Talk:Two by Twos/Archive2

30 March 2009 Reorganization

I have rearranged the material in this article. While doing so, I have also inserted missing citations for material that had no references, and removed statements for which I could find no attributions. I also removed some excessive detail which wandered off the subject, or simply moved such info to a citation where it already exists elsewhere. Finally, I removed the "Controversy" section entirely - both because there were no citations, and because it was ... well, controversial and by nature not neutral on either side. If someone can explain those in a NPOV way, then go ahead and restore any such points. The article is already long despite my pruning, and I would think clarity might be better maintained if such side issues were addressed in new articles, and just linked from here.

Additional material was removed because it seemed to be controversial or promoting points of view (POV) for which I could find no sufficiently reliable published source to back up those statements.

I realize that both sides had problems with the perception of promotion of specific points of view, and hopefully that has been lessened in the reworking. But as I've stated before, this is a situation where either side of an issue can find fault with just about any statement, source or even lack of particular information being included. FWIW, I've just tried to present a valid picture here, without hiding anything on one hand, or letting personal beliefs color what is being promoted on the other.

And speaking of "picture" - someone surely has a better public domain photo which reflects the group than the one I put into the info box!

With the heavy editing, I'm bound to have made some mistakes. But I hope no one is offended because I left out a particular contribution in the interests of readability, or merged some items together to shorten things. No offense was meant Astynax (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this article in many months, and was pleasantly surprised by the recent changes. I believe the article is well written and correct to the best of my knowledge. The "Founding" section foregrounds the role of Irvine in the early days of the movement while avoiding explicitly naming him as 'founder', a highly contentious issue, and I think the description steps nicely around the land mines involved. (I'm inserting my comments at this point, because the remainder of the discussion has to do with 'NPOV' issues.)

The only glaring issue as I read the article is under 'Christology'. Many members do accept the Trinity doctrine. I think the most accurate thing that could be said is that the movement avoids creeds (such as the Nicene Creed) which explicitly endorse the Trinity doctrine. The movement does accept the virgin birth, and that Jesus is the son of God. It doesn't specifically endorse or involve itself in the Trinitarian-Arianist issues. It's fair to say that preaching on the subject isn't wholly consistent or focused on unravelling the issues the Bible text presents on this subject. So, sermon quotes don't indicate much. What is well known is that opponents of the group have tried to play up the issue of the Trinity in order to discredit the group and also enlist the Anti-Cult Movement against the group. Slofstra (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there was previous mention of the TMB in the archives, I've been watching the discussion on this subject prior to deciding to edit and since. Although one current member seems to be more or less Trinitarian, the arguments from the current members there seem to be firmly antitrinitarian. I also personally know of current members in my extended family who hold to antitrinitarian stances, and even one couple whose insisting on trinitarian views led to their excommunication. In relation to that, I have for many years had sermon notes given to me to back that up. So, I would say that, although there may be members who hold variations on the subject, I don't see that this being both stated and cited is a problem. This group is hardly unique in members generally holding to some variation of antitrinitarian view, so it is hardly a matter of including this characteristic being “discredit,” any more so than it would be for those other groups. Even more curious (to me) is why such a foundational and important subject (the nature of God) would not be specifically and consistently addressed, and how so many seem to hold antitrinitarian views if they had not been taught??? • Astynax ^talk 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A writer named 'Eddie Tor' had written reasonable material on the order of service, and other factoids, which seem to have gotten lost in the rewrite. I think they added considerably to the article as it once stood. But perhaps most of what he stated has been incorporated in the new text. Slofstra (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the writing is 'colored' negatively. This would be quite evident to anyone in the movement, and you'll probably receive objections on that basis. The statements are correct, but could be improved. For example, present day gospel meetings are contrasted with those of years ago. The article attributes the change to growing insularity in the movement while ignoring the change in receptivity of the Western public to preaching of the gospel. (The point is arguable of course, but the negative POV would be quite evident to anyone attending these meetings. At the same time, the criticism of the group may be well taken, and some members will argue with anything that is the least bit critical.) Slofstra (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of criticism or PoV needs to be separated from objecting with simple descriptions and statement, which seem to be just as highly irritating and objectionable to some. If NPoV statements are perceived as criticism or demeaning to members, then so be it - for this group or any other. That cannot be avoided by offering up a PoV which panders to their tastes, or by removing descriptive material. • Astynax ^talk 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But on the whole ... nice work, Astynax. Slofstra (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute: I have disputed the NPOV because of various questionable and unproven details in this edit, mainly associated with the founder being William Irvine. Some of the true facts are that William Irvine was not alone, and William Irvine and those with him are well documented to having said that they were not starting anything knew. Various researchers who had originally credited William Irvine as being the founder have since changed their view on this in the light of newer information. The erroneous view of William Irvine being the founder came from his attempts later in life to place himself as the founder, which was regected by those who were with him and knew the truth. It ultimately led to his departure from fellowship with the other servants. Tmtsoj (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited an original, contemporary published reference (obtainable by any researcher from the British Library) which explicitly states that William Irvine was the founder. I could have cited other contemporary references which state the same thing. Wilson McClung also said that Irvine originated it (21 June 1906, Impartial Reporter, pg. 3.). Edward Cooney acknowledged Irvine as the first (quoted under oath, no less in the Impartial Reporter on 18 December 1913). And there are several other published contemporary statements attesting to the same thing. Since the press of the period, and the early workers themselves, stated that Irvine was "the founder," and that went unchallenged during a time when members were not shy about disputing statements in letters to the editors, it seems reasonable to suppose that that was a statement of fact. More recently, there are similar quotes by workers such as Tharold Sylvester (interview in the Skagit Valley Herald, 18 August 1983), and William Lewis (interview in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, 2 November 1986). In addition to the selection of published sources above, there are a great many letters (including from William Irvine himself, and prominent early workers) which explicitly state that Irvine was single-handedly responsible for founding the movement.

Which researchers have changed their view that William Irvine was the original founder, and where is that "new information"? If you look at the dates for all the earliest workers, you'll notice that none predate Irvine, and all were involved with other churches prior to hearing Irvine.

I notice that you inserted a reading reference for Jaenen's (who is a well-known member of the Christian Conventions/Assemblies of Christians group) book, which I also have. But Jaenen doesn't actually say anywhere that Irvine was not the founder, he simply lists various people from other church groups who ran missions around this period, some of whom eventually joined Irvine's group. That is not the same thing as evidence that they, alone or in concert with Irvine, had any role in beginning the group. As Jaenen rightly says, Irvine did claim to have founded the movement. And with a good number of contemporary, published eyewitness statements in which Irvine is explicitly stated to have begun the movement, his role as founder is concretely established.

That said, if you have better citations which show someone else as founding the group, please cite them. And before alleging POV where no POV exists or is intended, it would be courteous to discuss it here, rather than just putting up an unsourced dispute. I, for one, would love to have reliable references to cite showing that someone other than Irvine started this religious group. Astynax (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some corrections and additional changes, some of which will hopefully address any POV tone Tmtsoj may have felt elsewhere in the article (thanks Nemonoman for coming over from the NPOV board and taking a look).

As for the issue of Irvine having originated the movement, I can't see removing or even disputing that based on the contemporary eyewitness and other sources available. If anyone does have citable sources for information showing that someone other than Irvine founded this group, let's work together to include that alternative viewpoint, rather than flagging a dispute over what are very solid evidences. As I understand it, there is nothing wrong with including conflicting positions, as long as there are good citations to back those. Astynax (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the NPOV dispute tag. I've explained why William Irvine is regarded as the founder, and have changed some of the wording that will hopefully address whatever else may have been perceived as POV. If there are still issues, or if there are other facts with citable sources which should be included, then let's find a way to work those into the article while keeping it organized, readable and neutral. Astynax (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I popped into this article because it was highlighted on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. It appears to me that the NPOV dispute tag is probably not the tag that should have been added. I believe that the editor who added the tag meant to challenge the factual content of the article, not its point of view. So I concur with the removal of that tag, and suggest that disputes about content should be challenged as with ^{[citation needed]} tags. I think these might reasonably only be applied ONLY to specific statements in the article. There MIGHT be cause to dispute a section of the article, but that's a stretch, IMO. It certainly would be wrong to tag the whole article as factually wrong, however.

It might be reasonable to add a section to the article citing sources for what I'll term the 1st century origins of this church. As it stands however, it is hard for an editor (like myself) who is unfamiliar with the subject to see a continuity of 1st century origins to 19th century actions. Perhaps there is something like the Sufis have, a family tree of the lineage leading to Irvine. But the article is based on a socio-religious institution -- not the Mystic Church as Bride of Christ, which I perceive might be the reference point of Irvine's comment about not starting anything new -- so using Irvine's revelation as starting date seems appropriate. It is not POV to do so.

That said, there are many, many instances where good editors might improve the language of the article to reduce words suggestive of POV. I have made a few edits myself in this regard. I hope other editors will do the same, as the excellent quality of this article's information deserves the best presentation possible. --nemonoman (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding the The NPOV dispute tag, I also questioned if that was the appropriate for this article, but it is a POV that William Irvine was the founder, because there is much conflicting information regarding this. William Irvine is well documented for saying that he wasn't starting anything new, but continuing on with what Jesus had already established with previous apostles. It is accurate to say that William Irvine was one of the first of that generation. It wasn't until later that he had changed his Point of View and started to tell people that he was the "Father". Here is an extract from a letter from John Wegtner...

Eldon Tenniswood told me in 1997 that William Irvine had visited a number of times in Michigan during Eldon's childhood, and the older Tenniswoods thought very highly of him, to the point that they named one of their sons Irvine. But again he was never mentioned in any special capacity as founder or supreme leader. It was just on his last visit to a Michigan convention (either 1913 or 1914) that the Tenniswoods came home quite disappointed because WI had preached himself as 'founder' there, saying (Eldon's exact words) "I am the father of you all." Tenniswoods' reaction was, "William's changed, and we don't believe we can trust him anymore."

I believe an anonymous quote dated 1909 that used to be on the TTT website (not sure if it's still there) sums up the attitudes of the early workers quite well: "We are not starting a new religion. We are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints and trying to separate it from the traditions of men..." Some will no doubt debate that point, but to me that attitude explains why William Irvine was not mentioned as 'founder' by the early workers in North America and elsewhere. The simple fact is that they didn't consider him the founder, and they weren't promoting him in any way above other workers.

Most of the written records (letters, memoirs, etc.) seem to agree that some time after 1910, a change was perceived in WI's approach, and he began to make claims for himself as a prophet that he hadn't made previously, which caused the majority of the workers and friends to lose their confidence in him and eventually to separate him from their fellowship. This leads me to believe that prior to this he was not especially promoting himself in such a way (see Goodhand Pattison's memoirs, for example) and neither were the workers who first came to North America in that first decade when their message spread so rapidly across the continent.

As it is commonly known, William Irvine's spirit changed and he then made claims of being the founder, which were regected by those who knew him well. These claims made by William Irvine in later years have been erroneously taken up by various writers, critics, and those who have regected this fellowship, as an attack on the credibility of others who, like the first preachers of that generation, are professing to be part of the church established by Jesus. It is the POV of the critics that these same people are in fact professing to follow something that was founded by William Irvine. This is not the case. As the early preachers (including William Irvine) did, these people are not following anything new, but only what Jesus established.

What should be established is how those who separated from William Irvine after his claims of being the founder, because they knew that they were not following something the he founded, should be documented as saying that they are following something that he founded. If William Irvine's claims of being their "father" was rejected, it contradicts the facts that they agreed with him when they were all following something that was established by Jesus.

I will add the NPOV dispute tag because the majority of people within the Christian Convention fellowship do not attest to following a denomination founded by William Irvine, his claims of being founder were rejected by those within the Christian Convention fellowship, and his name is not spoken today as "founder" by those in the fellowship. It is only a point of view of others, and not those within the fellowship, that William Irvine is their "father". They left William Irvine, and there was a marked decision to go back to continuing on from what Jesus had established, just as William Irvine had professed to do himself at one stage. I don't know who was the first of this movement away from what William Irvine was preaching by that stage, but they could be more correctly credited with this fellowship returning to the truth, and being controlled by God rather than man. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>>Please see comments in NPOV Tag section below. When adding new material, please enter it at the bottom of the discussion, not interspersed, as this helps clarity. --nemonoman (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj, I understand that you've heard from various people that Mr. Irvine did not establish this group. But we do have several newspaper accounts published during those early years in which various people state otherwise, a few of which I listed above. A number of these statements date to well prior to 1910, and well before any claim I've seen made by Irvine himself in that regard.

Apparently, Irvine's role as founder is common knowledge in Britain and Ireland according to one member I know who traveled there frequently. So, some members seem not to have a problem with his role, and yet it seems to be upsetting to others such as yourself. Is this a doctrinal point in some regions? I have 2 newspaper articles interviewing worker William Lewis in Minnesota and Texas. In the Minnesota article he refers to it starting with "a Scottish preacher before the turn of the 20th century" and then five years later when asked whether there was "one founder or group of founders," he states in the Texas article: "not to my knowledge." Now, I'm not sure what to make of that contradiction. Perhaps there is a difference on this point between members in Minnesota and Texas, and perhaps between the British Isles and elsewhere?

Regardless, I believe we need a reliable source to cite in order to expand on the position that Irvine was not the originator. Hearsay isn't citable, and would indeed push the article way into POV territory. But if you can provide a reliable source that can be cited which states that Irvine was not the founder, then that certainly could be included as an alternative view. That doesn't mean that the original historical source materials which call him the founder can be dismissed, however. Although I've seen a few convention notes in which a worker has said that "no man" founded the group, I'm not sure that those statements were meant literally, or in a “spiritual” sense (since the others say that Christ started it with Matthew 10). Irvine's role as having started the group is a position held by just about every piece of material I've come across to date (including some as yet unpublished letters by various workers which I'm not sure are in any archive). Astynax (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. If this is a matter of doctrinal difference, then perhaps citing the newspaper interviews with William Lewis would serve to illustrate the different positions? Just a thought. Astynax (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute - Nemonoman, I have added the POV tag again because of the difference in the views about William Irvine's title and place in the existing fellowship. I'm not sure if there is a better tag to alert readers that the article contains a disputed view. The "facts" currently in the article are based on the words of a man (W. Irvine) who himself changed his point of view about the founding of this sect, and because of that was seperated from fellowship with those who knew the truth. Those who left from following the teaching of William Irvine made a mindful and declared decision to do this because they recognized his error, but the article claims that today members of the sect are of that same erronious founding of William Irvine, despite them having left.

I have refrained from completely revamping the article, to allow some discussion to take place on this topic first, and in the mean time, I don't see anything wrong with a tag that alerts readers to there being some dispute, which then points them to be able to see discussion on the dispute, and see another point of view. If you would that I changed the article, or put some of this above information in the article, rather than add the NPOV tag, I will do that. I would prefer not to make a mess of wikipedia, so considered it appropriate that a tag is placed in the article to first prompt discussion. Tmtsoj (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who inserted a reading reference for Jaenen's book. I don't know him and haven't read this book. I don't have an opinion one way or another about whether it is appropriate for this article, so maybe you can ask others to discuss that topic. Tmtsoj (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I just saw it highlighted on the 1 April History, but it appears to have been a change by SmackBot. The reference itself must go back much further. Astynax (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article at present does not reference Irvine as founder, so I assume the debate above pertained to an earlier version? A couple of points to add. Some of the printed references to Irvine's role as founder appear in Faith Missions publications. As Irvine left Faith Missions to join (or begin) this movement, those publications would have a skewed perspective. John Long, in his journal, does not appear to acknowledge Irvine as founder. There are only one or two explicit early references to Irvine as founder, excluding Irvine's own. There is a very long thread on TMB discussing all the historical evidence on the issue. It seems to me that a whole lot of controversy can be avoided by stating in clear English what occurred in the early days of the movement and just leave the word 'founder' out of it, as there are semantic/doctrinal issues involved as well. Critics of the movement can dispel the more extravagant claims of the movement going back intact to the time of Christ with just such an approach.Slofstra (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current revision shows "Founder: William Irvine" in the infobox under the photo. --nemonoman (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the text does not support this statement, can we remove it? Such a controversial point should be expanded and supported in the main text if it's to be extracted into an Info box. Also the word 'prominent' should be removed from the caption. Gill was not prominent; although Irvine and Walker were. Slofstra (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gill was certainly prominent - IIRC, he ended up as Overseer in Britain and would be as prominent there as Walker was in N. America. • Astynax ^talk 21:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are downplaying the number of references to Irvine's role in founding the group - certainly more than “one or two” explicitly state that. Aside from the multiple references in newspapers, there are Irvine's own statements, and later recollections by people who were there (Cooney, Weir, etc.). I'm not sure why people on TMB and perhaps other members have a problem with this - certainly not all do - but this isn't a matter that should even be under discussion - the evidence clearly has Irvine, and only Irvine, founding this group, starting in in October 1897. • Astynax ^talk 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about answering my question though? The text does not indicate Irvine as founder so why should the summary caption? As for the evidence issue, I will use the section Talk:Christian_Conventions#Irvine_as_Founder if you wish to discuss further. TMB is mostly ex-members of the group, BTW. Slofstra (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly add something specifically calling Irvine “founder” in the text - though that is implicit in what is already there. As for why it is in the infobox, that is simply because the infobox is set up with slots for “foundation date” and “founder” and there can be no good reason for acting like that info doesn't exist. • Astynax ^talk 21:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not implicit in the text at all. Why did none of the early workers reference Irvine as founder? Who began the meetings in the home, which you yourself declared as the only doctrine. It was Edward Cooney. I prefer to say that Irvine and others started the movement. It's not a question of whether Irvine is founder or not; to me it's a question of formulating the most accurate statement possible in light of the evidence. As you say, there is no good reason for acting like the information does not exist. See Talk:Christian_Conventions#Irvine_as_Founder Slofstra (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, early workers did indeed reference Irvine as founder - including Cooney's sworn statement to that effect - as well as the other primary sources who call him “founder” well before the 1914-1918 schism. Seems to be accurate and more than adequately attested to, but some do indeed insist on denying this as a matter of faith, not historical fact. • Astynax ^talk 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, they did not. See my comments in Talk:Christian_Conventions#Irvine_as_Founder. Slofstra (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it astounding that we would list a founder in the info box without providing a reliable source for this statement. Slofstra (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments now that I've read all this. Astynax asked Tmstoj to provide "a reliable source to cite in order to expand on the position that Irvine was not the originator". I believe the burden of proof is on the person making the statement. Also, there are no reliable secondary sources that indicate Irvine was the founder! What we do have is OR by astynax based on various primary sources which lead him to denote Irvine as Founder. Also, Cooney did not state Irvine was the founder. Under oath he stated "Irvine started it". This seems a trivial difference, but the question of assigning a "founder" to the movement has huge ideological overtones. Finally, Jaenen provides his own origin statement in his book; it's a distortion to say he doesn't deny that Irvine is the founder. (Jaenen is a distinguished historian, professor emeritus from the University of Ottawa and also an elder in the movement). Please see the thesis I endorse below on this particular subject, which emerged after much discussion on TMB, and is not really that much different from astynax. To be fair many do agree with astynax.Slofstra (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are both primary and secondary sources which denote Irvine as founder in the citations. Aside from the others, if you bother to consult the context of Cooney's statement under oath, it was in answer to the bench's question as to who founded the group. You may want to parse that into Cooney having perjured himself, but it does stand. That is available as a primary published source, as is William McClung's statement mentioned already. Other primary sources are quoted in the secondary sources which you now say you haven't read. As to Jaenen's book, I don't find any explicit denial of Irvine's role in originating this group (though lots of ancedotal hinting that perhaps he was not). If he does deny Irvine founded the group, that would be a good citation showing that revisionist stance - on what page is it found? As to some sort of consensus as to Irvine's role having emerged between folks on TMB (which, while interesting is probably irrelevant), I've just spent hours looking over - and see no such thing - the argument is still ongoing. • Astynax ^talk 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an outsider with no particular dog in the fight: It's clear to me from the facts EVEN AS PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE that at some point this movement changed from Not Existent (or at least not obvious and generally available), to Obvious and somewhat popular. Irvine certainly appears to be guy who flipped the switch.

