as the Clintons, Al Gore, Sen BoB Graham, and barak obama just to name a few of the dozens of Democrats who meet there. [4] [5]
3. "Coe has said that the Family aims to create a worldwide "family of friends" by spreading the words of Jesus Christ to powerful men and women through "cell" leadership groups." False. The citation is the Lisa Miller Newsweek article, and nowhere in that does she say anything to that effect.
4. "The Family has drawn criticism for its dominionist theology, including efforts to inject religious principles into every branch of the U.S. Government" False Don't misrepresent what sources say. The citation is the Lisa Miller Newsweek article, and nowhere in that does she say anything to that effect
5. "Other criticism has centered on its ties to oppressive regimes and dictators" False Don't misrepresent what sources say. The citation is the Lisa Miller Newsweek article, and nowhere in that does she say anything to that effect
6. "its concealment of associates' secrets, including the extramarital affairs of several U.S. elected officials" Here is what the source actually says. [6]
7. "At the heart of the Family's spiritual advice for its proxies in Congress is the conviction that the market's invisible hand represents the guidance of God..." false, nowhere in the citation is that claim ever made. [7]
8. "Coe, who has referred to the Fellowship as the "Christian Mafia", has said he tries to make the group act like the Mafia because invisibility bestows influence." See #7. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding #2 "Not a political organization". Right - one can imagine a plausible case being made that the group is overly involved in politics, but it nonetheless is primarily a religious group. Along with #1 (wrong name being used), seems like the title of the article should be changed to "The Fellowship | (Christian organization)". I'm a wikinoob, though: how does one go about changing the title of an article without breaking links to it?
ScholarCrow 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, there is no way to change an article title without breaking the links, so a whole new article would have to be created and all the internal links referencing this one would need to be changed. As for political organization, it is not. A political organization is a group that seeks to alter or maintain political vectors by A: electing officials favorable to the groups viewpoint B: lobbying existing political figures to take the positions of the group and/or C: increasing voter turnout for targeted groups of society.
- The Fellowship does none of those things. It simply provides a clearing-house for members of our political establishment to pray and practice their faith in private, nothing more, nothing less. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ted Haggard says he is not gay. Therefore, he is not. OJ Simpson says he is not a killer. Therefore, he is not. Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman. Therefore, he did not. The fact that the Family/Fellowship denies (to outsiders) being political does not mean that it is not a political organization. Family members in the US Congress have been joining together for 50 years to push legislation and facilitate military aid for pro-US dictators. But, you say it's not political because they say they're not political. The Family has, in fact, done B. on your list, and then some.Frankpettit (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The Fellowship Foundation is one of several nonprofit entities linked in a movement that has for the last 30 some years used the label "the Family" as an umbrella. A group that organizes politicians and encourages them to build relationships with other politicians is political, regardless of whether or not it is partisan. Here's Family associate Senator James Inhofe describing the group and its approach to "political philosophy" in a video clip (transcription via Rachel Maddow Show): "Doug has always been kind of behind the scenes and very quiet. He talked me into going to Africa. I had no interest in going to Africa. At the same day, after 10 years of saying no to him, I said, “All right, I will.” I never will understand why I said it, but I did. But I felt the political philosophy of Jesus was something that had kind of been put together by Doug and this is my interpretation." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32202372/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/) JeffSharlet (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Dubious Citations
Jeff Sharlet's Book. Every single remark here with that as its citation needs to be removed, as it flatly violates Wiki's Original Research policy. That aside, here are the list dubiously cited claims 1. The Fellowship ... is comprised of about 350 "core members," or "new chosen," not true, the house in question employs 12 people who basically clean, mow, cook and mop. [8]
2. The Family's "reach into governments around the world is almost impossible to overstate or even grasp," according to David Kuo, a former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. That quotation is cropped and out of context, meant to imply a massive conspiracy. Here is what Kuo really thinks about the Fellowship.