The non-founder side seems to want to suggest earlier origins, or at least to discredit Irvine's role for other reasons entirely murky to me. But this is clearly a hot button for these folks.

My Occam's razor approach to this issue: Irvine's the founder, in every normal English sense of the word. There are reliable sources to back this up. The 'non-founder' disputes seem to be based on philosophy or politics, not history. No other historical figure has put forward by contributors suggesting otherwise, just the notion that it couldn't be Irvine because it wasn't Irvine, or something similar.

I don't care if he founded it or not, but in my opinion, if he looks like a duck, and he quacks like a duck, he's the Founder.

Bi-weekly worship gatherings

Every other week or twice a week? Disambiguators want to know.--nemonoman (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen stated by others, there are usually two regular meetings per week (Sunday morning and mid-week). I don't know if that is the case everywhere, however. Perhaps "twice weekly" would work better, unless someone knows of some other practice. Astynax (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed it to "twice-weekly" - at least until someone comes up with a better term or other information. BTW, thanks for your other suggestions for changing the wording on those items which sounded like conclusions were being drawn outside the scope of the sources. I've now done that, and in the process corrected a couple of glaring errors I'd made and hadn't caught (including a half sentence which was just hanging there) - writing and proofreading very late at night doesn't always work for me. Astynax (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag

Please review the NPOV discussion above. Continually reinserting the NPOV -- without first citing specific instances where reputable source material is being distorted or ignored -- is basically vandalism. Simply saying "Nobody I know believes this stuff" is not sufficient.

If you believe that facts are in error or conclusions are being drawn with sufficient backup, then insert individual {{fact}} tags. Sections of disputed facts can be noted with: {{Disputed-section}}, or the whole article with: {{Disputed}}: if you have a Fact dispute, please cite an alternative source. If you have knowledge that sources are being ignored or distorted, cite them; that would merit an NPOV tag, but I for one would work to integrate them into the article to keep it neutral. Do not keep inserting an NPOV tag without some backup, however, and do not simply remove citations for sourced facts, unless you want your actions to be considered disruptive, and possibly even vandalism. --nemonoman (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed it to "disputed" at your request, because I do believe the facts are in error. As far as it being vandalism to put a NPOV tag at the top of the page, I think that is going a bit far. It is just a small tag to alert readers to the discussion about the dispute. The actual article was not changed at all, but the tag points to some discussion regarding the content and I’m sure that readers won’t mind knowing if an article is being disputed, and have a choice to see the basis of the dispute. If you want to prevent discussion about an article, the alternative is to rewrite the article from my point of view, but I was of the understanding that Wikipedia encourages this discussion first. Someone has spent time to write this article to its current state, so I don’t think it is fair for me to start making major changes without discussing it first. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of citations, some of the facts that I have been discussing have come from the same sources that are used in the article. It is the interpretation of the facts that is the problem, and that warns of POV. Obviously this discussion is only fresh, but if in this discussion some of thing things are challenged then I can provide a source, but until now no one has challenged the fact that W. Irvine had a significant and discernible change in his spirit, and no one has challenged that there was a separation from W. Irvine and those who continued to follow him. Those that separated from W. Irvine did this because they did not want to follow his way. If someone wants to challenge that this happened, then I will provide citations, but it will be the same resources that are used in the article, and I expect it is common knowledge. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that some of the sources of information cited in the article are from the same websites which are listed in the "Neutral to Critical" section of external links. A look at the cited websites is obvious that they aren't neutral, and linking to them raises question about the NPOV of the article seeing that the article itself acknowledges that these are "Neutral to Critical". It is also interesting that the citations of this article may be accepted as reputable, despite that the referenced information doesn't have its own citations to credible information in most cases. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related to comments above:

Some may believe that "it is commonly known [that] William Irvine's spirit changed", but in fact this is not common knowledge. If it is WELL-known, you surely can find a reliable source to document the fact. As to the proposition that Jesus founded the Christian Convention, I know of at least one other church that believes it was established by Jesus. You may have heard of the Roman Catholics? They at least can point to a mostly unbroken leadership lineage. --nemonoman (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know of the Roman Catholics, and it is good to hear that they too believe their church is established by Jesus. I would be astounded if I came across a church that did not believe this. I’m not sure how it is relevant to this article though. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a fact that "a majority of people within the Christian Convention fellowship do not attest to following a denomination founded by William Irvine", you should be able to find a reliable source that shows this. --nemonoman (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to find a source to show this, but again it will be the same sources used in the article, and I don’t think this is challenged anyway. This will be very common knowledge by anybody that has an interest in discussing this dispute and does need to be cited. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a human component to churches and congregations, and it is this component being documented, not the mystic or spiritual component only. It is not NPOV to document this. If there are addtional relevant facts, however, please cite them. --nemonoman (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The human component is a very small part of what the article is about (unless the article is not truly describing the fellowship). If you want to accurately illustrate Christianity you can not leave out Christ. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please put comments at the end of sections to make the dialog easier for others to follow.

If you dispute the facts, then cite the facts you believe are relevant. A disputed article tag is really little more than whining.

If the sources contain the information you say, then cite those facts. If the sources say what's in the article, and also facts not in the article, then by citing the new facts, you balance the article.

As to the human component being small, I'm sorry that I disagree. This is an article about persons and what they believe and how they worship. That is what constitutes a church.

Information about that human component can be noted and even disputed, as you prove by your comments. Irvine said this, then he didn't, then he did, then some guys disagreed. Etc. Etc. Your dispute is with the description of the human component. But one can get those facts straight, or at least discuss them clearly, cogently, and relatively free of bias.

As to Christ's place in the article -- I take it you're sort of taking a view as Church as Bride of Christ or whatever description of the relationship you prefer to use. That is of extreme importance, but it is a matter of personal faith in the end. One's personal relation to Christ is not really relevant to an encyclopedia article in a non-sectarian environment, which WP purports to be.

Christ is of utmost importance to one's personal life, but it is very hard to factually validate the revelations of the Divine to individual human beings. I may believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but that should not be Wikipedia's definition of the book. It can't be proven -- that is what makes it an important article of faith. It is relevant that many persons believe the book to be the infallible Word of God, however, and that statement at least can be proved through reliable sources.

So let's please see some good cited facts about this interesting church, and turn this dispute into an opportunity for excellence. --nemonoman (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. "I would be astounded if I came across a church that did not believe [that their Church is established by Jesus]." If there's an Episcopal or Presbyterian church in your neighborhood, stop in an prepare to be astounded. --nemonoman (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of things would you like me to cite? Should I cite that there was a seperation from W. Irvine and his followers? Even the article mentions this, and the article has all the same sources cited that I could also cite, so I'm not sure why it makes a difference where I am getting my information that the current fellowship made a marked seperation from W. Irvine. This seperation was more clear than W. Irvine's seperation from the Faith Mission, so it is logic that if you treat it that in 1897 W. Irvine was seperate to the Faith Mission even though he was still part of it, you also should treat it that there was also a much clearer seperation from the teaching of W. Irvine because of the lack of belief in him. You can't have it both ways without it being a deliberate sluring of the facts to make the suggestion that the current members of the sect are lying (as the article does under the "History and Development" heading) when they rescind W. Irvine as their founder. The claim of lies is one of the major attacks on this group, as is evidence by the domain name of at least one of the external links in the article to a critical website.

Because we are not so much talking about the way the accuracy of the facts in the article but the way the cited facts have been interpreted, that is the reason why I swayed towards disputing the NPOV rather than the facts. Either way, I’m not that worried because it should prompt some discussion no matter what tag is used.

I agree that this article is about persons, but if it is to reflect what they believe, it would be appropriate that it was written by a person within the group, rather than someone outside attempting to interpret what they believe. It would be unusual if a representative of a particular group documented the group’s belief or purpose into an article, for someone to attempt to write for them a different belief or purpose. What I am alluding to is that if the group believes that the “Bible is the infallible Word of God”, there should be nothing wrong with documenting that, and any other belief’s that they have whether divine or not, or whether requiring faith or not. We are discussing a group who profess to be worshipping God, so regardless of whether it can be proved that God exists or not, this has to be mentioned because it is the basis of the group. To remove the divine from the group is effectively dissolving the group because that is what makes it a group. They are a group through their same faith, so unless you mention the things pertaining to that faith, there is nothing else that connects the individuals to make a group. There is not a name given to the entire group to connect them, even though many different names have been used, some unofficial names used as an attack, and some official names as a requirement from authorities in certain locations and for certain purposes. No persons in the group join or gain membership in association with any of these names, but remain as individuals, as they will be on judgement day.

A note about citing a source that directly quotes that W. Irvine was not the founder, or quotes another founder, I don’t know of such a thing that exists. The group would have no reason to document or prove that W. Irvine was not the founder. It may be more appropriate that those who hold the opposing view to the group should prove that he was the founder using credible history records and unbiased interpretations of those events.

“If there's an Episcopal or Presbyterian church in your neighborhood, stop in an prepare to be astounded.” I am happy to trust your word. WOW. I wonder if they do not realize that the bible says that Jesus is the head of the church. Tmtsoj (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

Hi, Tmtsoj.

I hope that what I'm about to do doesn't not come off as sarcastic or supercilious. You made a number of assertions in your talk about adding the NPOV tag. I am entirely ready to accept your statements as true. I have no thoughts whatever to the contrary. I do think that some sort of reliable source should be able to found that confirms these assertions. You have said you have such sources -- that in some cases they are the same sources as those cited for certain facts you dispute. That could easily be the case in a book surveying the history of the movement: Person A says X, but Person B says Y. So below is how I would lay out assertions that you might be able to support with citations. That would make them easier to use to improve the article. So without trying to supercilious or sarcastic, I'm placing ^{[citation needed]} tags near the assertions, in hopes that you'll provide citations.

As it is commonly known, William Irvine's spirit changed^{[citation needed]} and he then [emphasis mine] made claims of being the founder^{[citation needed]}, which [claims] were regected by those who knew him well.^{[citation needed]} These claims made by William Irvine in later years have been erroniously taken up by various writers, critics, and those who have regected this fellowship^{[citation needed]}, as an attack on the credibility of others who, like the first preachers of that generation, are professing to be part of the church established by Jesus.^{[citation needed]}

What should be established is how those who separated from William Irvine after his claims of being the founder, because they knew that they were not following something the he founded, should be documented as saying that they are following something that he founded.^{[citation needed]} [but frankly I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...]

Look, Tmtso. I'm not dense to what is being said in the article, or your concern about the validity of what is being said. It seems to me that the Christian Convention sort of had a starting point. From the article, I get the impression that one person's revelation led to a firestorm of change. This is a rather typical story of Christian movements. But one can usually trace that fire back to initial spark -- in my view, often a spark divinely inspired. But it is also commonplace for the progenitor of these movements to be a weak vessel, and for later adherents to reject the very person who (apparently) kicked things off. Looks to me that Christian Convention has had a similar sort of story. And it was obvious from my first read of the article, so it's not being buried -- it's pretty obvious.

Isn't there some sort of source where some authoritative bunch in the Church rejected Irvine and told him to dry up and blow away or something similar? And isn't there then some sort of document that lays out the paradigm that the Christian Convention had no earthly founder? From your comments it appears that is probably the case. You seem to have a dog in the fight and know the territory -- so can you find something like that? --nemonoman (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, Thank you for your constructive response. I can understand your request for citation with regard to the assertions I have made, though most of these assertions are common knowledge and not likely to be challenged by anybody that is likely to be interested in discussing this dispute here. I will spend some time soon to cite some sources, though I don’t think it will enforce my point of view because that the majority of these assertions are generally accepted by all, including this article in its current edit.

One assertion that I may not be able to cite is, ‘‘are professing to be part of the church established by Jesus’’, because this is a profession made by individuals, and it is physically not possible to cite a document (or anything else) for every person of the group who is professing to be part of that church, especially as no such document exists. This profession is only by word spoken from one person to another as they acknowledge their belief, or through their actions as they live within God’s will. I hope you can see how difficult it is to leave out statements pertaining to faith when you are talking about a group who is nothing or nobody except a group of people who have their own individual service to God.

I will try to clear up the assertion that you weren’t sure about above. The article mentions that there was a separation from William Irvine and his followers (as often has occurred in various churches), but it is inconsistent that William Irvine would be the founder of a new movement that made a marked and deliberate separation from him. If the current group is claimed to part of William Irvine’s sect, despite there having been a rejection of his teaching and a separation from his group, that claim is not consistent with the claim that William Irvine had started anything new, because he had made no separation from the Faith Mission. If the logic is used that a new group is not created when it is separated from another group, that same logic should also be used which would claim that the current group is part of the Faith Mission because the lineage goes back through some preachers who were Faith Mission workers at the time. This inconsistent use of logic should be cleared up in the article, because it isn’t right to use different logic to support a particular point of view.

In response to your final questions-

Isn't there some sort of source where some authoritative bunch in the Church rejected Irvine and told him to dry up and blow away or something similar? There are various documents which recount the rejection of William Irvine’s teaching. These sources are books which were written to be critical of this group, but shortly I will sift through the various counts and see if I can find something that is more a statement of facts rather than slurring the facts to suit a particular point of view.

And isn't there then some sort of document that lays out the paradigm that the Christian Convention had no earthly founder? I understand that when you use the term “Christian Convention”, you are referring to the entire group, but just to use that as a way of answering the question, the “Christian Convention” certainly had an earthly founder because it is a registration with a governing body in a particular location, and much like any of the other registrations does not represent the entire group, but was only because of the requirements of that body. And alike this registration, there were many other actions done by humans as they went about the work of spreading the message of God, whether by going to new countries and setting up tents for meetings, or establishing a group of people to meet for fellowship, but whether it be a government registration or a tent, these are just means of doing the work of God. These are not the church, but just small parts of it. There is no such name for the group and all these parts of it in its entirety because it is nothing more than individuals who have a service to God, and nothing (or no one) else. Because these people have an individual service to God, they do not have membership in anything other than belonging to the church of which Jesus is the head, and to say that this church they belong to was the idea or creation of anyone other than Christ, is bordering on blasphemy. Again, this is not to say that there haven’t been various humans (earthly founders) over the years that have registered names, but neither does that make them the founder of the entire group. It would make them only the founder of that name in the cases where it wasn’t a name that was given by the government, and that name is no more than a tool to fill a particular purpose.

I do have a "dog in the fight", being part of this group, and I will gather information for you once I spend some time going through the various books available. All my sources though will need to come from those who have written with a critical point of view, given that this group is not such an organization that will produce documents stating their beliefs or foundations, since it is nothing but individuals who have founded their belief on the bible, and recognize that no addition to the bible is necessary. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope no one minds, but it seems like Tmtsoj has raised points about a few sections, so I'm going to put some sub-section headers here so that we can keep these separate and not all jammed together. Astynax (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Astynax. That is a good idea. I have probably covered some of these topics above in my responce to Nemonoman, but I will make further comments in the sections below in discussion with points you have raised in those particular sections. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founding/Founder

I think it is a given that some within the group hold that Mr. Irvine did not found the group. Indeed, I would like to note that the History and Development section has always had this note, with citations at the top:

Note: some church members assert that the church has no earthly founder,, and that it originated in the early Christian Era. This section describes the history of the church from the late 19th century onward, based on contemporary documents and other sources.

If there are reliable sources which go into more detail in that regard, then that certainly can be expanded.

Tmtsoj stated that “It may be more appropriate that those who hold the opposing view to the group should prove that he was the founder using credible history records and unbiased interpretations of those events.” I'm having a problem thinking that it is a matter of supporting or opposing the group at all. There is solid historical documention of William Irvine's role, and that includes published statements from various workers. I'm sitting here looking at copies of Irish and English newspapers from over 100 years ago, and those statements that he was the originator are there in black and white - and available from the British Library to any researcher who cares to obtain them. This isn't something which has been invented by opponents - the information has been around for a very long time, even among the friends. I do understand that some, though certainly not all, in the group reject this, and I'm not opposed to noting that. I just have come across nothing to cite which would give an explanation as to why those statements made over a century ago were false. Belief that Irvine didn't start the group seems a matter of faith to some, and it is OK to say that. But a narrative based on the sources doesn't just get thrown out because some believe something else. Astynax (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking some more upon the suggestion that a restoration scenario might offer a compromise tolerated by all sides. I know some CC's must accept that Irvine “restored the Way,” as I've seen quoted material which hints at that, and it also is the unstated premise in part of Jaenen's work. However, that view does offend many without and within, for several reasons.

Former members and outsiders raise the objection that, because the group holds itself and its ministry as the only avenue available for salvation, there would have been long breaks throughout history when there would have been no opportunity for people during those periods. No true ministry, no true gospel, no true church. That situation would have prevailed until God “raised up” Mr. Irvine (or more nebulously: “a certain man” or “certain people” - since the instances where Irvine's name is used by practicing members seem to be close to non-existent).

Probably more important to many members would be simply that they've heard senior Overseers such as Jack Carroll and George Walker preach from the platform that the way has always been, never changing, “from Calvary” and similar statements. From what I gather, trying to change the story to some sort of resurrection of the ministry and meetings isn't much different, to their ears, than saying Irvine founded it, since it just as surely attacks the credibility of everything they've believed (as well as indirectly impugning the veracity of those revered early workers).

Other members object because, if God could raise up people during the 1890's without resorting to a certain type of ministry and method of meeting in the home, then He could do so at any time. That undercuts the necessity and centrality of any certain type of ministry or church.

I personally see other fatal problems with that theory, but I don't see anyone in the movement raising those as objections.

So, while I can see including something about the fairly recent theory that the movement was restored, it doesn't actually smooth over the differences. I sincerely doubt that there is one formula which would be seen as neutral by the various sides. I personally think it would be best simply to cite the historical record, as well as to cite whatever positions of the group that can be documented (including restoration and any other theories being floated). I agree with Tmtsoj that at least a couple of those positions may be found in the materials already cited, and it shouldn't be a problem to add information about the views from within the group. Airing both may offend anyone and everyone who just wants to get one story out, but it would be NPOV and accurate. Astynax (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is without doubt is that some within the group would say that William Irvine isn’t the founder, but the article makes no mention that this could be the truth, which is therefore a suggestion that those are lying. I doubt that you will find any that deny Irvine had a certain role in history (other than if they had never heard his name), but it is the interpretation of that role which is often disputed, even by Irvine’s own conflicting statements. It was those very preachers of that time who attested that they weren’t starting anything new but continuing on in the faith established by Jesus, so we do have conflicting information regarding these crucial points. Even though William Irvine may have founded or established something (I am not sure if this continues today), this was rejected, but I will mention more about that under the “Split” heading.

To hear that you are looking at newspaper articles doesn’t give me any confidence in the accuracy of that information because of the fact that it is open to interpretation, and can only portray the journalist’s interpretation. Recently I read a record of “The Impartial Reporter” who covered many of the events of that time, and it was asked of a journalist if they thought that The Impartial Reporter was indeed impartial, and the answer was “no”. The media have attracted a reputation for manufacturing stories that will sell by slurring facts to support a particular view, or to increase the news value of the article.

Astynax said - I just have come across nothing to cite which would give an explanation as to why those statements made over a century ago were false. Previously I copied a letter from a man called John Wegtner (spelling?), which goes towards giving an explanation as to statements regarding William Irvine’s role being false or somewhat exaggerated. Though, as you may well imagine, there is limited information regarding William Irvine in the way of a statements or documents denouncing him as a founder as he was never seen as such by himself or anyone else, and therefore would be no reason to write such a statement. William Irvine was a good and righteous man, used by God to influence many, but, as many of those first workers recognized, it was God who gave the increase. Here I quote again from John Wegtner’s letter which talks of this.

Eldon Tenniswood told me in 1997 that William Irvine had visited a number of times in Michigan during Eldon's childhood, and the older Tenniswoods thought very highly of him, to the point that they named one of their sons Irvine. But again he was never mentioned in any special capacity as founder or supreme leader. It was just on his last visit to a Michigan convention (either 1913 or 1914) that the Tenniswoods came home quite disappointed because WI had preached himself as 'founder' there, saying (Eldon's exact words) "I am the father of you all." Tenniswoods' reaction was, "William's changed, and we don't believe we can trust him anymore."

I believe an anonymous quote dated 1909 that used to be on the TTT website (not sure if it's still there) sums up the attitudes of the early workers quite well: "We are not starting a new religion. We are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints and trying to separate it from the traditions of men..." Some will no doubt debate that point, but to me that attitude explains why William Irvine was not mentioned as 'founder' by the early workers in North America and elsewhere. The simple fact is that they didn't consider him the founder, and they weren't promoting him in any way above other workers.

Most of the written records (letters, memoirs, etc.) seem to agree that some time after 1910, a change was perceived in WI's approach, and he began to make claims for himself as a prophet that he hadn't made previously, which caused the majority of the workers and friends to lose their confidence in him and eventually to separate him from their fellowship. This leads me to believe that prior to this he was not especially promoting himself in such a way (see Goodhand Pattison's memoirs, for example) and neither were the workers who first came to North America in that first decade when their message spread so rapidly across the continent.

Astynax, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say that Irvine "restored the Way", but I would like you to go into more detail. You may well be aware that the way of God which these people profess to follow has always existed and has never changed. To say that Irvine restored the way is not correct in that sense because the way has always been there even if not a single person was following it. If in your mind you are thinking of some other way, I would be interested to hear your understanding of this group, but you must remember that the only way or church that these people belong to is God's way and church. There is nothing else that exists of which to gain membership, and although, as previously mentioned there has been certain things founded or established, these are only small functions and in no way represent the entire group. I don't see wrong in "senior Overseers such as Jack Carroll and George Walker preaching from the platform that the way has always been, never changing, “from Calvary” and similar statements", with the understanding that they are preaching of the way of God.

It is accurate to say that God sent Irvine to bring the truth to others, and he did such, but in no way does it make him the founder of the truth or the way. He was not seen above others who were sent to preach the Gospel before or after him, and he was not the only worker who was instrumental in bringing many to God. It was God who directed, and still directs. This is a statement of faith I know, but either God has sent a man, or a man actions were of his own doing. You can not have this both ways. An individual who is following the ways of man, is not following the way of God. The point when Irvine humbly attested to have not started anything was different to the point when he was proudly claiming to have started this (though this change is debated). Either way, the point of the split was because some did not trust the way that Irvine was trying to establish of his own undertaking, but they returned to being under the influence of God, rather than man. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj, there are several unprovable statements of belief in what you've said above:

the way of God which these people profess to follow has always existed and has never changed
the way has always been there even if not a single person was following it
the only way or church that these people belong to is God's way and church
There is nothing else that exists of which to gain membership
It is accurate to say that God sent Irvine
It was God who directed, and still directs
they returned to being under the influence of God

If you have sources that indicate other individuals who can be listed as founder(s) or formative influence(s) of this religion, (or with 'restoring' the 'truth' or 'way' or whatever you'd like to call it), please add them to the article. Likewise, if there are reliable sources that refute Irvine's position as founder, please supply them. If you believe that Irvine or any other individuals were led by God to bring people back to this way of worship, that's fine, but if you are saying so in the article, it must be in a neutral and verifiable manner. This includes not removing information about Irvine as founder, unless you can supply suitable references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'note' in the history section is inappropriate. Regardless of whether Irvine specifically was the founder of the religion, there is no basis to any claim that this particular religion is the restoration of first century Christianity. The introduction to the section doesn't need to be phrased as an apologetic 'note' to placate this particular branch of restorationism, as this is POV and not encyclopedic. If there is some contestation of who the modern founder was, the other founding influences should be mentioned, with reliable sources. The religion is already indicated in the article as restorationist, so the member's claim that it is a restoration of first century Christianity is implicit, but it is not something established as a historical fact for inclusion in an encyclopedic history section. Unless someone has a reliable source about Jesus saying something like, "I started the Christian Conventions", this is not suitable for inclusion in the history section. 'Faith' does not trump the requirement for reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good discussion of the founder question, with both pro- and con- sides, here: [1]. Slofstra (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The First Split

That Mr. Irvine's “spirit had changed” may indeed be the position of some people within the group then, and even carried forward to this day. I can tell you, however, that having just gone through 3 volumes of Mr. Irvine's unpublished letters, and having also had some contact with those who continue to follow him, that this would be only one view - his followers would find that ridiculous and offensive, and I don't think it is supported by what I've seen of his writings. But, I wasn't there, so I cannot claim to know what was or is meant by his “spirit” changing. I suspect that it may be possible to find a RS citation somewhere which would support say something along the lines that some person or persons thought that his spirit had changed. I didn't think the average encyclopedia reader would want to wade through detailed explanations of the various views of the split. Perhaps this particular subject calls for a more details, however?

Nemonoman: you asked whether there is something documenting the split. I'm only aware of unpublished letters from Irvine and a few others. I understand that no announcement was ever made to the membership, and the split took some 4 years (between 1914 and 1918) to really become final, as Irvine spent most of WWI in North America and Australia. Even after this, some senior workers continued to support Irvine for several years. Astynax (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you rely only on William Irvine’s letters and the view of his followers to conclude that there wasn’t a change. This would be a very biased view as you may well imagine. As for finding a RS citation, maybe the letter I quoted in the “founder” section may be suitable. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference to the fact that there was a separation, and I am happy to leave out that part of the argument. If William Irvine had founded something, regardless of whether there was a change or not, there were those who separated from William Irvine and his followers, in rejecting his teaching because of a difference in faith. I’m not concerned if you would rather save the average encyclopedia reader from the various detailed explanations behind the split, because more crucial to the argument that Irvine isn’t the founder of the current fellowship is the split itself rather than the reason for the split. It is inconsistent use of logic to suggest that Irvine started a new sect despite him not being separated from the Faith Mission, but is still the founder of a sect that made a clear separation from him, especially with it being because of his “erroneous” teaching, and a difference in faith. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Tmtsoj, you have noted that “we are not so much talking about the way the accuracy of the facts in the article but the way the cited facts have been interpreted.” I'm all for letting the facts speak for themselves. But there are two, and sometimes more, views of this group, both from within and without. I tried to mention as many as had citable information. But there certainly could be more material, and I'm not averse to adding other views. I do recoil at putting up one view and squelching other legitimate viewpoints.

I know both current and former members and workers. That's what got me interested in the information decades ago. Some of those current members would take issue with some of the positions you seem to be taking, while some of the former members would agree with you in being offended at the mention of some subjects. And vice versa. So, when I read quotes in the newspaper from senior head workers such as William Lewis and Tharold Sylvester which take completely opposite opinions, I do wonder if there are variations in beliefs among the group itself regarding Irvine, and who knows what else? Astynax (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj pointed out that some accuse the group of spreading lies. I agree that some do that. And I may have inadvertently offended you by putting the title back onto one of the preexisting website links. It had been there with no title for quite some time, which looked like an error. So, I just inserted the website's title to make the link look better. I've changed that from “The Lying Truth” to just “TLT” and at the same time removed one of the more sympathetic Christian Conventions links (I thought it might have been a temporary outage, but have confirmed that the site is no longer there). Astynax (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I looked in on "TLT", and I'm surprised (maybe even Astounded) to discover that the points raised by Tmtsoj are apparently Buttons of the Pretty Hot variety. I hope I have not offended in how I have discussed these issues, and if I have I apologize.

At the risk of offending, I'd like to quote a line from TLT, however: [workers say]..."that their ministry is "from the beginning" and that it was recently revived in the present time". In this, it seems to me, there may be the seeds of article consensus. Surely some part of this article wants to address the hows and whys of this ministry being revived in the present time, yes? And since the nature of this church is that it is True Church -- I think I'm reflecting this correctly -- Some other parts of the article want to be about current practices, and why the church asserts that those practices and none others reflect true christian worship. In the 'recent revival' sections, it would be reasonable to discuss Irvine's rise and fall. In the current practices sections, it would be reasonable to track back to the 12 apostles.

Tmtsoj, your thoughts?--nemonoman (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax, I’m not sure if this is what you are suggesting, but it would be difficult to only put basic facts in the article without some descriptions about what the facts mean, or what was the driving force behind the actions of those mentioned in the article. Because we are talking about Christianity, and the faith that this group has, that God is the guiding power, you can not talk about this group and leave out the one who is central to the establishment of the group, regardless of whether you are relying on faith to do that. If the individuals have a common belief that God is controlling them, and that common belief is what makes it a group, you can not talk about the group without mentioning the very thing that is common between the individuals, because without that commonality, it is not a group and it is not fellowship. What this is leading to is that if a man created something, that is different to God using a man to create something, and even though they are both “facts” that could be derived by the eyes of two looking on a particular event, one must be wrong, because either God created it, or the man did, but not both. It is acceptable to state facts only, but stating that Irvine was the founder is an interpretation of the facts.

I think it would be quite reasonable to use the full title of the website (The Lying Truth) if that is in fact what it is. There needs to be no disguise that there are persons who would like to portray a negative view, and though I know you have tried to only mention the citable views, you will find that the majority of information available is of a negative view. The group as individuals would have no reason or desire to produce any doctrine, knowing that they strive to follow Jesus, and need nothing beyond the bible which was given for this purpose.

Nemonoman, I can see the separation you are trying to make between “revival” and “current”, though I don’t see that there would be any difference between the two because the revival would have been when the group became what it is now in its current practice. This matter of inconsistent logic arises again if you were to say that the revival was prior to the current group breaking away from Irvine to become what it is now. The revival would be at the point of the current group breaking from what they considered wrong doctrine from Irvine. I don’t see anything wrong with including Irvine in the history of the group but being consistent would mean that the history of the group would not only go back through the workers who left the Faith Mission, but also beyond that to the origins of the Faith Mission and quite possibly, eventually back to Christ. There may be no need to document that entire history, but I do not grasp why a break-away group could claim one of the very ones they broke away from, their founder. Tmtsoj (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj, I'm increasingly uncertain of how to satisfy your concerns and still keep a tone that is encyclopedic.

As to the idea of a 'revival' of the practices of the ancient church that the CC apparently believes they emulate, clearly there was a some sort of lapse which Irvine was inspired to address. Unless I misunderstand, Irvine's inspiration kicked off what I suppose CC believers might describe as a return to the true essentials of Christian worship. There's clearly some sort of historic demarcation at work -- before/after, pre/post. If there is and has always been a continuity, that should be documented. --nemonoman (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you could not still use an encyclopedic tone when talking about these facts, including the split as we have been discussing here. If the group, who are the subject of this article, had deliberate split from another group, and specifically Irvine, and specifically because it was for reason of different belief, it should be reasonably easy to document those specific details into an encyclopedic tone. Tmtsoj (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine

Tmtsoj, you wrote: “What I am alluding to is that if the group believes that the “Bible is the infallible Word of God”, there should be nothing wrong with documenting that, and any other belief’s that they have whether divine or not, or whether requiring faith or not.” I don't see anything wrong with documenting it, either, especially if backed up with a citation. I'd be ecstatic if the senior workers would publish a documentation of their beliefs to give us outsiders a better view of where they stand. But we only get snippets in the occasional newspaper articles, and the occasional quotes from letters in published materials. I have a pile of unpublished sermon notes and letters given to me over the years that I wish I could cite, but it is my understanding that is not allowed. I personally wouldn't contest that many in the group hold the Bible as “the infallible Word of God,” but I can't be sure every member believes that, and someone else might object without a citation. If you know of one, that certainly would be a good addition to the Doctrine and Practice section. Astynax (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why you would need to cite a document that says that these people believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Because the people profess to be Christian, it requires belief in the bible. Your comments appear to reflect that you don’t understand that these are but individuals who have an individual service to God, and as much as I would hope that I can speak on behalf of many in my belief of the bible, they too are individuals and can attest to their own faith in the bible. You are right in that that you can not be sure that every person who attends any particular meeting has absolute faith in the bible (without asking them), but if you think this is a statement that will not be challenged, according to Wikipedia rules you can go ahead and add it without citation.

Astynax you said, “I’d be ecstatic if the senior workers would publish a documentation of their beliefs to give us outsiders a better view of where they stand”. Again, you may not understand enough to know that as workers of God, these people have documentation that has been given by God. They are sent by God with his word that has already been given, and this is what they teach, and it is freely available. This word should not be added to because God has sent this very word with the instructions that it not be added to, and God’s servants have no need to update this document periodically, or add appendices, because it is still as current and useful as it was.

Because the group is mere individuals who profess to follow the bible, the bible is therefore the only document that can be truly cited to represent the truth of the group, short of having an individual article written for each one to present their individual service. Even as I write with apparent representation of the group in my claim of being in fellowship, I still only present my conviction of what God requires of us. Tmtsoj (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First: apologies: when I fixed my note, I apparently also deleted your text by mistake.

You wrote: Because the group is mere individuals who profess to follow the bible, the bible is therefore the only document that can be truly cited to represent the truth of the group, but this is clearly being disingenuous. This is a group with a name, activities, and leadership, and with numerous collective attributes. There are many individuals who profess to follow the bible who do not share these attributes, and other groups of individuals who profess to follow the bible that also do not share these attributes. This article is about the group of individuals who act according to a shared interpretation of bible teachings. It is entirely valid to address those common interpretive elements, and to discuss the development of those shared interpretations.

They are sent by God with his word that has already been given -- again, yes, BUT. The But is again: shared actions, shared interpretations, etc. Those may reasonably be described, and using reliable sources, documented on Wikipedia even if the CC itself feels no need to do so.

If the individuals have a common belief that God is controlling them, and that common belief is what makes it a group, you can not talk about the group without mentioning the very thing that is common between the individuals, because without that commonality, it is not a group and it is not fellowship. This is quite true. I'm guessing that many if not most of the CC believes that their common purpose is and has been guided by God. I think what Astynax would like -- and also what I would like -- is some sort of reliable reference that states this very reasonable sounding tenet explicitly, and also explicitly states what does and does not qualify as that common purpose. These sorts of statements are pretty easy to find for most denominations.

I'm suddenly reminded of Fight Club: the first rule of Fight Club is you never talk about Fight Club.