For all the hysteria about Christian organizations, the irony that the Fellowship is being targeted as a bad egg is jaw-dropping. This is so not Focus on the Family, this is so not the Christian Coalition. There are other Christian groups that are truly insane. Who purport to follow Jesus Christ and who I would submit do not. The Fellowship is a loosely banded group of people who have an affinity for Jesus.
Until I see that full quotation uncropped, physically see it, these two statements are totally contradictory, and unlike the one in the article, I have a verifiable citation for it. [9]
3. "...and for officials' approving references to the Mafia, Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden and Pol Pot." Here is what the source says, while listing that Jeff Sharlet alleges Doug Coe said that, with the following caveat "But a close friend told NBC News that Doug Coe invokes Hitler only to show the power of small groups -- for good and bad." That hardly supports the blanket accusation of "approving" of stalin, Mao, and Hitler.
4. "Fellowship leader Doug Coe urges a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that he compares to the blind devotion that Adolf Hitler demanded from his followers." See above.
5. "The Family's attempts to influence government policies and politicians raises questions regarding the separation of church and state. Senator Mark Pryor said that the group had taught him that the separation of church and state was a sort of secular exaggeration: “Jesus did not come to bring peace. Jesus came to take over." Original Research, it is not a news article, just Jeff Sharlet plugging his own book with no fact checking. [10]
That is all I have done so far, and that is only the first three sections. I am placing the tags back up until these issues are resolved. EricLeFevre (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- You have no evidentiary basis for claiming his book is an unreliable source, no evidence at all. You have not demonstrated any inaccuracies in Sharlet's book whatsoever. You have no basis for flagging his book as Original Research. Sharlet's book is full of references and citations, including to the Family's archives at the BGC. Your claim that every bit of info here that is cited to Sharlet's book must be removed, is a wildly overbroad, totally unsubstantiated claim. You have to show that specific info in Sharlet's book is contradicted by other evidence elsewhere. You have not given a single example of that.
- I can't vouch for every newspaper article written about Sharlet's book. Maybe some of the articles about Sharlet's book got some facts wrong. This is no proof whatsoever that Sharlet's book itself is inaccurate. You haven't read his book, right? Frankpettit (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Massive Re-Write
Over the coming weeks I will be doing a massive rewrite of this article. For now, I will work on the lede, after that is done, the next part will be to remove non-relevant materials such as
- Most of its affiliates
- financing for Congressional travel
- its property holdings
None of that material is notable at all, and it just bloats the article. Its not like the Coca Cola article has exact listings of all its properties. It is way too long for an article of this type. Congressional travel I plan on rolling into a future "Notable Activities" section (since that is where that information belongs imo).
The financing section got gutted because it was a pretty boring read and irrelevant material. EricLeFevre (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Blanked Sections
Format Section Name - Reason
Press coverage - The information in this section is covered in other sections already.
Affiliations with dictators and oppressive regimes - None, I mean, *none* of the citations supported the claims in that section. That happening once or twice is totally forgivable. But ALL of the claims in that section failed to show up in their citations.EricLeFevre (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Associates and close friends - The lede section simply makes a general statement that a lot of powerful people are in this group. That is enough detail, lists of members is just redundant info. EricLeFevre (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Shortened Sections
Affiliated organizations Only groups that directly appear on The Fellowship's IRS filling maintained their spot on the list. Removed groups include: organizations run by former fellowship members, groups that are unrelated but fulfill a similar purpose, groups that have recieved some funding from the fellowship in the past.
Sticking only to groups that appear on its IRS filling, I think, is a reasonable standard.