You wrote ...the history of the group would not only go back through the workers who left the Faith Mission, but also beyond that to the origins of the Faith Mission and quite possibly, eventually back to Christ. Here I must differ. The group simply did not exist before Irvine's break with Faith Mission, from all accounts. The mystic church whose tenets the CC seeks to instantiate on earth may have existed then, but there weren't documented human groups in place, were there? And if there were, THOSE would be the groups whose lineage one would trace. Not Faith Mission, which Irvine found wanting when he preached "strict observance of the methods Christ had enjoined upon the disciples, which he believed contradicted the doctrines of other established churches."

Isn't strict observance of the methods Christ had enjoined upon the disciples, which he believed contradicted the doctrines of other established churches sort of the key here? The group is defined not just by a belief, but by observance. Those observances are tangible. Clearly Irvine and others did not find those observances to be in existence in 1897, or they wouldn't have made such a big deal about how churches weren't following them. By contrast, when a Presbyterian suddenly becomes convinced in the actual transubstantiation of the host, he doesn't need to start his own church, as he can walk across the street to a church that does.

Anyway, I beginning to feel more and more convinced that the facts presented in this article are pretty reasonable. Many Christians profess 'begotten, not made'...i.e., the Christ existed/exists eternally outside his earthly incarnation. You can still write a reasonable article about that earthly incarnation. Writing a reasonable artical about the eternal existence part would be pretty tough to do. --nemonoman (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote- but this is clearly being disingenuous. This is a group with a name, activities, and leadership, and with numerous collective attributes. Firstly, this group does not have a name that I know about. I know it has been called Christian Conventions on here because it is impossible to have an article without a name, but that name is no more than a government registration to fill a specific function and is used in very few countries. It is also a name that is very rarely used by those in the group or those outside the group, and would have never been heard by most in the group. The more commonly recognized names are mentioned in the article, but even they are not the name of the group. This group doesn’t have a name. It does though have activities and leadership and numerous collective attributes, but one point that the critics continually raise is the differences from one geographical location to another. There are many things that differ, and people will look on these things as being part of the “church”, questioning why it is inconsistent, but forgetting that this group is nothing but individuals who have a collective faith. Just as the bible says that one man believes he can eat meat and the other herbs, so too is it the case today, and will be while the earth exists. You will get differences in the belief of what is tolerable between two individuals, but the common things keep the group together. The article does succeed well in giving a general overview of the activities of the group, but to create the assumption that most of the things that are written happen everywhere is not correct. I know it would be strange to have an article that had statements such as “Sometimes they may or may not sing a hymn in the fellowship meeting”, so if you wanted to write an article leaving out these ambiguous statements, you would find you would barely have an article at all.

What this article struggles with is that it is in some way about something that does not exist, but it is making some attempt to create or document the boundaries or attributes of this group, which is demonstrated by the title being a name that is barely used or even recognised by most inside or out. As another example, simply because it sounded bazaar to me when I read it, I have been to many baptisms, conventions and special meetings, but have never been to a convention or special meeting that had a baptism conducted, despite the article stating contrary to this. Many people have continually asked for written citable record from a senior worker regarding the things documented in this article, but they fail to understand that these things are not what make this group, and these things are never going to be documented into some manner of rule book or instruction manual. There are always going to be variations to what has been stated in the article, because the article attempts to document an entity that doesn’t exist.

You wrote- I think what Astynax would like -- and also what I would like -- is some sort of reliable reference that states this very reasonable sounding tenet explicitly, and also explicitly states what does and does not qualify as that common purpose. These sorts of statements are pretty easy to find for most denominations. You would scarcely call this a denomination and that is the difference and why it is not possible to find a defining statement that you would seek here. This is also what makes the article nonfactual. There are cases where it documents attributes that are not explicitly followed, and although it is reasonable to give the encyclopedia readers a general impression of the activities of the group, it should be made clear that it is such, so that readers will not question the accuracy, if they have knowledge that these things are not strictly followed. This would prevent continual disputes over the factuality, even though it would make the article very ambiguous.

You wrote- Here I must differ. The group simply did not exist before Irvine's break with Faith Mission, from all accounts. I have just tried to find a website I have seen previously that had accounts of fellowship meetings between people that were known of William Irvine prior to his break from the Faith Mission. I could not find this site, but regardless, there would not be any documents that would satisfy your need to know that this was the same religion, because no such religion exists, and William Irvine was not starting anything new. Again, because you are looking at nothing but individuals, there is no such document that you seek as evidence that a religion existed.

You wrote- Not Faith Mission, which Irvine found wanting when he preached "strict observance of the methods Christ had enjoined upon the disciples, What I have not seen is an explanation that describes why the linage would not go back through the Faith Mission and any other religion that those preachers came from, even if Irvine and John Long etc. did find their religions wanting, because there was also a time when, as individuals, some found Irvine wanting, and departed from him. Even his tenant of observing “Matthew 10” is not followed as you may well know if you have seen where the critics have mentioned this. The critics have long known of the connection between William Irvine and his persistence regarding “Matt 10”, but the fact that the critics have recognized that it is not strictly followed today is really nothing but evidence that the current group do not follow whatever it is they claim that William founded. There was a split from William Irvine and those with him, and just like most divisions between churches, there are often only one or two major points of difference, but that is enough that people will see it as a different religion or sect. That logic does not appear to be consistently used in this case when applied to the split away from those who wanted to follow what Irvine was trying to establish.

You wrote- The group is defined not just by a belief, but by observance. Those observances are tangible. Clearly Irvine and others did not find those observances to be in existence in 1897, or they wouldn't have made such a big deal about how churches weren't following them. I see a continuing misunderstanding about this group. Just because Irvine was convinced of a particular observance as an individual and also convinced others of a particular observance, this does not mean that there were not others who were also convinced of this same observance just because the churches weren’t following these observances as a whole. There is no such need for a person to leave one religion to be able to join this “religion”, because this is not a “religion”. What is continually forgotten is that this way of God is walked by individuals and for example, meeting with one who does not walk the way of God, does not make another’s walk wrong. We only have two choices; being in the right way, or outside the right way, and there are sufficient trivial elements documented in this article that are not strictly followed because of not being crucial to salvation, and therefore is not an accurate representation of this group. The mention made of a piano sometimes being allowed (which I now notice has been changed) is an example of the things not critical to salvation and not observed one way or another. Whether there are times when a piano is allowed or times when a piano isn’t allowed, both these acts are attributed to the same group, and this information does nothing but to leave a reader no more enlightened about whether a piano is allowed or not. Unfortunately there are cases other than this that have been written less ambiguously to indicate a strict observance, but are not such. Obviously there are citations for most of these statements but they lead to the writings of a person who has observed common practices and documented these practices as rules, and who has also been astounded that they could not find these rules in written form, and has also created opportunity for others to criticize when they saw cases of these “rules” being deviated from. Tmtsoj (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grape Juice or Wine

Enquiring minds want to know. It's a niche of information that is interesting, at least to me. --nemonoman (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not kidding -- water or wine? --nemonoman (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer would be both unfermented grape juice (alcohol is verboten in the U.S. and Canada), and fermented wine in much of the rest of the world (where no stigma is attached to consumption of alcohol). Bad sentence, I know. If you want to expand on that point, I'm sure Tmtsoj or I can grab a citation for it. Astynax (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leavened bread

Really? this isn't a typo? --nemonoman (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a typo. It would be very interesting (perhaps only to me) to know whether the group associates their weekly communion rite with the Pesach meal. I have heard and read sermon notes which lead me to believe that they do not, and that the bread symbolizes the "living bread" (i.e., the testimonies given by the members or the preaching of the workers), which was the important thing to take away from the meeting. But I don't know how widely that view is held. I'm thinking that it might be good to add a citation for this particular portion of the Sunday meeting. Astynax (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the rite actually uses leavened bread, some clarification in the article itself is warranted to avoid confusion with the typical passover emblems.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add something like “leavened, rather than unleavened” to make that clearer. I haven't a source with an explanation as to why they use leaven, so I cannot say more, though I suspect use of unleavened wafers was just another of the many things from established churches which was rejected early on in their history. Astynax (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj: you've added “or unleavened” back into the article. I've heard the subject being discussed, and I seem to recall a worker interjecting that this is “a Catholic thing” of which they don't approve. It is also what the available sources state. I'm curious as to where you've ever seen unleavened matzoh or wafers used? • Astynax ^talk 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen matzoh or wafers used but I doubt that this is a good reason to say that it shouldn't be or isn't used. Again, this may be one of those cases where someone has seen a particular practice and assumed that it must be a rule and practiced thoughout the entire group (just as the meeting subject below). If you are able to find a reliable source that shows that it "must" be leavened bread I won't argue, but I wouldn't say that someone who has documented it because they have only seen one practice, is reliable. In the mean time I will remove the mention of leavened/unleavened, until it gets established. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source already cited specifically points out “leavened.” I don't know what they relied on, but it fits with what I've heard, seems to fit with what you've experienced, seems also to fit with observations of the group's early practices, and seems notably different than many/most other churches. So challenging the word on the basis that someone, somewhere may use unleavened bread seems a bit of a stretch. • Astynax ^talk 04:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written such that would give the impression that the group's doctrine specifies that unleavened bread is not to be used. It would give reason for people to judge by saying that these people are wrong about the rule of not using unleavened bread, when there is no such rule.

I understand that you want to fill the article up with information to make it look like this is something more than just individuals who serve God, but don't assume a "church rule" when there is no such thing if you want to write an accurate article. Tmtsoj (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject meeting

Tmtsoj: you also added that “a topic to study for the next meeting is chosen amongst themselves.” I've asked about this, and was told they've never heard of that being done, and can't even imagine how it could be done (prayerful quietness being encouraged both before and after meeting, and there is no discussion time during the meeting itself). Since this also goes beyond what the cited sources say, please cite. • Astynax ^talk 17:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have asked one or two about this, out of hundreds of thousands. Again, editors of the article make assumptions that a particular practice they observe of the group must be a global rule. I had actually never heard of being assigned a universal subject list until I was well into my later 20's. In my area, having assigned subjects is very uncommon, and the subject is chosen each week for the next week. Usually everyone is given a chance to pick a subject in turn.

I'm not sure what you mean by "prayerful quietness being encouraged both before and after meeting", but people actually do speak to each other before and after the meeting. During the meeting is also discussion (it is a meeting afterall), and I have at various times also mentioned the subject I had chosen for the next meeting, during the meeting when it was that I was picking it specifically to follow on from the subject of that meeting and appropriate to mention it.

I see a request for citation in the article, and though I haven't tried, I don't even know where I would begin to look for a citation. I see that there is no citation to support that meeting topics are assigned, so I would question why I am expected to provide a citation. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj: The connotation (i.e, “a topic to study for the next meeting is chosen amongst themselves”) that there was a discussion and some kind of member selection process for the subject of the next midweek meeting was specifically what seemed completely foreign to those I've asked thus far. Preserving unity is the reason I've been given for keeping to the scripture reading lists for the regular meetings, though I don't have a citable source for that. • Astynax ^talk 04:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website list

I can't find a Neutral, let alone a positive website in the bunch. Many spiritual groups have similar websites from ex-members who have Seen the Light and now want to detail how awful the cult really was. In most cases, however, the cult has a bunch of highly positive websites of its own. So providing a list of Pro and Con websites is sort of Fair and Balanced.

In the case of the listed websites, I fear that undue weight is being given to highly negative pictures of this group. I'm not sure, therefore, that the website list adds much value to the article.

I propose deleting that list.

On the other hand, is this a Christian Convention site? If so, can it be listed -- and the more negative sites be pruned to those most informative?

www.nacctheconnectingplace.org--nemonoman (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: On further review, I think there may be one or 2 current listed websites that are in neutral territory, but I have to say, some of the points here are more subtle than I am, and some guidance would be helpful to try and sort them out. --nemonoman (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at the sites, other than to verify that they were functioning. Most of them were simply retained from the list that was there before the rewrite. I think referring to at least some sites would be good for those who wish to explore further (some of them do contain a lot of info, and include links for further reading). I do have one to add to the list, and agree that some of them are very negative. Having a negative take is fine, but I'm not sure that some of these would be of much of interest to an average reader. Perhaps we could drop some of those and prune it down to something like this:

The workersect.org site does contain some pics of original documents, but they are already cited in the article, and so it might be repetitive to keep that one here. I did look for additional “pro” sites, but thus far have come up with sites which have either been pulled, or which have been turned into ad farms. Unless we can find a better site from the members' perspecective, it would probably be good to retain the one pro site which was already on the list. Just my thoughts. Astynax (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the nacctheconnectingplace.org site. Although the description sounds sort of like this group, I doubt it is related to this Christian Conventions group, as the site is highlighting a retreat for ministers and their spouses. It is my understanding that none of the current workers are married, though there have been a handful of married couples accepted into the ministry many decades ago. Astynax (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Q&D reviews:

Topics in Bible

Looks a little crazy, but appears sincere. Is it a good likeness of majority CC beliefs?

University of Virginia

These writeups were done by students, you know, and this one looks a little sneering.

R.I.S. - Overview

Devolves quickly into the muck, see dropdown article list here

ApologeticsIndex Overview

Hardly neutral. Just how cultish are the 2x2's anyway?

Telling The Truth

This looks pretty neutral to me, complete novice outsider. Best of the bunch. The only one I'd keep, frankly.--nemonoman (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Topics in Bible site does represent some of the group's views, but I know that within a few clicks I came across some statements which most of the CC's I know would find objectionable. That seems to be a problem with all the sites - they all reflect various points of view (sometimes multiple, conflicting points of view) which are guaranteed to offend someone within or without. This section can go away as far as I'm concerned. I retained it during the edit because I do see some value in giving an interested reader who wants more info some links to explore. Astynax (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent some time looking at those websites in more detail, and I think I've come to the conclusion that even those sites which represent a negative view of the group are airing legitimate points of view. Could they be much more neutral? Yes, but it is probably not reasonable to expect that of any religious-oriented site. And with this particular sect, where there is so little in print (though there is so much more available now than the zero resources I encountered when I first looked), I guess I'm now thinking that curious people should be able to glean info from wherever they can.

I'm thankful that Tmtsoj has stepped up to the plate and is willing to discuss the group publicly. I certainly have no personal experience inside the group, other than knowing, and having sat in on conversations between, both members and ex-members. It would be good to have voices from other areas chime in, since there do seem to be differences within the group. And since the ex-members (who seem to constitute a larger group than the actual members based upon the families I've known) also have varying insider viewpoints, it would be well to hear from a few of them as well on changes. I'm afraid that if we don't hear from all sides, the article is going to go back to a confusing mish-mash of conflicting claims as they wander in and become infuriated with statements which are 180 degrees from what they've experienced. I think letting them go to other sites to find those claims would be better, and am personally veering towards the view of keeping any and all links that aren't dead. Astynax (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a 'be careful' note to the list of websites. --nemonoman (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That's probably the best that can be done. This wikipedia article strikes me as the most informative and useful webpage on the entire WWW to find out about this church! Donama (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of CCers?

I can't find any mention in the article of how many persons belong to the Christian Convention. Also some sort breakdown of workers, bishops etc, would be useful. If not actual number breakdowns, then some sort of ratio or percent? I'm looking for some sources, but it looks like others may know the territory better than me. --nemonoman (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very interesting to know. I have never come across any current figures, and even the older published estimates I've seen (all from sources outside the group) have varied wildly from under 150,000 to 600,000+. In the western hemisphere, I counted over 1,400 minister/workers on a Workers List a couple years ago. But I don't recall seeing a the workers lists for Europe/Africa/Asia/Australia/Oceania recently, though such exist.

I understand why the estimates may vary. Even in constructing an estimate based upon the number of ministers, the number of meetings under each pair of workers differs from area to area, as do the numbers attending each of those meetings. On top of that, there would be the problem of who would be counted as members...

certainly all estimates would include those who "profess," are baptised, are good standing, and who are allowed to participate and take part in the weekly eucharist-type ritual;
some may include younger attendees whose parents are professing;
some may include regular attendees who have professed but who have never been accepted for baptism;
some may include attendees at the Gospel meetings who have never professed, but who attend regularly;
some may include regular attendees who have professed and who have been baptized, but who are barred from participation;
some may include those who attend irregularly;
some may include those who no longer "are willing" but who believe it is the only right way;
some figures seem to be only based upon the number of annual conventions.

Too confusing for me to think of how to get even a good approximation. Would make a challenging thesis topic for a student of statistics. If someone has a recent estimate, that would be good to know and cite. I haven't seen the lastest edition of Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religion to see if the article has been updated with a figure - the volumes in our local libraries are a couple of editions back. Would anyone have ready access to the current 8th edition or some similar resource? Astynax (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh -- sorry I asked. --nemonoman (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry Nemonoman. This is the reality of it. I hope this helps you see a little bit more that this is not something that has membership. These are indiviuals who gather together because of a common faith. This is about serving God. Who is the judge about whether a person is serving God or not, that they could possibly be counted?

This article is trying to quantify things that doesn't exist. It has a title that is barely used or known. It attempts to describe the limits and rules of this group but mentions things that are neither the rules or limits of the group, in that these things are not strictly followed. Again, this is about serving God. That is what Christianity is. If you want to write about a christian group, you will need to discuss the faith that makes them a group. Beyond that you will see differences in all locations as the critics will quickly point out. Tmtsoj (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Astynax has seen "over 1,400 minister/workers on a Workers List" and knows of the existence of other such lists, indicates that this group is much more organised than it seems you would have us believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, I'm not saying that this group isn't organized. It is very organized, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a group of individuals who have not attached themselves to a particular name and therefore it is not clear to say who is a member or not. These people profess to serve God and be part of his church, but only God is the Judge of whether they are truly or not, and it isn't up to any of us to make that judgement, that it would be then possible to count them. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the irrelevant theological opinion that god judges those who are 'truly' members, it is obviously not impossible to count "these people who profess" in this manner of belief. There are only mundane reasons (e.g. failure to keep records etc) that would make such a count difficult or impossible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, you are showing your lack of knowledge of this group. It is far from being irrelevant that God is the judge because He is the very one whom these people serves.

This statement has no objective merit. God's existence is unproven. If God does exist, that it judges these particular people is unproven.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as counting these people, you claim that there are mundane reasons such as a failure to keep records. Exactly what records do you expect would enable you to count the “members”? You mention “these people who profess”, but rest assured that “professing” is not a once off thing and does not give you life-time membership. I’m sure you would be aware that there are some who have previously professed this belief, but no longer do.

What exactly is your point here? Is it 'how could they keep records'? I'm not about to suggest a records management system for them, but there's any number of ways that they could. Are you suggesting that it is simply not possible to enumerate people who believe a particular thing or attend particular religous services?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be records of a certain amount of meetings that need to be attended per annum to be considered a member? And of those missed meetings, what would be considered a sound reason for missing a meeting that it would not count towards your allotted amount before you became a non-member? You would understand the logistical problems of firstly setting the limits and then assessing each individual missed meeting to make a judgement regarding the membership status of the particular person. Remember that this isn’t a common religion whereby you are either a member or not, but these are people who serve God, and you or I aren’t the ones to judge who is and who isn’t. I knew a person who said he wss a Catholic but hadn’t been to any form of Catholic service for more than 12 months. You can be sure that anyone who has not been in fellowship for that period would be considered by anyone, that they no longer profess that belief.

These questions are pointless, and might be worthy of consideration if counting members of a religous group were some groundbreaking concept. The statement these are people who serve God is merely a point of view, and a biased one at that, with the implication that other religious people don't 'really' serve god. Who or what may or may not judge them is irrelevant to their religious affiliation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the missed meetings here because that is exactly what happens: people just stop coming. There is no way they can formally join or formally terminate, and there is also not a period of time set whereby they go from being a member to not being a member. If you are thinking of different records that might make it possible to count, then let me know. Tmtsoj (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not up to me to produce a records system for them. The fact remains that the people "stop coming" somewhere, and where those people are coming, the people have some kind of social structure, so they obviously know who are members, who is new, etc, so it is not at all 'impossible' to count members in local congregations. More broadly, the fact that various printed matter is circulated to different congregations indicates that it is known what congregations belong to the group. It is therefore entirely illusory to claim that the group simply cannot be counted, rather than maybe simply isn't counted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% right, Jeffro. In fact, my guess would be that records are kept, but hidden from all but a few. Even if they're not, metrics exist and in theory could be obtained with the help of workers, but I doubt they'd consent. Where I grew up the elders report back to the workers any member of their congregation who is to be attending a 'convention' that year and presumably the apologies from elderly or sick who expect not to be able to attend or only attend for part of the time the convention is on. These lists are, as Astynax or anyone else who participated/participates will be able to confirm, used to allocate the on-site accomodation (camp beds, tents), and allocate jobs and chores to any able-bodied member attending the 'conventions' that year, based on age and gender. Even if these allocations exclude those people who bring their caravans (trailers) for accomodation, the figure would still be meaningful and helpful in estimating the number of members in the church. Donama (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That they would determine the number of people attending their conventions seems certain Donama, since they have to feed and provide seating in addition to all the other things you mentioned. I know in this area, you do not just walk in (there are workers at the gates checking). But I don't know what lists or contact sheets are used for that. I've never attended even a gospel meeting, much less a convention, so the only lists I've ever seen have been given me by friends and relatives over the years. I did get permission to leaf through a deceased Worker's very thick notebook at one time, and the lists there (printed list of names, addresses and phone numbers with some annotations) I believe would have contained those in that worker's field(s). I was also told that when a CC'er travels outside their area, they contact the local Worker, who contacts the Overseer, who then arranges with the Overseer(s) in charge of the areas being traveled through to assign them meetings to attend during their trip. So obviously the Overseers have records for this purpose, and I assume to give to the Workers under them who are assigned to new fields. Interestingly, I was only allowed to read through the notebook briefly, as it had to be handed over to the Workers for destruction, which I understood is usual. The western hemisphere list of workers I have from a different source also bears a prominent warning to destroy it. Aside from that, there also would be records kept of the funds managed on behalf of the Overseers. So the secrecy is real as well. But all that and more would not be appropriate here, as it would only be my original research at this point. • Astynax ^talk 21:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to accuracy and POV tags

I've come to the conclusion that both the POV and factual accuracy tags added by Tmtsoj are irrelevant and should be removed. I intend to remove them unless I get some sort of indication as to why they should remain. So far no other user than Ttmsoj has joined these complaints.

Tmtsoj claims to be part of the CC, and has written lots about how his personal views, which he says many members of the group share, are at variance with the article.

I have invited Tmtsoj to demonstrate specific parts of the article that are POV, or where facts are inaccurate. Hie response has been to complain that article neglects the mystic history of his group, insisting that the group's antecedents be traced back to the original apostles, although he says that lineage is a matter of faith and doctrine. Irvine, who the article describes as the founder of the group, might have met a worshipper or two who shared his thoughts on the church.

The article is not inaccurate, in my view, simply because it doesn't speculate about an unbroken line of worshipers leading back to Jesus and before. For Tmtsoj to demand that article reflect theseviews, without any documentation -- even the documentation of its own members -- to insist that this hypothesis replace the facts cited here, is mere puffery.

So far, I've learned a lot about Tmtsoj's ideas about a group that has no name, no doctrine, no founder, and is in fact only a bunch of individuals who have some sort of vague biblically inspired ideas of what binds them together. He says this group doesn't worship the way the article states, and doesn't hold many of the views described in this article.

He has not cited a single reference to support his refections, or pointed to a specific non-neutral statement made by the article. Rather he asserts that the history beliefs and practices of the group he is describing are not the same as that written in this article.

So, it's my conclusion that Tmtsoj is in fact describing an entirely different group than the Christian Convention.

His assertions of personal knowledge that "his church" doesn't do what the article describes would be just as relevant (or as irrelevant), and just as vague, and just as off-point, and just as wrong on the talk page of virtually any article about any denomination.

I don't doubt his sincerity, and I'm very sure he means well. I apologize for coming off like an asshole when I make these conclusions. But his sincerity is not the issue: his assertions of inaccuracy and POV are.

Tmtsoj's objections and assertions have all been well spoken and involving. I have learned a lot. But his sincerity is not enough to sustain the dispute. There are no specific changes that would fit within the scope of Wikipedia that could appease them. The NPOV and accuracy tags have therefore no reason to continue to part of this article.

Just as it would be wrong to base this article solely on one member's description of the group -- with no references, no sources, no nothing except in effect, original research, it would be just as wrong to continue to tag the article based on that same non-referenced, non-sourced criteria.

I'll give it a day or two for other editors to comment before I remove them. --nemonoman (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I do appreciate Tmtsoj for being willing to discuss here. Some of what I see him saying represents a belief-based view. That could well be included to elucidate the position of, or even differences in views within, the church. It would be a great addition to be able to cite sources for anything along those lines.

As far as the history, there are certainly other denominations which also have their own internal narratives that differ from the historical record. I tried to note that this is the case with the CC church, and perhaps that should be expanded. But I still don't see that citing what we know from contemporary sources consititutes being a factual inaccuracy. Astynax (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I do appreciate Tmtsoj for being willing to discuss here. Hear, hear. Me too.

a belief-based view...could well be included...It would be a great addition to be able to cite sources for anything along those lines. Hear, Hear. Me too. If SOURCES CITED.

I still don't see that citing what we know from contemporary sources consititutes being a factual inaccuracy. Hear, hear. Me too. --nemonoman (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion that the factual accuracy tags are irrelevant is not correct. They are there for the very reason I have given above, and I don’t see why it is not relevant to say that the factual accuracy is being disputed because that is exactly what I am doing. There has hardly been discussion and I would think it very premature to say that the points I have raised have had some sort of reasonable response, especially from the editor of the article in its current form (Astynax). As one who has had very limited exposure to this group, you may not be the appropriate person to make judgement regarding the legitimacy of the points I raise.

I have not had even a response to the logic of how the very one the current group has split from, could be documented as founder of those who split away from him because they did not agree with his doctrine/belief. The logic is very flawed. I know I have been lax in providing citation to back up some of my statements but I have no need to while details such as this split are not challenged (according to Wikipedia guidelines).

In responding to various things you have written above, your words are in italics:

So far, I've learned a lot about Tmtsoj's ideas about a group that has no name, no doctrine, no founder, and is in fact only a bunch of individuals who have some sort of vague idea of what binds them together. Don’t make the assumption that these individuals do not know what binds them together. In acknowledging your lack of experience with this group, this is not something you would understand until you sat in a fellowship and saw the same faith and spirit amongst these people. There is unquestionably no vagueness about what is binding them together. You can be sure that it is not matters such as the form or conduct of the fellowship meeting, which varies between locations.

He says this group doesn't worship the way the article states, and doesn't hold many of the views described in this article. My comments were regarding statements that the article proclaimed as distinct methods of the group, when yet those methods were not always followed. To quote what I said above, “The article does succeed well in giving a general overview of the activities of the group”, so I don’t know how you can claim that I have said that “this group doesn’t worship the way the article states”. Please don’t become like the many critics of this group who make baseless statements and have even written those baseless statements into books, most of which have been cited in the article.

He has not cited a single reference, or pointed to a specific non-neutral statement, other than suggesting that the history of the group he is describing is not the same as that found in this article. It is the interpretation of the history events that I have challenged, including that William Irvine has been stated as the founder. Again, it is unusual use of logic to come to this conclusion. As for one other statement I have pointed to; I specifically mentioned the baptism statement, so you are not justified in making a claim that I have not pointed to a specific statement. There has been no discussion regarding this, but if you are willing to let discussion happen, even though I have not cited references to back up my claim (because no such document exists), you will find that there are many eye witnesses that can back up my claim regarding the error of the baptism statement.

It's my conclusion that Tmtsoj is in fact describing an entirely different group than the Christian Convention. Your conclusion is incorrect. To quote me again, “The article does succeed well in giving a general overview of the activities of the group”, and the group I describe also is the subject of the websites in the article as is evidenced by the names of preachers mentioned on those website, who are of the same faith and fellowship, so there is no doubt that we discuss the same group.

His comments would be just as relevant, and just as vague, and just as off-point on the talk page of virtually any article about any denomination. The NPOV and accuracy tags have therefore no reason to continue to part of this article. Your lack of understanding shows though in your comments in the above sections, and I am therefore not surprised nor offended that you feel my comments are irrelevant. I would think it more practical that the discussion be between those who have closer ties with the group.

Just as it would be wrong to base the article solely on one member's description of the group -- with no references, no nothing, just in effect original research, it is just as wrong to tag the article based on that same criteria. The article is tagged on there being a factual dispute, and there is such. It may be appropriate to respond to the points I have raised and if some of the statements I have made are challenged by those who would know about this group, I will discuss it further.

I am done playing this cat and mouse. I'll give it a day or two for other editors to comment before I remove them. I don’t know what makes you call this cat and mouse. I am trying to have sound discussion yet there has been only a small amount of discussion, and the majority of that has been with one who does not understand this group. Even Astynax has not had any personal experience inside the group.

Is there really such a rush to remove the dispute tag? Do you think that a few days is enough to gain the attention of others who may want to weigh in on the discussion? What is the real problem with having the tag there especially as I have raised legitimate points that have not yet been discussed?

If you remove the dispute tag, I have two choices; either put them back in attempt to continue the discussion, or edit the article. The latter may spark an edit war, and that is not my preferred option, but it appears that you would rather cut off discussion before it has barely started, even though this is the option that is encouraged by Wikipedia. Tmtsoj (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS a belief-based view...could well be included...It would be a great addition to be able to cite sources for anything along those lines. Hear, Hear. Me too. If SOURCES CITED. As I have mentioned, this group itself does not produce any citable sources because they use the bible instead. I could cite the bible for this purpose if you think it would suffice as evidence of a belief-based view. Tmtsoj (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you do edit the article, citing your sources as you go. I got involved with this article over your NPOV tagging. I don't need to be part of the church to edit it, and edit it well. I don't know Astynax's relation to the church, but he has edited well. One person who has not particularly edited the article, however, is you. Make efforts.

As to your specifics: I know I have been lax in providing citation to back up some of my statements but I have no need to while details such as this split are not challenged (according to Wikipedia guidelines). Maybe you didn't recognize what I'm saying. I'm challenging you. Cite some sources that contradict the article, or remove the tag, or I will do so. Clear?

the names of preachers mentioned on those website, who are of the same faith and fellowship,. You're the one saying Irvine et al are not group founders, etc. Irvine et al are not the founders of many many groups. Are you saying the Christian Convention is defined by its active repudiation of these persons and that is how it is to be properly identified?

There is unquestionably no vagueness about what is binding them together. What? I ask this sincerely. More specifically what defines them as a group?

I would think it more practical that the discussion be between those who have closer ties with the group. This may be true, but only if that discussion leads to an article based on reliable sources as required by WP. Anyway, I've seen the history of this article and the edit wars between various flavors of those who (apparently) had close ties to the group. The edit wars existed because assertions were being made without citing reliable sources.

As I have mentioned, this group itself does not produce any citable sources because they use the bible instead. <<< This is cat and mouse. Right there. Lots of groups use the bible to define themselves. But somebody decides which elements of the bible to emphasize, and which to ignore. Some cite bible passages that support infant baptism, some cite bible passages that support adult baptism. Worship on Sunday vs worship on Saturday. Leavened vs unleavened bread. Etc. Etc. Saying that the group uses 'the bible instead' is cat and mouse. You're suggesting that one need only open the book and one will then of course simply and completely realize the nature of group's beliefs. Well, it ain't that obvious. That darn bible is famous for gray areas, contradictions, ambiguity, etc. Surely someone, somewhere involved with the CC has written up a sermon or an essay or something citing how specifics of group observances are tied into specifics bible tenents. See, that's how you stop the cat and mouse. Cite the group's source that cites the bible. I'll note that many of the websites on that list specifically deny a biblical source for certain group practices. Also that those same websites suggest a direct contradiction between biblical injunctions (which they cite) which are supposedly incorporated by the group, and the actual practices of group members. So your assertion that 'they use the bible instead' is cat and mouse. You're suggesting that WP readers need to look to the bible for the group's faith and dogma,. They should not need to do this. Adequate information should be presented in the article. Further, you're suggesting suggesting that the group has correctly interpreted and now observes the singular demands of God for his church. This is cat and mouse. Any objection on my part becomes a matter of my being biased against your faith. The mouse runs away.

To reiterate: please do edit the article, citing your sources as you go. --nemonoman (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not inaccurate, in my view, simply because it doesn't speculate about an unbroken line of worshipers leading back to Jesus and before. For Tmtsoj to demand that article reflect theseviews, without any documentation -- even the documentation of its own members -- to insist that this hypothesis replace the facts cited here, is mere puffery. I have never made any such demand that the article reflect that there has been an unbroken line back to Jesus and before. I did suggest that the history of individual persons could be traced back through the various churches that they came from, and those churches origins which may well be able to be traced back eventually to Jesus, but I also suggested that there would be no need to document this entire history. Nemonoman, you are making many false claims about what I am saying and there is no need for this. I would rather that we have rational discussion rather than what is starting to appear to be personal attacks. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this if for you to begin to edit the article citing reliable sources, or to remove the dispute tag. Right now all I have to go on is your personal, unreferenced assertions that the article is wrong. In attacking those assertions you are the unfortunate collateral damage. --nemonoman (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, do you not honestly think that if there is not first discussion about potential changes that it would only spark an edit war? Would not an edit war begin if editors do not agree?

As of yet no one has responded to my discussion regarding that the details surrounding the group which split away from the group who were with William Irvine. I do not expect you to ask me to cite anything regarding this, becuase this event is mentioned in the very article, and it has citations, and even though you have stated that you are challenging me, it is not clear exactly what it is you challenge.

Please discuss these points that I raise rather than make artificial claims of what I have said, which are appearing to be nothing but a personal attack. Tmtsoj (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you do edit the article, citing your sources as you go. I got involved with this article over your NPOV tagging. I don't need to be part of the church to edit it, and edit it well. I don't know Astynax's relation to the church, but he has edited well. One person who has not particularly edited the article, however, is you. Make efforts. Thank you, I will start to make edits.

Maybe you didn't recognize what I'm saying. I'm challenging you. Cite some sources that contradict the article, or remove the tag, or I will do so. Clear? No it isn’t that clear. What exactly are you challenging? Do you doubt that there was a split? The article itself mentions a split and it has citations. What more could I cite other than this as evidence that there was a split into two groups and a specific rejection of Irvine? Do you also challenge that Baptism happens other than at a convention or special meeting? Would you need a written document from a person in the group as proof that Baptisms happen at other times and places? I am that person in the group and have told you such, but if information from a first hand account is not a reliable source, you will need to tell me what is. There are other incorrect statements, but if we can’t discuss and resolve even this simple detail, we may not get far all too quickly.

~~the names of preachers mentioned on those website, who are of the same faith and fellowship~~,. You're the one saying Irvine et al are not group founders, etc. Irvine et al are not the founders of many many groups. Are you saying the Christian Convention is defined by its active repudiation of these persons and that is how it is to be properly identified? Sorry, I was not specific enough. I was referring to names of current preachers, still alive today who are mentioned on those websites, and very ones who I have listened to myself. This is the evidence of it being the same group that we discuss.

~~There is unquestionably no vagueness about what is binding them together~~. What? I ask this sincerely. More specifically what defines them as a group? To summarize it to avoid writing the whole bible again to explain their like faith and like spirit, the biggest thing which binds them together is their love for God. I doubt that this satisfies your question about what defines them as a group, but about the only thing that can physically quantifiable is that they are all gathered in the one location, and even that location is not a fixed thing. But, for the time that they are gathered there, they could be defined as the group gathered in that location. It is very difficult to define the substance of a group that is merely individuals with some commonality, particularly when that commonality is a matter of faith.

~~I would think it more practical that the discussion be between those who have closer ties with the group.~~ This may be true, but only if that discussion leads to an article based on reliable sources as required by WP. Anyway, I've seen the history of this article and the edit wars between various flavors of those who (apparently) had close ties to the group. The edit wars existed because assertions were being made without citing reliable sources. The group does not produce documents that are citable; neither does it have a website that can be linked. The citations that are included in the current edit are of individuals who like me, have their own idea of what the group consists of. If an individual like me documented into a book the very things that I have spoken here for someone else to cite that book in this article, how does it make that information any less accurate than if I come here to provide the information directly. I do not see how citing the book of a single individual makes it accurate information merely because of that citation.