Finances and funding - The old section contained detailed lists of salaried employees, names of donors and the exact amounts that they donated which is not very relevant to an encyclopedia. It bloated the article and was quite frankly, really boring. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
More updates
History section got massively shortened, beliefs and secrecy got rolled in together and secrecy got blanked. More to come later. I apparently messed with a lot of citations, whoops. It is getting late here, so I will have to leave the article as is. Thankfully this is a low traffic one, but help would be appreciated. EricLeFevre (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The Family vs. The Fellowship
From a reading of this article and some of the sources, it seems to me that this article probably should be titled "The Fellowship," with "The Family" being mentioned as an alternate name in the lede. The Fellowship currently redirects to The Fellowship (Australia), which, humorously enough, is also a secretive Christian organization. Thus, I propose that this article be moved to The Fellowship (United States), and that The Fellowship be made into a disambiguation page that would link to both the Australian article and here, as well as other organizations with this name. I'll be cross-posting this to Talk:Douglas Coe, Talk:The Fellowship (Australia), and the talk page of the admin who move-protected this article. If no one objects, I'll make the move in a few days. Thanks in advance for any comments. GlassCobra 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here in the United States, it is known mainly as "The Family", and I think it should remain where it is. Thank you for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) P.S., I do not feel strongly about it, so I would !vote for weak keep. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, every single source in the references section, as well as the groups IRS filing list the group as "The Fellowship", just read the sources. Jeff Sharlet refers to the group as "The Family", why I do not know. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was not trying to suggest the two Fellowship groups were related; they appear to be two very separate organizations that just happen to share the same vague name. Unfortunately, the vagueness of the name makes Google searches to determine which name is more common very tough, but as I mentioned above, a scan of this article and sources, as well as reading Douglas Coe, seems to indicate that "The Fellowship" is the more common name. GlassCobra 18:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
International Foundation
Hi everyone,
I have replaced the redirect page for International Foundation with a disambiguation page. I believe that there are more organizations than The Family who could legitimately have their names abbreviated to International Foundation.
Please take a look.
Thank you.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Unreliable Sources
Consensus has found that book is reliable |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As has been stated here before, Jeff Sharlet's book is not a reliable source and has not been verified by anyone else. As such, it should not be used as a source citation unless preceded by a statement that the claim is made by his book. Right now, all of the controversial claims state his book as fact, when there is significant doubt as to the factual accuracy of his statements EricLeFevre (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Who says Sharlet's book is not reliable? You? You say. OK fine, you insert a comment in the article saying that Eric LeFevre asserts without evidence that Sharlet's book is not reliable. Fair enough, put that in and cite it to you. Who says the material has not been verified by anyone else? Which material? He interviewed a bunch of evangelists. Are they saying they've been misquoted? You're employing a double standard here. You assert positive things about the family without citation or verification, e.g. David Kuo said a good thing about Doug Coe. Has that material been verified by two or three sources? No. But with negative things, you require two or three or more sources. Bias! You have two different standards of evidence, total credulity for positive things and incredulity for negative things. Sharlet did intensive research into the Family's archives. Sharlet's book is 400 pages long and he cites specific folders and boxes in the Family's archives at the BGC. Very, very few other sources have even peeped in the Family's archives. I think the writers of the LA Times article did, and they DO NOT CONTRADICT what Sharlet wrote. If the Family re-opens their archives, more people can double-check Sharlet's work. If you want to facilitate this, then you go and tell your leader to open his archives. You say "there is significant doubt as to the factual accuracy of his statements." From who? You? This statement is meaningless--doubt from whom? Tell me, who doubts, and why? What is the evidence behind their doubt? Is it doubt based on fact, or bias? You'd doubt a videotape. In fact there IS A VIDEOTAPE of Doug Coe giving the speech about Hitlerian leadership models, a videotape made by an evanglical, who gave it to Doug Coe! If you want to put the speech in context, i.e. Doug Coe is talking about the power of leadership and loyalty and is not