~~As I have mentioned, this group itself does not produce any citable sources because they use the bible instead.~~ This is cat and mouse. Right there. Please clarify why this is cat and mouse. I have made a perfectly reasonable statement that reflects even the view of the critics whereby there is not a citable document produced by this group.

Lots of groups use the bible to define themselves. But somebody decides which elements of the bible to emphasize, and which to ignore. Some cite bible passages that support infant baptism, some cite bible passages that support adult baptism. Worship on Sunday vs worship on Saturday. Leavened vs unleavened bread. Etc. Etc. Saying that the group uses 'the bible instead' is cat and mouse. You're suggesting that one need only open the book and will realize the nature of group's beliefs. Well, it ain't that obvious. Surely someone, somewhere has written up sermon or an essay or something where the specifics of group observances are tied into specifics of the bible. No, there surely isn’t someone who has written up a sermon to document observances, and am picturing that this would be alike an attempt by a human direct an individual’s faith in God. These are individuals directed by God. There are already many interpretations of the bible so I don’t see the need to have an interpretation of an interpretation. The bible is well as it is, and what is not understood can be made known by God; either directly or by speaking through his servants. There has been many records made of these servants preaching, but again, this is the word of an individual of the group and you have made it clear that an individual view from one in the group is not enough.

That's how you stop the cat and mouse. Cite the source that cites the bible. Much better it is that we would go directly to the bible to cite and understand the character and conduct of Christians, because there is nothing for this group that stands between them and the bible. They follow the bible directly. There is no choice but to cite the bible.

To reiterate: please do edit the article, citing your sources as you go. Thank you for the encouragement. I will do such, but in the cases such as the Baptism section, where no citable record exists to show that Baptisms are not only conducted at a convention or special meeting, I may need to leave out these entire statements. Tmtsoj (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, you wrote- Cite the group's source that cites the bible. I'll note that many of the websites on that list specifically deny a biblical source for certain group practices. There are certain practices that are common within people of the group, just as happens amongst any peers, and it is easy for critics to make claim that this is part of the group, and then attack by way of finding no reference to this practice in the bible. The critics will contradict themselves then by saying that the practices are not consistently followed in all locations. It begs the question whether these thing are or are not part of the group. The truth is that this common practice was by no means a rule or doctrine of the group but some thing that many members did. One example of this is when the critics would claim that wearing black stockings was a part of this group. It was no more than something that many of the group did, and also many modestly dressed women outside the group at the time. This is no different to claims that critics make today of certain practices within the group, along with the claim that there is no biblical reference for the practice, but the truth is that the claimed practice is neither a rule (or strictly followed) and neither is there a claim by the group of a biblical reference for that practice. You are starting to get an insight into the methods certain critics will go to, to find and avenue of attack. Tmtsoj (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj, are you saying that pointing out that there are differences within the group is somehow a criticism? It seems to me that is being a bit beyond hypersensitive. If differences exist, then simply stating that practices vary would just be attempting to be accurate, not a criticism. And I cannot think why you would react as if describing this group as accurately as possible would be some sort of attack? Again, if any part of the description can be widened using other citable material, then I'm all for that.

You stated that you “have never been to a convention or special meeting that had a baptism conducted” - and though that might be true in your experience or part of the world, there are certainly published sources for that being practiced going right back to the first conventions in Ireland and onward. I didn't come up with that (it has been unchallenged in the article since Oct. 2005), I just moved it into a new section with related material and provided a citation for that and the other material which was left in. At what other times, in your experience, are baptisms conducted? A good deal of what is presently in the article was already there, and already debated. I simply reorganized it and provided citations. I did dump some obviously POV items, along with some repetitions and some items for which no sources were given and which seemed petty and needlessly provocative to me. You are bringing up things such as dress that aren't part of the current article - should they be?

I have been listening to your viewpoint, and trying to grasp what you want. But you honestly don't provide much concrete to go upon, and I'm starting to get the impression that you are either conducting a personal persecution of any information or facts which don't fit into your particular world view, or asking that the article be made much longer to cover a lot of variations within the group without sources for the additional material, or wanting it turned into a promotional piece instead of a descriptive piece. That may be an over-reaction - but it is late, and reading through this is frustrating. Astynax (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the cat and mouse: The truth is that this common practice was by no means a rule or doctrine of the group but some thing that many members did. One example of this is when the critics would claim that wearing black stockings was a part of this group. It was no more than something that many of the group did, and also many modestly dressed women outside the group at the time. This is no different to claims that critics make today of certain practices within the group, along with the claim that there is no biblical reference for the practice, but the truth is that the claimed practice is neither a rule (or strictly followed) and neither is there a claim by the group of a biblical reference for that practice.

So you describe here a "common practice" of the group. But this common practice "is neither a rule (or strictly followed) and neither is there a claim by the group of a biblical reference for that practice." If there were a reliable source to back this up, the article might reasonably say "Many of the group follow the common practice of [whatever]." This is, in effect, what the article says in many places -- and this also, in effect, what you object to. For whenever such statements get made, you say the group has NO common practices, but only "use the bible" to define themselves, and so such statements are inaccurate or POV. That is the mouse running away.

It seems to me that the only way that you will be satisfied would be

1. to include the Bible as a reference entirely for the definition and observances of this group, probably in its entirety and without any annotations. I don't know even know what "Bible" means to you, as many denominations fiercely hold that only certain translations may be used, certain books included, etc.

OR

2. to simply do away with the article altogether, since as you constantly assert, there are only individuals here, making their own decisions, bound by no rules, no observances, no name. Only by the Bible, as each individual interprets it, and "that they are all gathered in the one location, and even that location is not a fixed thing. But, for the time that they are gathered there, they could be defined as the group gathered in that location." How can an article be written about that?

From my own extremely limited review of the group, however, I find that there are many references to the group, both by its official and unofficial names, and to its practices, which are reasonably clearly identified, and by its history, which is pretty simple to ascertain. That quick and dirty review provides a slightly contradictory, slightly muddy picture, to be sure. But the big chunks are there, and easy to see.

Further this article has been since its inception hammered by editors who seem to believe that their opinions are most important and must shape the article. So those editors, at least, believe in that the existence, practices, and history of the can be encapsulated and identified enough that they can in fact create and improve an article on the group.

So for my part, I intend to honor the fierce efforts of those earlier editors, and the most active present editor, by doing what I can to resolve the present dispute, and to bring it to A or even GA status. That includes attending to your assertions of POV and inaccuracy. I have so attended. Your objections are vague and your suggestions are impractical.

So now it is up to you to edit the article in accordance with Wikipedia standards, even if you believe that this will cause an edit war. I promise I will make every effort to stop your edits from being the victim of an edit war if they are even remotely consistent with WP standards. However your facility with language, rhetoric, Wikipedia markup, etc., give me hope that you'll be hitting the bullseye right from the start as regards WP standards. So I look forward to your edits.

Or if you choose not to edit, it's time for you to remove the tag. Acknowledging that you gave it your best shot, and that Astynax and I are nasty stubborn PITAs, and embody everything that's wrong with WP, etc., etc.

Or if you choose not to edit, and not to remove the tag, it's time for someone to remove it for you. I'm telling you at this point, the 2 current editors who want to make this article better, and who want to satisfy your objections in good faith, have no clue at all how to do so.

So either get in there and fix it, or mope. One way or the other, the tagging will be removed. --nemonoman (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Astynax:

Tmtsoj, are you saying that pointing out that there are differences within the group is somehow a criticism? It seems to me that is being a bit beyond hypersensitive. If differences exist, then simply stating that practices vary would just be attempting to be accurate, not a criticism. And I cannot think why you would react as if describing this group as accurately as possible would be some sort of attack? - You misunderstand me. You should read more carefully what I am saying. There are differences within the group, and the article should either make evident that some of the documented practices are not strictly part of the group but merely an act that is common, or leave out the action. The attack comes when a particular act is written as though being part of the group, and a critic has opportunity to fault in the places where and when the group is not following its own “doctrine”. That there are differences, is altogether evidence that these very acts are not a law with the group, and are not unconditionally followed. As I have said before, it is quite appropriate for these common actions of the group to be documented in the article, as long at is it also made clear that these things (baptism at conventions and special meetings, as but one example) are by no means a rule, and by no means was there ever alleged a biblical reference. I can understand that you will get the questions such that Nemonoman asked, “Grape juice or wine”, or you might get statements in the article such as, “The group may or may not use a piano at the Gospel meeting”, but if that is how it is, then the truth should be told.

You stated that you “have never been to a convention or special meeting that had a baptism conducted” - and though that might be true in your experience or part of the world, there are certainly published sources for that being practiced going right back to the first conventions in Ireland and onward. I didn't come up with that (it has been unchallenged in the article since Oct. 2005), I just moved it into a new section with related material and provided a citation for that and the other material which was left in. - It isn’t a big deal and I am not surprised that it hasn’t been challenged. Also, I did not state that baptisms were not conducted at a convention or a special meeting, but that it isn’t the only place or time. The article would give the impression that this is the only time and place. Again it is not a big deal, but I used that one as an example of how people looking on and trying to document rules or guidelines that don’t exists, only have the choice of stating what they have been able to perceive, due to the lack of a document produced by the group. And regardless of whether it is acceptable by others or not, the lack of a document is because of the group’s use of the bible for instruction rather than anything else.

At what other times, in your experience, are baptisms conducted? - At the start of the year, in the middle of the year, at the end of the year, 10am, 2pm, 4pm (I’m sure you get the picture).

You are bringing up things such as dress that aren't part of the current article - should they be? Quite possibly they shouold be, but again, as long as there are not assumptions made about what the “policy” is. I raised the black stockings as evidence of where another “rule” was previously documented, specifically because it is one which can be seen today as not a rule. If you were to mention dress in the article it would have to be somewhat generic such as “modest dress”, which may be too ambiguous for an encyclopedia.

I have been listening to your viewpoint, and trying to grasp what you want. But you honestly don't provide much concrete to go upon, and I'm starting to get the impression that you are either conducting a personal persecution of any information or facts which don't fit into your particular world view, or asking that the article be made much longer to cover a lot of variations within the group without sources for the additional material, or wanting it turned into a promotional piece instead of a descriptive piece. That may be an over-reaction - but it is late, and reading through this is frustrating. - Please do not get frustrated, but try to look at the point I raise. I am disputing some of the facts of this article and if you like I will deal with them one at a time so that we keep this discussion on topic. Primarily I have continually raised the matter of William Irvine being documented as the founder in the article, but no one yet has discussed the points I raised, specifically that the current group which is the subject of this article, made a purposeful split from another group, but more specifically (which is the important part) from William Irvine, because (and this is also important) of a difference of belief. Nemonoman has now persuaded me to go ahead and edit this article, citing sources, but as per advice from WP, I considered it best to discuss first. Because no one appears to challenge that the current group split from the group with William Irvine I presume that discussion is finished and I will edit. Tmtsoj (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nemonoman:

This is the cat and mouse: The truth is that this common practice was by no means a rule or doctrine of the group but some thing that many members did. One example of this is when the critics would claim that wearing black stockings was a part of this group. It was no more than something that many of the group did, and also many modestly dressed women outside the group at the time. This is no different to claims that critics make today of certain practices within the group, along with the claim that there is no biblical reference for the practice, but the truth is that the claimed practice is neither a rule (or strictly followed) and neither is there a claim by the group of a biblical reference for that practice.

So you describe here a "common practice" of the group. But this common practice "is neither a rule (or strictly followed) and neither is there a claim by the group of a biblical reference for that practice." If there were a reliable source to back this up, the article might reasonably say "Many of the group follow the common practice of [whatever]." This is, in effect, what the article says in many places -- and this also, in effect, what you object to. For whenever such statements get made, you say the group has NO common practices, but only "use the bible" to define themselves, and so such statements are inaccurate or POV. That is the mouse running away. - My appologies but it may be that I have caused confusion in my use of “common”. When I talk about acts such as the common practice of wearing black stockings, clearly this is a common act but only to those wearing the black stockings. It is not though, common to the entire group in that there are those in the group who do not wear black stockings. You need to differentiate between acts that are common between many in the group, and acts that are common to the entire group. Many have made the mistake of seeing a common act and documenting it as an act that is adhered to by the entire group. Hence, though a statement such as conducting baptisms at a convention is recounting a common act, it is not common to the entire group, and it is the entire group which should be represented by the article.

It seems to me that the only way that you will be satisfied would be

1. to include the Bible as a reference entirely for the definition and observances of this group, probably in its entirety and without any annotations. I don't know even know what "Bible" means to you, as many denominations fiercely hold that only certain translations may be used, certain books included, etc. - This is one option that would at least portray the group without adding the perception of the outside observer, or an individual person of the group. The group often use the KJV of the bible, though other interpretations are quoted by preachers and various interpretations are sold at conventions. Again, any mention of a specific translation of the bible would have to be without implication that the use of that specific translation is an entire group observance.

OR

2. to simply do away with the article altogether, since as you constantly assert, there are only individuals here, making their own decisions, bound by no rules, no observances, no name. Only by the Bible, as each individual interprets it, and "that they are all gathered in the one location, and even that location is not a fixed thing. But, for the time that they are gathered there, they could be defined as the group gathered in that location." How can an article be written about that? - I would ask the very same question. The article is trying to create a religion out of a group of individuals because they portray similar actions or observances. And to do this some unusual things take place such as, the selection of one name out of a list of government registrations because of the insistence that the group must have a name, despite that it doesn’t; and the assertion of various observances, despite certain of these things not being followed in all cases, and despite the group never having documented such an observance. I expect your question here will help you understand what I have been saying, and how it is difficult to write a document based on secular details, about a group that exists on faith.

From my own extremely limited review of the group, however, I find that there are many references to the group, both by its official and unofficial names, and to its practices, which are reasonably clearly identified, and by its history, which is pretty simple to ascertain. That quick and dirty review provides a slightly contradictory, slightly muddy picture, to be sure. But the big chunks are there, and easy to see. - There may be history records that are easy to see, but you would understand how these are still the interpretation of how the historian saw the events. As I have stated before, you often get a case in history where either God has sent a man, or a man’s actions were of his own doing, and it will be left to the historian in documenting the role of that man to impart his view on whether the man was the architect of that action, or he was purely following the direction of someone else. It is extremely difficult to write about the event without presenting one view or the other.

So for my part, I intend to honor the fierce efforts of those earlier editors, and the most active present editor, by doing what I can to resolve the present dispute, and to bring it to A or even GA status. That includes attending to your assertions of POV and inaccuracy. I have so attended. Your objections are vague and your suggestions are impractical. - Is it vague for me to dispute that the group of friends who split away from the Irvine’s group, would not have been founded by William Irvine because of a difference of belief (which is the very reason for the split), especially knowing that the current group does not follow the observances that William Irvine claimed? Why is it also then impractical to remove William Irvine as the founder, knowing that the group who is the subject of this article, split away from William Irvine and his followers because they did not want to follow him or his teaching? Until yet, this very fact seems to be avoided in this discussion and I can only assume that there is no disagreement. As the “dispute tag” has failed to raise any challenge on this matter I feel more at ease in editing these details. Tmtsoj (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very very simple. The Schisms section clearly indicates that Irvine was rejected for changes he introduced later (e.g. "By 1914 he had begun to preach", "As his message turned towards"), rather than splitting from the teachings that Irvine had founded. Such a split does not annul Irvine as founder of the group.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it needs simplifying even more... if I make a vanilla milkshake, people who only like vanilla milkshakes will like it. If I then add chocolate flavouring to it, it's no longer a vanilla milkshake. The people who only like vanilla don't like my milkshake anymore. But I still made the vanilla milkshake.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing dispute tag

Since the person who set the tag has not presented us much affirmative info to work with for corrections, and since more than a week has passed since the last round of discussion when I said I would remove the tag, I'm going to remove the tag.--nemonoman (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely acceptable. Thank you for the work to move the article beyond disputed status. Donama (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

The article states that the "Church has no official headquarters and publishes no statements of doctrine or other materials", but goes on to add that it publishes "its own hymnal, invitations to gospel meetings, and various pastoral letters, sermon notes, lists, and summaries for internal circulation." Obviously these are printed somewhere. Also, there must be some basis on which membership is defined to identify who is accepted as a member.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussions above for hash of these and similar topics. It's like cloud-cookoo-land. By the time these discussions ended, I wasn't sure there was such a group as the CC.--nemonoman (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Almost seems like institutionalized evasiveness to someone like me looking in from the outside. It wasn't always so, however. The occasional newspaper reporter will drag out a statement from a Head Worker even today, but usually only more ambiguities and seeming contradictions - nothing like the clear statements they gave in their early days.

As for what constitutes membership: the workers in each field determine who is eligible for baptism and who is eligible to take part, so there don't seem to be any hard and fast qualifications. I suppose they would claim to be guided by "the spirit" in such things. The senior Overseers and regional Head Workers also set standards within their regions, which often do differ. For example, there are several differences concerning divorce: in some areas, divorce results in being shut off from participation (giving testimony and partaking of their eucharist - i.e., they are reverted to the status of non-members to whom these are forbidden); in other areas, a person in one part of the country who has divorced and remarried is excluded from participation as members unless they divorce their second spouse and remarry their original spouse; and in yet another Overseer's field, a divorced and remarried person may be allowed to participate as a full member. Willingness to submit to whatever standards that are in place in a particular field must be a very important qualification for membership - but they don't publish any direct statements about what qualifies in which fields. Astynax (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro, there is not such a thing as membership, so that may help you understand why you are not not able to identify how membership is defined. Nemonoman's comment that he is not even sure that there is such a group as CC, is very close to the mark. CC is a government registration that was required by authorities for a particular purpose but by no means applies to the entire group and neither have many of the group even used or heard of this name. Such as this, there are hugely misleading and unfactual information in this article which I intend to correct as time permits.