a fascist, fine. Context is good. But you're not talking about context. You're asserting a blanket incredulity--everything he writes is doubtful, because why? Because he's Sharlet? Secondly, when a book is 400 pages long, and well-cited, some stuff in his book is better cited than other stuff. Most of the stuff I put in, with page numbers, from Sharlet's book, is stuff known from other sources-- the members of the organization, and quotes from various Family members. The Hitler speech has appeared elsewhere. If there are SPECIFIC items from Sharlet's book contradicted by SPECIFIC evidence elsewhere, let's see it! Cough it up! But you CANNOT assert his whole book is unreliable, doubtful etc. without evidence! And I'm putting the membership list BACK! Frankpettit (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like you read the book, Eric, in which I discuss the history of the movement's self-identification, from International Christian Leadership to the Fellowship to the Family. The Fellowship Foundation is one non-profit entity within the movement, which also includes, for instance, the International Foundation. At least one other reported source calls the group the Family: World magazine, a leading Christian Right publication which can hardly be accused of having an axe to grind with Christianity: "Other regulars say associates reprimand them for using the term "the Fellowship," and tell them to call the group "the Family."" World also quotes longtime associate Chris Halverson as confirming the usage of "Christian mafia": "In fact, said Halverson, "they used to call themselves the Christian mafia—and they would laugh. Meaning one family is in strong power and then other families around that family have some power. . . . I would have been considered one of the families that have power.""http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15778 JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Eric: My work then qualifies. HarperCollins is a respected publication, as are Harper's, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and Mother Jones, all fact-checked national magazines in which I originally published much of the book. In addition, the book was favorably reviewed in The Journal of American History, a peer-reviewed journal. JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You're then disputing the fact-checking of Harper's, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, and The New Republic as well, and casting serious aspersions against the other publications for which I've written, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Washington Post, New York magazine, Oxford American, Jewish Quarterly, and others; not to mention the media organizations that have checked my work and found it sufficiently reliable to feature, including NBC Nightly News. What is the "large mistake"? And if there was one mistake, why would it throw doubt on material that is easily verifiable? [comment removed and responded to on user talk page] JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm not entering my responses correctly; I'm learning as I go here [comment removed and responded to on user talk page] I'd like to emphasize that all quotes in the book are fact-checked. This idea that I "allege" to have interviewed Senator Brownback, for instance, is absurd: I have multiple tapes of Brownback, made with his consent, for a feature that originally appeared in Rolling Stone, which, of course, fact checks everything I assert. Senator Brownback has never said that I didn't speak to him. Same goes for Colson and Kuo. Most of my Colson and Kuo quotes, however, are from their own books, which I've footnoted. The vast bulk of the book, meanwhile, is historical; all quotes are verifiable with a trip to the archive from which I took them, footnoted in the book. If Eric LeFevre wants to do the basic scholarly work necessary to challenge those notes, fine; otherwise, this are extremely inappropriate and serious accusations. JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I am going to pose some thought provoking questions for you. Rush Limbaugh has written many books about modern liberalism, the democratic party, and its politicians. Now lets suppose that I were to use those books as sources on Wikipedia, those claims would be up for less than a half a second before they would get removed, and removed for good reason. Not every claim made by Limbaugh and his cohorts is false or misleading. With those claims, reliable third-party sources can be found to support them. Now Limbaugh's books have wiki pages (at least some of them do), and on those pages, the overheated claims he makes are on full display. This is because according to Wiki policy, books like that can only be used as sources on themselves. On the various pages dealing with the debates in which Limbaugh weighs in, his claims are nowhere to be found because they are not from a reliable source. Now back to Sharlett, here are the questions you must answer. 1. Where is his evidence, if he has documents proving that he says, where are they. 2. He claims to have viewed their archives (given the secrecy of the organization, a claim that is dubious at best), where is the evidence for this. 3. How did he obtain this evidence and under what circumstances, Gotcha journalism is also not reliable. 