As I have mention above, this is a group who are merely individuals who serve God, and as Astynax has pointed out, there are certain differences, which is rightly to be expected amongst individuals, who are being dealt with by God as individuals. Not knowing your faith this may not be understood, but only God knows the heart, and regarding repentance or need for correction, each person needs to be dealt with as an individual, and the bible tells us so, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who believes the bible that this is what God still does. Tmtsoj (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you believe that it all “just happens” with no organization or membership. But that they are not called members doesn't affect that they assume the same role as do “members” of other churches. Your definition could as well be applied to other churches, who also are composed of individuals, excepting that most don't mind calling the people who constitute their churches members. In your church, only approved persons may take part in the Sunday and midweek meetings, only approved persons are accepted for baptism, only approved persons can attend the full conventions, only approved persons can take the bread and cup, only certain persons are called “saints” to distinguish them from outsiders, etc. I assume the objection to the word “member” is a doctrinal point in your area, though I cannot think why (didn't the Apostle Paul make use of that very term to denote individual Christians within the Church?). But for the average reader, it would be confusing to substitute the various jargon the group uses to denote what are, for every practical purpose, members. Astynax (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the more salient summary of my comments would be this comment: So, it's my conclusion that Tmtsoj is in fact describing an entirely different group than the Christian Convention. I've seen for myself now many references to the CC, to its history, to its beliefs and practices, and to its culture. It certainly does exist. I'm just not certain that your descriptions and definitions want to be the be-all end-all of this article. --nemonoman (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax, I think you have just assumed that I have an objection to being called a "member". It is very clear that if a person is in a group they are a member of that group. The word I used was "membership" and I hoped that it would be understood that I was talking about formal membership, as where a record of who is a member is kept so that it was defined clearly who was a member (which was what Jeffro was asking) even to a point where you could count members. No such thing exists. It is quite reasonable to call people in the group "members", but that is difficult to do without creating the assumption that there is such a thing as (formal) membership. This assumption is the very thing that caused Jaffro to ask the question. He thought it possible to have membership.

I have mentioned this before, but again, the article attempts to make a religion out of something that is not much more than a group of friends. This is why you get the questions, "Where is the doctrine", "How do you define a member", etc, and they are all legitimate questions if the article was about what we understand of the usual religions, but you have to keep in mind that this is not a usual religion as most would understand it, and that is where the confusion comes in. If you attempt to write and define this as a religion, it will cause questions when the individuality is also potrayed.

Nemonoman, your conclusion that I am "describing an entirely different group than the Christian Convention", is exactly what I am trying to tell you. The article is not that well representing the group. Even the title of the article is a name very rarely used by anybody. As you have encouraged, I will start to edit the article to make it more representative. Tmtsoj (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj - Membership is a term used to describe the group of members, and need not denote anything beyond that. A group can certainly have a membership without formal or centralized records - many groups do. The CC described here has never been “something that is not much more than a group of friends”, as you put it. The ideal you seem to hold forth, and the reality that this is a distinct and distinguishable group, seem to be seriously at odds both with what I've read, and with what I've observed (from admittedly limited exposure) of this group.

I spent several hours last week going through the archive on this thread. One post mentioned a site run by members of the group (though I cannot verify the affiliation of the people running it any more than I can verify your affiliation). I spent most of an entire day (ugh) reading through its discussions from current and former members discussing history and doctrine. I noted that the insider views expressed there seemed to be generally in line with the article as it stands, and also seem to be quite different on some points from the perspective you seem to be reflecting. I'm also beginning to wonder what group you belong to, and whether there should not be a separate article for that. “Not much more than a group of friends” certainly doesn't seem to describe the church George Walker and John Carroll oversaw in the U.S. and Canada, the one which holds massive annual conventions with thousands of attendees, the one which has specific requirements for participation (no matter that they are defined differently by different overseers), the one with a separate full-time ministry, etc. Astynax (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've been trying to point out! Tmtsoj says "Nemonoman, your conclusion that I am "describing an entirely different group than the Christian Convention", is exactly what I am trying to tell you." I'm not trying to be facetious or petty or disingenuous. I do believe that Tmtsoj may in fact be describing a group different from the CC. --nemonoman (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am describing the same group. You might believe I describe a different group because the article and secular thinking do not even begin to explain the reality of this group.

Astynax, if you could possibly explain how a group could have specific requirements but then also not be specific about these requirements in that it is don't differently, then please do so. I hope you have a good think about your comment here and realise that you are trying to make up something that doesn't exist in saying that there are specific requirement because you have just recognized that there aren't specific requirements.

Nemonoman, can you also see how Astynax would say that there is specific requirements, and when I say that there isn't specific requirements (except for what God requires), you think that we talk about a different group, but underlying in Astynax comments is the acknowledgement that there isn't specific requirements. This same tact is used by many writers of books on this group and it is also subsequently believed by the many readers of those books, and those same books have been cited in this article, thought is does mean that those books are accurate and citing sources such as this doesn't make WP accurate. Tmtsoj (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj, you are perfectly aware that the group has specific requirements. It is not an open free-for-all. There are requirements for entering the ministry, there are requirements for partaking of the emblems, there are requirements for taking part in the meetings and conventions, there are requirements for baptism/rebaptism, etc., etc. That a few of those requirements differ between Overseer and Overseer doesn't change the fact of them. Astynax (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

Edit 1:

Removal of William Irvine from “founder” field. The current group and subject of this article are friends who split away from William Irvine’s group. More details can be seen in the discussions above. Tmtsoj (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often edit articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, and in that religion too, there were schisms during its early development, and their current beliefs differ widely from those of their original founder. However that does not alter the founder's original influence in getting it started, regardless of whether he would endorse their current beliefs or they would endorse his. If you have verifiable sources to indicate that Irvine had nothing to do with the development of the Christian Conventions, and that it was another individual(s) who started it off, supply them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I myself would not conclude that a changing belief would constitute a new religion but when there has been a split because of a different belief, that means it is not the same thing. Do you not think that the faith mission and the one who sent Irvine to preach (he was a faith missionary at this time) was also influencial in getting these people together? I would be interested to hear your explanation regarding how it is that Irvine was the founder of something new even though he was part of the faith mission, yet the ones who made a marked split from Irvine would still be of him, especially considering that the split was due to a difference in belief.

I suspected that editing the "Founder" field, may invoke some discussion on this. My dispute tag failed to do so, because I barely got anybody to discuss this but was merely told to edit. I may add the tag once again if there truly is a dispute on this matter. It may be appropriate to continue this discussion under the dispute heading. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you're editing and not just disputing! However, like I said earlier, please dispute specific facts (or non-facts, if you will) using the {{fact}} or a similar tag, as it's pretty clear no one is disputing the entire article, with the possible exception of yourself.

Also, I raised the dispute on the Wikiproject Christianity discussion page, because I also was dissatisfied with the non-response. Like I said there, I'm not smart about this subject. I'm involved more to attempt to resolve the accusations of NPOV, which I believe has at this point been edited out of the article. I'm guessing that Jeffro may have gotten involved because of that.

Tmtsoj, I very much appreciate the sincerity in the way you express yourself. You seem to be a man (or woman) of faith. Your changes, however, seem to me based on "Original Research", a big no-no in Wikipedia. I've been beat by this myself. I was principal writer, I think I can say with reasonable accuracy, of Taj Mahal and Meher Baba. I know enough about both subjects to write a comprehensive article without cracking a book. In fact, I have written a book or two. But my knowledge didn't cut it among my editor peers. I had to spend a lot of hours looking for Reliable Sources.

I'm afraid you're going to have to do something similar. I hope you don't take the demand for sources as an insult or as questioning your veracity. --nemonoman (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj, regarding your comments about the Faith Mission's involvement, see Asynax comments. But beyond that, with regard to "the ones who made a marked split from Irvine" (and as previously indicated to you: if you have sources that indicate additional founder(s) or formative influence(s) other than Irvine, supply them'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the founder of the Faith Mission organization being regarded as founder, the Faith Mission is not a church. Rather, it runs missions to get people into existing local churches. And that was what Irvine was doing up until he began the form of ministry which is the subject of this article. So John Govan (founder of the FM) cannot be regarded as having founded this movement. That it was, rather, Irvine is amply attested to both in the accounts of those who were eyewitnesses (e.g., among others, early worker William Cleland wrote: "William Irvine was entirely responsible for the creation of this movement."), newspaper articles of the time (some of which I cited above), and subsequent research.

And, yes, the group did split. However, that this was entirely doctrinal is unclear from what I have read. Rather, the main (CC) group continued following Irvine's schema as it existed in 1913-1914 with only small subsequent additions, while Irvine later continued to develop the “message” (what in some churches would be called “progressive revelation”). So, from that perspective, Irvine is also the founder, since they changed very little of what he established other than firming up the organizational framework. You are free to take on faith that there is no founder, but as a matter of history and accuracy, I think the article should reflect the record while noting that this is not the belief of many members. Astynax (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, you are right that no one is disputing the entire article, but there are multiple things that are disputed, though I have decided (due to it seemingly very difficult to prompt discussion) to deal with one issue at a time. In discussion above, previous respondents have avoid certain points. If I talk about only one point, this may be avoided. Another problem in adding “citation needed” tags is that in most cases, citation is provided, but I serious challenge the accuracy of the cited documents. Most of the cited documents are of a negative view and written by persons who have no reason to accurately portray the group. The cited information by far does not reflect my experience in the group, and again we are seeing the evidence of the individual experience, and that serving God is an individual thing. I presume I waste time in continuing to describe the individuality, because you do not appear to believe.

I do not take the demand for sources as an insult, but I have continually asked what more citations could be provided other than already provided in the article. This is not original research, because the very article also claims what I claim.

Jeffro, I do have another source to show who was the “founder and formative influence”. This is the bible. This is a widely recognized book and is the only document that the group follows and therefore is very suitable to show who is responsible for establishing this group and also the instructions that they adhere to. As I continue to edit the article I will use this source which is much more reliable than any modern documents, especially those written by individuals who have somewhat against this group, and have no interest in accurately portraying the group, especially regarding the positive and outstanding nature and spirit that is present.

The Bible was written prior to the split of the Christian Conventions, and contains no references to Irvine or any other individuals from the period discussed, and therefore is not a reliable source for any split within that particular system of belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax, you wrote - As to the founder of the Faith Mission organization being regarded as founder, the Faith Mission is not a church – I do not understand what you say here, because neither was William Irvine a church.

You say that the Faith Mission runs missions to get people into existing local churches, which has always been the role of missionaries, and is still the role of the missionaries today. To use this as if there has been something changed is not correct. This is in line with these very same missionaries saying at the beginning that they weren’t starting anything new. One tenet which William took on and could be considered different to the Faith Mission, was his belief that the missionaries should strictly follow Matt 10. Irvine was a Faith Missionary at the time so it can be argued that this is of the Faith Mission also. This tenet is not being followed today by the subjects of this article, so if this was the extent William’s “founding” (not that it can be said that he founded Matt 10, or was the first to use this method, or it was his inspiration) his founding is no longer being followed, at least not by this group.

Regarding the split, you have not made it very clear how it is that a group who split away from the “Irvinites” (who still exist today according to you), would be founded by the man that they split from. Is that possible? There is a well documented rejection, and as it was an individual choice for people to either make that split or stay with Irvine, again we are seeing that this is not much more than a group of friends who have fellowship together because of a commonality. Even though some may insist that there must be some man who is a founder, it portrays a lack of faith that it is not possible for God to establish his church on the earth. I may be discussing things of which you have no faith and subsequently won’t be believed, and not having been part of this group you may not have heard preachers accounting their call by God to go into the missionary (which inspires that faith), but to say that William Irvine founded this sending of missionaries is wrong. As I said, some insist that there would have to be some founder, and because Irvine was a very prominent man and even made claims of being the father of this fellowship at later times, which was challenged. This is not the first time a person has been widely though incorrectly known as a founder of something because either of their own claims or that they were the most prominent figure relating to the founding.

You said - You are free to take on faith that there is no founder, but as a matter of history and accuracy, I think the article should reflect the record - I have never said that I believe there is no founder and again you might make assumptions about my belief, and that is blurring what you think I am saying. The article should make mention of Irvine and the other preachers with him as a matter of documenting history, but to accurately reflect the record we should not be choosing one logic over another logic used elsewhere in the same article to support a particular point of view. Either the current missionaries are a breakaway from the Faith Mission and also the Irvinites, or they have broken away from neither. Tmtsoj (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmsoj: no one has claimed that William Irvine “is a church.” The Faith Mission is just an interdenominational organization - it is not structured as a church body in any sense. Those who respond to its efforts are told to check out and/or join other churches - they don't become members of any Faith Mission church. There has never been a Faith Mission church. However, the system of ministry and worship which William Irvine instituted (regardless of whether you regard it as being founded upon Biblical principles) is indeed “a church,” and is regarded as such by those who belong to it.

Regarding the split: the schismatics did not abandon the system of “the meetings in the home and the ministry without a home” which Irvine instituted beginning in 1897. Thus, they continued to follow a way which he started. And again, you seem to be willfully ignoring that others during the early years, and aside from Irvine himself, explicitly stated that he was the founder. Some of those predate any claim we have from him directly. What you've offered as an alternative are rationalizations of vague later statements, and which do not explicitly deny his role in any case. Astynax (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2:

Removal of mention that Baptisms are conducted at conventions and special meetings, because this is not always the case. There are many occurrences of Baptisms being conducted at other times, but I do not have information to show which is the most regular practice, to document it one way or the other. Tmtsoj (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say at what other venues baptisms usually take place in your field(s)? One of the early newspaper articles mentions that Edward Cooney held a baptism following one of his large, public preachings. I understand that public events like that do not occur today. People I know from the west and midwest of the U.S. and Canada confirm that baptisms there take place as part of Conventions and Special meetings in their areas, as also seems to have been the case in the early Irish conventions. Astynax (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The venue in my area is usually a lake or river. I do not disagree that in some cases there are baptisms conducted at conventions and special meetings, but in my experience ( 20 or 30 that I have been to), none have been at a conventions or special meetings, and likewise I have never been at a convention or special meeting that has had a baptism conducted. I removed this comment because it was one I raised in the dispute section and had no one challenge that I was wrong in saying that baptism happen at any time. It was worded such that would make a reader think that conventions and special meetings were the only place/time for baptism. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Astynax (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 3:

Removal of "meetings" from being a name used by members for the church. The word "meetings" is used to specify the meetings and not the the entire group. Tmtsoj (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine as Founder

Based on the discussion here, and unless specific reliable sources can be found to show that he was not, I believe it is right to continue to show Irvine as founder. If reliable sources can be found that the current CC has had some new breakaway beginning from the church founded by Irvine, that should be noted as well. At the time of this note, however, no such sources have been cited, and the founder dispute appears to be based on original research only. --nemonoman (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, the breakaway is clearly shown in the article. What exactly are you asking for here?

Names, with reliable sources, of the individuals involved in leading the schism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hardie (see article for sources). Tmtsoj (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardie was the first to exclude Irvine, as is noted in the article. But neither he, nor any of the other schismatics changed anything of what Irvine had founded. Excluding the founder and his supporters from meetings and conventions under his (Hardie's) control was not founding anything, he and the others simply continued something previously established by Irvine. • Astynax ^talk 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most definitive source of primary texts referencing the role of Irvine in the early days. [2] If you do a 'find' on this page, you will see that NONE of the many contemporaneous workers quoted refer to Irvine as 'founder'. The references to the word 'founder' occur in a newspaper, by a court examiner, and by one later worker. I think we need to acknowledge what Irvine did, but he is not recognized as a founder of the movement today, and I see no evidence that he was recognized as one then. Slofstra (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Perhaps I could summarize where I feel the problem lies. Critics of the group have made the statement "Irvine is founder" a major baton in their platform against the group's canard that the movement "goes back to Christ". That's the underlying conflict in all this. But it's a very old and tired debate. Most of the group now accepts that the movement, at least its particular effects such as the hymn book, order of worship, conventions, and so on, began in Ireland in the late 19th century. But the statement that "Irvine was the founder" raises three palpable issues.
1) The use of the word 'founder' is reserved by most members for Christ only.
2) The importance of the role of other workers in the early days of the movement is not entirely clear. From John Long's journal it's evident he bristled at Irvine's aspirations for power. But in the early days, Irvine was the clear leader and strongest voice, no question of that. Also understand that the movement went from a dozen workers to several hundred in the space of a few years!
3) The origin and historical succession of the "home church" concept may have occurred independently of the preaching movement. Irvine started a preaching movement, and only later formed meetings in the home. However, there are documented reports of other home meetings (in Jaenen) independent of the preaching movement.
The best statement I've seen is this, ""Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions. A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later." Please check this discussion in which I am an anonymous participant - [3] around page 11 to 14, the group moves to consensus, although I haven't read everything that follows after - the thread now has over 1400 posts, and that's without counting Part I. The problem is that the statement "Irvine is founder" has become part of the heterodoxy of the anti- side, and they won't bend on it. It's on all the anti- sites, so they seem to have difficulty moving from their particular wording. (Personally, I think they have done the group a service in shedding light on the specific history of the group, as some of the myth-making had gotten out of hand.) Slofstra (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the varying sensitivities within the group, it is unreasonable to expect the average reader to have to tolerate vague, parsed wording in an attempt to soothe certain members who adhere to either an apostolic successionist or restorationist viewpoint. The argument on TMB is ongoing it seems, so that is hardly a consensus, and irrelevant even if there were a consensus among the limited number of people in that discussion group. If the article is to be objective, then Irvine clearly occupies the role of founder - call it what you will, or dispute it if you like. That wasn't in the body of the text, as you've pointed out, however it is the required wording for the infobox, and there is no valid reason for avoid its use. • Astynax ^talk 18:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about dealing with some facts for a change. No one in the group needs to be soothed.67.43.136.134 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Founder - Irvine from the info box until someone can provide a citation. Believe citation for such a key fact should be a RS. RSuser (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of dispute tags

Clearly this entire article is not in dispute. Please see these inline tags and tag any specific items that need addressing. PS I am not charmed by the insistence that the CC has no earthly founder. --nemonoman (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise I am not all that charmed by the insistence that this group's founder is William Irvine. There is no doubt that "CC" had an earthly founder (I am not sure who), but this article covers far more than just "CC". You can see the difficulty you are taking on when you try to make something out of nothing. There is an attempt to make this into an organization that it isn't, which is why I generally dispute the entire article. As I have mentioned much before, even the title of the article doesn't represent the entire group, and it is also a name that very few in or outside the group know or use. Tmtsoj (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2009

(UTC)

As I told you, I'll be removing general dispute tags. I don't understand why you are doing this anymore. Isn't it possible that this article is in fact about the group founded by Irvine? Of which, perhaps, you are NOT a member? Perhaps you're a member of a different group? There are many that Irvine did not found, I believe. Perhaps this is why you find so much to dispute?