4. Context is important, all of his direct quotations are cropped, so where were these controversial statements made, to whom were they speaking, and what was said before and after. Now here is the evidence for my claim, that he got the name of the organization wrong. Do you want to see their IRS filing? Or would you like to see A newsweek piece describing them? Perhaps an article from the Washington post? If you are still not convinced, perhaps The Atlantic can help? Three words for you: Sharlet is wrong. This begs the question, if his research was as intensive as he claims, how could he get something so fundamental as the name of the group incorrect? EricLeFevre (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Eric LeFevre: I'm going to answer your assertions here. First, my name is Sharlet, not Sharlett. Check your facts. Next: You write: "1. Where is his evidence, if he has documents proving that he says, where are they." Answer: The documents are identified in the footnotes. They're from many sources, but the bulk are from Collection 459 of the Billy Graham Center Archives. In most cases I provide box and folder number. While some restrictions have been placed on the most recent documents, the documents I used to write my book are available for public review. So, for instance, if you'd like to see the document backing up my assertion that movement found Abraham Vereide wrote to a German associate on November 2, 1949 reassuring him that he was unconcerned by questions raised by the Federal Council of Churches about the possible Nazi backgrounds of Vereide's German allies, you need only consult footnote 32 of chapter 6, which directs you to folder 4 in box 218 in collection 459 of the Billy Graham Center Archives. If you're wondering where I got my quotation of Billy Graham, in chapter 7, asserting that Eisenhower "did not want to set a precedent" with his attendance at the Presidential Prayer Breakfast," look to note 20, in which I refer you to chapter 12 of Graham's autobiography, Just As I Am. If you're wondering about my quotation of Chuck Colson asserting that "Had I fought [the charges] I would have won," see note 42 of chapter 8, which identifies the source as page 151 of Paul Apostolidis's peer-reviewed study Stations of the Cross (Duke University Press, 2000). 2. You write: "He claims to have viewed their archives (given the secrecy of the organization, a claim that is dubious at best), where is the evidence for this." ANSWER: The evidence is in the footnotes, which identify folder, box, and collection number for the archives at the Billy Graham Center Archives. If you'd like to dispute that, you'll need to provide evidence that this well-established archive doesn't exist. 3. You write: "3. How did he obtain this evidence and under what circumstances, Gotcha journalism is also not reliable." ANSWER: Archival research may not be glamorous, but at least it is not "gotcha journalism. As for, say, the chapter based on Sam Brownback: I spent quite a bit of time with Brownback in his Washington office, at his church in Topeka, at his home, at his kids' soccer game, at his various public events, over a period of months, all with his permission and invitation. I visited with his parents and his Sunday school teacher and his high school classmates. I checked my understanding with Kansas journalists of the left and the right with long affiliation with Brownback. I extensively interviewed multiple members of his staff. I consulted with organizations and businesspeople who worked with him. I read as much of what he's written as I could get my hands on. I spoke to other politicians about their work with him. I interviewed his interns. I took calls from the senator late at night. I wrote a very lengthy profile, in which I quoted him a great length, and then submitted it to professional magazine fact checking. That ain't gotcha journalism. 4. You write: "4. Context is important, all of his direct quotations are cropped, so where were these controversial statements made, to whom were they speaking, and what was said before and after." ANSWER: See all of the above. You want to know where the quotations come from? Look at the footnotes. Of course, that would require you to read the author [comment removed and responded to on user talk page]. AS for the idea that quotations are cropped: that's what quotations ARE. 5. You write: "Now here is the evidence for my claim, that he got the name of the organization wrong. Do you want to see their IRS filing? Or would you like to see A newsweek piece describing them? Perhaps an article from the Washington post? If you are still not convinced, perhaps The Atlantic can help?" ANSWER: That's the IRS filing of the Fellowship Foundation, which I point out in my book. That does not include the International Foundation or, for instance, International Christian Leadership, which overlapped it. The umbrella term used by many within the group is the Family. See my citation to World magazine above. As for Newsweek, Washington Post, and The Atlantic: None of these reporters did archival research. Green's account of the Family appears to be taken directly from my 2003 Harper's article (which is fine; Harper's is a reliable source). But, most importantly, you really need to read the book: the title is the Family, and that is the most general umbrella term for a movement that has had many names. But the Fellowship (though not Fellowship Foundation) is also sometimes used as an umbrella term, a point I make in the book. JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "
I believe you just crossed the line, Eric. [comment removed and responded to on user talk page] JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask that you read the following articles with an open mind, no you won't like their source. The first is a review from amazon.com. The writer is from Sydney, and an american national associated with the Republican Party. Jeff Sharlet is given a chance to make a rebuttal, so I like this one the best, as it presents both sides to the reader. [4] The second review is from an evangelical magazine, so you can imagine they didn't like the book on face value. The review notes other factual accuracy problems with the book (the chapter highlighting connections to the movie the blob). [5] Once again, read them with an open mind. I will give you others as I find them. I stand by the edits and request and point by point rebuttal to the issues. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Just no. The book is from a reliable author - a well established and respect journalist with many years of writing for mainstream publications on these kinds of topics - and a reliable publisher and is well reviewed. This isn't some one-off article full of flaws that somebody googled up. This is the very definition of a reliable source, the best and most researched source on this topic, exactly the kind of source that WP wants us to use for articles. To claim that this is unsuitable under WP rules is to claim that up is down and black is white. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Now this is really the last time, members of the Family are taught to say "Family" not "Fellowship." This from WorldMag, where Chris Halverson (Dick's son) confirms much of what Sharlet wrote:
[WorldMag, Aug. 29 2009: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15778] Frankpettit (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You keep repeating yourself, but not making any substantive arguments. I will keep repeating myself as well. I am not opposed to the inclusion of negative material about this group. Notice that criticisms are included in the version I keep referring too. The threshold is simple, produce evidence backing up what Sharlet says. In the case of the hitler remarks, MSNBC backed up what Sharlet said, so it gets included. Your last makes little or no attempt to refute that statement. The statement about The Jungle I found highly amusing, because if you check the relevant wiki articles, the book is not used as a source on any material other than itself. Claims made by that particular book are in those articles, but only because they are backed up by reliable, verifiable sources. The book itself is not used as a reference, regardless of how right or wrong it is, the only subject area in which it can be used as a reference is itself. By stating this point, you apparently agree with this standard, and as such I am happy to apply that precedent here. The next point I also found highly amusing. I happen to be an Engineer and am thoroughly familiar with the workings of scientific journals, I read a few of them on a weekly basis. The vast majority of scientific theories are not controversial, though someone can get that impression simply because controversial theories get disproportionate news coverage. Controversial theories tend to be backed up by extensive evidence, repeatable experiments, and verifiable original sources. I recommend that you peruse some of the science based articles here on wikipedia. In there you will notice that those controversies are backed up by multiple, third party sources. Go ahead and check for yourself. Articles that disproportionately use a single source have the One Source tag if the material is not controversial or obscure. Those articles with controversial theories using one source typically get deleted if the article's author cannot produce reliable, verifiable sources backing what his claims say. By stating this point, I will assume that you want to apply a similar precedent here, a precedent I am happy to accept. The next point brought up is a whole laundry list of sources purportedly supporting what Jeff Sharlet said in his book, but one should keep the following in mind. There is absolutely no doubt that the National Review, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, The Weekly Standard, and Bill O'Reilly have raving reviews of what Rush Limbaugh and Jonah Goldberg say in their books. Using your third standard, an editor could plausibly claim grounds to use their works as authoritative sources. After all, respectable firms publish those books, so they must be true. Wrong. The only subject that highly books like that can be used on is themselves, not the subject on which they are arguing. I have particular beef with the following statements
Firstly, that is patently incorrect. User:Orangemike never said what you claimed he said. Here is what he actually said, "What that second reference says to me is that somebody needs to look up the Michael Lindsay article and incorporate its findings into the article. Secondarily, somebody needs to make it clear when Sharlet is the sole source for a given assertion or interpretation." source: right on this talk page. This is the position I have been largely keeping two since User:Orangemike weighed in here. Your repeated edit warring has damaged the process by which this article gets improved, I am going to revert the change one more time and work towards a compromise offered by User:Orangemike, if you revert one more time, I will report you, and given your talk page, this is something you have been repeatedly warned about in the past. Of your post, the last few arguments are the best, in particular when you say, "Sharlet refences and cites specific folders and boxes in the Family archives at the BGC. I double-checked these from the archive box list online at the BGC. They match up. Check it yourself." Please post this evidence, those are exactly the kind of sources I have been asking you to provide since the very beginning, a verifiable statement backing up what Jeff Sharlet says in his book.EricLeFevre (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Above, Eric LeFevre writes: "Point a: None of the people have come forward to say they were misquoted. Good reason: this is a fairly little known, minor book." Actually, it's a national bestseller, featured on NBC Nightly News, CNN, MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," "Hardball," and the "Big Picture," the "Daily Show," HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," cited in the New York Times, reviewed in the preeminent peer-reviewed academic journal for American historians, the Journal of American History. I'm not saying that makes it a good book, but in the world of publishing, it is not "little known." Indeed, Senator Mark Pryor, Senator Tom Coburn, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, Rep. Frank Wolf, and former Rep. Tony Hall have all responded. Eric writes: "Secondly, I never said they were misquoted, what I said is that as per Wiki Policy claims about third parties must be backed up by verifiable mainstream sources." Books published by HarperCollins and journalism published in (and fact checked by) Harper's, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and Mother Jones are mainstream sources. Eric, you write that you allow only material from "from major media outlets that check their facts." Actually, Newsweek columnists and Washington Post reporters aren't fact checked. But contributors to Harper's, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and Mother Jones are. So it looks like it's time for you to abandon that argument. JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was page moved to The Fellowship (Christian organization) @harej 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The Family (Christian political organization) → Fellowship Foundation — - per WP:NCCN, "using the most common English-language name of the ... thing that is the subject of the article." In the event that this can't be verifiably established, wouldn't it make sense to default to how the organization is officially named, per WP:NCCORP? Redirects can take care of International Christian Leadership, National Committee for Christian Leadership, Christian Mafia, C Street, the Family (Christian political organization), etc. - :Ἀλήθεια 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- According to their 2001 Tax Records the official name is Fellowship Foundation. According to the Records of the Fellowship Foundation, the last official name change was in 1972. Ἀλήθεια 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- If it can't be agreed that Fellowship Foundation is a suitable name, then The Fellowship (Christian organization) makes the most sense, as that is how it is referred to in the majority of the article, including the lead sentence. Reliable sources for this name include: "House of Worship". Newsweek. 2009-09-08., "All in the family". World Magazine. 2009-08-29., and "Political ties to a secretive religious group". NBC News. 2008-04-03. Ἀλήθεια 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- MOVE to The Fellowship (Christian organization). As of 20 October 2009 03:55 UTC, the term "The Fellowship" was used 47 times, while "The Family" was used 41 times in this article. "Fellowship Foundation" was used 15 times. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I would vote a mild "No" on this move, but that is due to conservatism on my part...because I think it sucks for everyone's external links to have to change. I do not feel strongly about it.Frankpettit (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Fellowship (Christian organization)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Reduced number of sections, added cites, removed unsubstantiated statements, and improved the balance in tone. I think this article no longer merits the comment that sections need to be condensed or merged. For future editors, use of tables may be preferable in places where there are long bulleted lists. |
Last edited at 01:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Sharlet, Jeff, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
MJbookExrpt
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062504480.html
- ^ http://www.toobeautiful.org/lat_020927.html
- ^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/214986
- ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062504480.html
- ^ http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/857959.aspx
- ^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/214986
- ^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/214986
- ^ http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/19/behind-closed-doors-c-street/