On the other hand, the way to end your dispute is to cite any reliable source that agrees with you. Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum that simply describes your personal beliefs. Please recognize that it is an encyclopedia, a summary of citable reliable sources.--nemonoman (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does in fact mention Irvine, but it is about the group who split from the Irvinites. This is mentioned in the article. The Irvinites I imagine would be covered by a seperate article because the two groups are not the same.

I have placed a very specific tag now, which points to this talk page so hopefully I will get a response from you and others, to questions and comments I have raised above, prior to you removing the tag. Tmtsoj (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the dispute tag to the relevant section. PS At some point, you will need to provide a reliable source for your assertions, or accept the passages that have correctly cited relevant reliable sources. At some point, your actions depart from a simple dispute over relevant facts, and begin to resemble vandalism. --nemonoman (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, I don't see too much wrong with the section on which you have placed the tag. Im starting to wonder if there is some deliberate avoidance of the point I am raising. I have continually mentioned that, although William Irvine played a part in history, he is not the founder of the current group. The section you moved the tag to does not mention William Irvine as the founder. Maybe you have not noticed that I have not been editing this section either. The whole time I have never got a good dicussion going on this because rather than respond to the points I raise, people have been avoiding it by discussing what tags should be used or now moving the tags, and even starting new sections. It is amazing how many times above I have mentioned the separation above and not had a response. Are people avioding this? Instead of continuing to start new sections, could you please respond to the sections above. Tmtsoj (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Tmtsoj: I suggest, quite strongly in fact, that I have responded to the points you have raised on this talk page, which list a fair number of items which you say the article has wrong. The offenses only start with the listing of Irvine as the founder: without relooking I can remember also that you're concerned about the church's name, about whether it has members, about what activities get done where, when, and by whom. You've asserted that the history of the church begins at least at the time of Jesus, and possibly before, that there are no doctrines except the bible, a statement you seem to suggest is self-explanatory.

I'll also mention that I have asked you, as have others, repeatedly, over and over, again and again, to produce any Reliable Source that backs up any of the claims you have made that the article is full of errors. You have even said that you'll do it, by golly, by quoting the Bible. And then you have not. Not even a bible verse.

Further it is you and only you who has tagged an entire pretty good article as NPOV and under dispute.

Now I have asked you to which aspects of the article are under dispute. I gave you a nice table showing a list of available tags, so you could publicly show which article assertions are disputed, POV, etc. But you again decided that the whole article must be tarred with a wide and pretty insulting brush.

I took the liberty of assuming that you meant to dispute the section on the Founding of the CC. This apparently was not to your liking either.

I will remove that dispute tag.

Further, I'm done flirting with you. You should add or edit the article based on reliable sources. I'll remove any more tags unless you cite a specific source proving that some statement is disputed, POV or in error. PS YOU saying something is wrong does not make it wrong.

I have articles with great emotional resonance for me, and I hate it when un-attached, un-associated editors burst in and make changes. I'm constrained from reverting such edits by the principles of this encyclopedia. So I'm stuck in the same boat you are.

So fix this article based on the rules. Expect no more arguments or discussion from me. At present I regard responding to you as a very long pointless sprial. --nemonoman (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj, you seem to want to perpetuate the self-imposed "mystery" about the church that members like to espouse. This is incompatible with Wikipedia, which is about elucidating facts and what is, not what people want. There's no problem with prodding people to provide citations for something you genuinely doubt, but don't try to obfuscate reality. It's totally unhelpful for anyone who actually wants to know how this all originated. Clearly you've been trolling here for months trying to sabotage this article. Please contribute meaningfully or not at all. Donama (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donama, this is not some self-imposed mystery, but there are things of faith that are not understood by those that ask questions, and try to understand how this group is. Some people with knowledge of a typical religion, ask of certain things, or expect certain things to be present and when they don't get the answer they seek, or the question can not even be answered regarding this group, those people think it is a deliberate attempt to mystify this group. It is not.

People make assumptions as has happened often in this article and it is quite reasonable to correct any wrong assumptions that have been made. This is the whole point in asking for a source for information.

If people want to know the history of this group, it is quite reasonable as I have said before to include the Faith Mission and the early preachers, and also William Irvine, especially as he was a good man and did some great things. Though, to say that he was the founder of the group that exists today is wrong, and that is the very thing I have edited as I have been encouraged to do so by Nemonoman.

So many times my questions about how it is that William Irvine has become the founder of a group who formed away from him, have not been answered, so I figure that it can't be answered and therefore is not the truth. This is not about documenting what people "want" as you have alluded to above, but teling the truth, which is very much what is expected of WP editors. Tmtsoj (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems that the group carried on in a similar manner to its previous operations after the split with Irvine. However, if there was a new body of teaching that arose, please provide a source for who changed those teachings. However, if the group merely gradually deviated from some of Irvine's original teachings based on their continued interpretations of scripture, this does not indicate a new founder, not does it indicate an earlier founder (e.g. Christ) in any encyclopedic sense. Additionally, whether Irvine was "a good man" or not is completely irrelevant as to whether it is appropriate to cite him as founder.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, your words in italics:

You've asserted that the history of the church begins at least at the time of Jesus, and possibly before, that there are no doctrines except the bible, a statement you seem to suggest is self-explanatory - What I said was that the history of this group could be traced back to Jesus. Whether the bible is understood by you is not a consideration to those who use the bible as the only source of instruction, and it is not for you to decide that it isn't a reasonable thing to do. The bible was written for this very purpose.

I'll also mention that I have asked you, as have others, repeatedly, over and over, again and again, to produce any Reliable Source that backs up any of the claims you have made that the article is full of errors. You have even said that you'll do it, by golly, by quoting the Bible. And then you have not. Not even a bible verse. - I have not to this point added anything to the article that needs any support of a reliable source. At the point that I do, I will be sure to add some quotes from the bible to support the beliefs and actions of this group.

Now I have asked you to which aspects of the article are under dispute. I gave you a nice table showing a list of available tags, so you could publicly show which article assertions are disputed, POV, etc. But you again decided that the whole article must be tarred with a wide and pretty insulting brush - I used that table you gave me which provided the very tag that I used, and it was very specific about the point of dispute, and certainly not a wide and insulting brush like you have mentioned here. Why do you continue to make unfounded attacks such as this? Please discuss this with a clear mind.

I took the liberty of assuming that you meant to dispute the section on the Founding of the CC. This apparently was not to your liking either. - The section title founding barely describes the founding or what it was that he founded, and I don't have a problem with the accuracy of it regardless. If it does mention a foundation at all, it is the founding of Matthew 10, and because of Irvine's insistance regarding this chapter, and the fact that the current group do not follow that chapter, the founding of Irvine has gone. I still can not see how that the group who split from Irvine could be founded by Irvine, not only because of the split, but because the split came because of a difference of belief.

I have articles with great emotional resonance for me, and I hate it when un-attached, un-associated editors burst in and make changes. I'm constrained from reverting such edits by the principles of this encyclopedia. So I'm stuck in the same boat you are. - I don't completely understand what you say here, but I don't hold the same emotional attachement to this article as it appears that others do by seeing the seemingly frustrated responses I have got here, but being a part of this group I do have some attachment in regard to the content and I consider it appropriate that the article accurately portray the group, and as time permits I will make changes to the article. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, your words in italics:

It certainly seems that the group carried on in a similar manner to its previous operations after the split with Irvine. - Yes, maybe so, but just like most religions are similar. Some religions that have split from other religions are only because of one or two points or difference, but yet the new group is "founded" by the one who directed that movement, and not by the founder of the original church. That seems to be the logic used everywhere else except in this case. Nobody seems to be able to explain why this is, or have a good reason why it is that Irvine is the founder of a group that seperated from him.

If there was a later 'founder' who "directed that [new] movement", please provide a source, as previously and repeatedly requested.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, if there was a new body of teaching that arose, please provide a source for who changed those teachings. - Can you not read the article and note the split between the Irvinites and this group? Do you not know this group well enough to know that they do not go as Jesus directed the disciples to go in Matthew 10?

Refer to Astynax' analogy* found below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the group merely gradually deviated from some of Irvine's original teachings based on their continued interpretations of scripture, this does not indicate a new founder, not does it indicate an earlier founder (e.g. Christ) in any encyclopedic sense. - The group didn't make a gradual deviation from Irvine's original teachings, but made a deliberate rejection of them.

Provide a source if there was a later founder of a distinct group.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, whether Irvine was "a good man" or not is completely irrelevant as to whether it is appropriate to cite him as founder. - Again, you completely (maybe deliberately) misread what I said. I said that it is appropriate to include Irvine in any statements of history (nothing to do with citing him as founder) and this was more because of the great things he did. The only reason I mentioned him as a good man was to give reason for him doing the great things he did. Did you deliberately take my mention that Irvine was a good man and add that to something I didn't even say, just as an attempt to make it look like I had unreasonable rationale for his mention? Please discuss this sensibly. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any objective encyclopedic purpose in stating Irvine as a 'good' man at all. He could have been the most evil person who ever lived and still be notable with regard to the subject. Tongue-in-cheek, see also Mark 10:18.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*NOTE to Tmtsoj: This is Astynax's analogy referred to above:

I'm beyond amazed that you apparently have little concept of the word “founder” Tmtsoj. Irvine is the founder in precisely the same way as someone who starts a business, which splits and goes on in different directions. Take the example of Frank Seiberling who founded Goodyear Tire and Rubber. Seiberling didn't invent the tire, or the manufacturing methods, or even have anything to do with Charles Goodyear's invention of a method of vulcanizing rubber. Seiberling founded a company (organization) for manufacturing and selling tires. Eventually, during a recession in 1921, the the board and he had differences and Seiberling left. Goodyear Tire and Rubber continued on its way, while Seiberling with some of his Goodyear stock and people loyal to him went on to form Seiberling Rubber (which was folded into Firestone in the early 1960's). Now, ever afterward, Franklin Seiberling is the acknowledged founder of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company - despite that he parted ways with it some 88 years ago. The inventor of the wheel, the inventor of the rubber tire, Goodyear who invented vulcanized rubber, the earlier industrialists who originated various manufacturing processes, Goodyear Tire and Rubber's board of directors or the chief executives who came after Seiberling - none of them can ever be regarded as having founded Goodyear Tire and Rubber. That belongs to Frank Seiberling. You may not accept it, but that's the way it is, and that is the way the word is properly used. You must have some other reason for disputing this, but you aren't telling us - because your argument so far doesn't hold even a drop of water. Astynax (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Astynax (and Jeffro77 who seemingly agrees), this “analogy” you use is terribly flawed. I can see why you would pick this story; it has the same founder for both companies, and that makes it easier to put your point of view across.

Some points that you may not be considering, or may be deliberately avoiding is that Irvine continued on as he was. So in line with your analogy above, Irvine’s company continued to exist just as the Goodyear company did.

What happened is that while the Irvine “company” continued on, bit by bit, and over time, there were those who broke away from that “company”. Obviously there were those quite happy to stay in that “company” and they were quite able to because it still existed.

Now, knowing that this Irvine “company” still existed, there was now a group who through a difference, and are an entirely separate group, and were not to be confused with Irvine’s company (by the admission of both groups).

Now, the logic used in your example is where the new company that is formed (Seiberling Rubber) has it’s own founder and is treated as a different company, despite that there are some of the same people, doing the same thing, in the same industry. It is not treated as a continuation of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. If you agree with the analogy that you give here then you could consider using that logic in the history of this group and apply it consistently across the entire history rather than change the use of the logic to suit your point of view.

As I said, I’m not sure if you have been selective about this example because it has the same founder for both companies that were formed, but it wasn’t because Seiberling was the founder of Goodyear that he also became founder of Seiberling Rubber. If someone else was the founder of Goodyear, it would not then mean that this person was also the founder of Seiberling Rubber, just because there was not much difference in the companies, but that is what you are suggesting in the case of those who separated from Irvine. The founder of the original company does not become the founder of any companies of people who have subsequently split from the original. It just happened in this example because the founder of each company happened to be the same person.

Regarding your comment that I have little concept of the word “founder”, I thought it was you that did not understand it, due to your continued inconsistent use. At a time when Irvine was a Faith Mission worker, and at a time when the workers were attesting that they weren’t starting anything new, you are happy to say that Irvine was the founder of something, rather than just making small adjustments to the Faith Mission. Then, when there were those who made an obvious and complete separation from Irvine, acknowledging that they had different beliefs, you choose to use logic that this was just an adjustment to the direction of the group. You can continue to use this poor use of logic, and be selective about your analogies, but unless you explain why you do this, I will assume that you can’t explain it and I will edit the article to reflect that Irvine is not the founder of the current group. Tmtsoj (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj stated: “The founder of the original company does not become the founder of any companies of people who have subsequently split from the original. It just happened in this example because the founder of each company happened to be the same person.” Even supposing Goodyear split with a division of the company going its separate way (for instance, in a shareholder revolt or court-order forcing divestiture), Seiberling would still be regarded as the founder of both. It would be fair to mention who was involved in any such revolt or lawsuit, but Seiberling would still be regarded as the originator of both organization.

You also said: “What happened is that while the Irvine 'company' continued on, bit by bit, and over time, there were those who broke away from that 'company'. Obviously there were those quite happy to stay in that 'company' and they were quite able to because it still existed.” Perhaps if you are saying that if they started something new, but they didn't. Rather, they continued in the same method of ministry and meeting in the home which Irvine set up beginning in 1897. They didn't start anything new - same ministry, same convention grounds, same overseers, same method of meeting in homes, same hymnal, etc. So he is, by definition, the founder of the movement (no matter who broke away from whom).

Nor did Faith Mission teach, set up, or promote the method of ministry and meeting in the home Irvine established. FM pilgrim workers were paid stipends, were not required to sell all, could have homes, etc.; and the people who attended their revival meetings weren't required to meet in homes, but instead encouraged to attend a local church (in church buildings, no less) - among many other fundamental differences. The FM did not put itself forth as a church in any sense, as I said, and what Irvine instituted was nothing like “just making small adjustments to the Faith Mission.” • Astynax ^talk 06:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Jeffro77 who asks for a founder of the current group. I assume that you have read where John Hardie was the first to break from Irvine, and even though he may have been the first to make that move, and though over time many others also made that choice, I wouldn’t consider him to be the founder. I’m sure you are just like many others, and with carnal thoughts are convinced that the must be a human founder and don’t consider it possible that God could do such a thing, but either way, consider this: If there was a water hole that an animal finds, and comes to drink at it regularly, and another animal also finds that water hole and comes to drink there, and more and more animals find that water hole and drink there, and because they are there together and even start grazing together, and it even got to the point where animals started following those animals who knew where water hole was;

The question you might ask is who was the founder of that group of animals. They are only a group because they happened to be at the same water hole, so was it the water hole that founded the group? Without that waterhole the group wouldn’t exist. It wasn’t any particular animal that created the group, but it became a group because of the common interest. The animals were still individuals, and even though they were a group who portrayed common behaviors and travelled together, and it was organized and orderly, in no way does it mean that there must be a particular founder of that group.

You keep insisting that a human must be named as founder but that is not necessary. It appears that you stress that if it wasn’t Irvine then the only way you will accept that it wasn’t Irvine is if you can name another human to credit with being the founder but again, it isn’t necessary.

It is you who needs to back up this claim that Irvine is the founder, rather than continue with the erroneous use of logic to disguise the truth. I will now remove him as “founder” because it appears that this is the best way to prompt the continuation of this discussion. I have found that adding a dispute tag (which is what this is) only causes people to discuss the actual dispute tag, rather than the topic of dispute.

One last point, I realise that it doesn't only take a good man to do great things but some evil people have done great things too. My point was exactly as you say that great things, whether they be evil or good are worth noting in an encyclopedia, and it is quite proper to included mention of Irvine. I'm sorry that I mentioned that he was a good man in this discussion, but I didn't think it would be such a problem. I am not going to challenge you if you would rather than I made no further mention of him being good (Mark 10:18). Tmtsoj (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who needs to back up this claim that Irvine is the founder...This fact has been reasonably well substantiated with citations throughout. Perhaps there should be an article about this group that broke away from Irvine and has some other founder, earthly or not. This article appears to be about the group that Irvine founded.

Tmtsoj, your continued removal of this well-cited fact from the article -- with no fact or citation to replace it, but only your passionate argument that the cited fact is erroneous -- has become disruptive. Come up with a reliable source to document your argument, or I will begin to describe further removal of "Founder: William Irvine" as vandalism. --nemonoman (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, the article uses citations well (even though they are there is much inacurate information in those sources), and the history is documented as far as things that Irvine did, but I have been talking about the group who split away from Irvine and the "Irvinites", and this is the very group which is the subject of this article. As you will see above, time and time again after making this point, no one has responded to it. I am the last editor on a lot of the sections above, after making this very point. I don't see how the group who rejected Irvine's teaching, and ceased fellowship with any who wanted to continue in that belief, could be founded by the very one that they left.

My appologies for continuing to remove Irvine from the "Founder" field, but I have found that adding tags to the article to point to this discussion does not work. It only causes people to discuss the tag, rather than the point of dispute. Removing Irvine is the only thing that works effectively which is unfortunate because as I have said all along, I expected that editing would spark an edit war, but I was really left no choice, as I was told to remove the dispute tags. I still would like this discussion to continue because I have not had a satisfactory answer to how it is that Irvine is founder, but only very poor use of logic and bad analogies.

You commented that my removal of a fact without a fact to replace it is disruptive, but I fail to see why should it be left to me to find a name to go there. All that I can prove is that it wasn't Irvine, but if someone has more information than I do to prove there was someone who founded it, then they should feel free to add that to the article. I am just editing according to the information that I have. As you will see in the analogy I gave to Jeffro77, if individuals are drawn to a common thing, it may be that no one of those individuals are the founder of the resulting group. Tmtsoj (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax, your words in Italics;

Even supposing Goodyear split with a division of the company going its separate way (for instance, in a shareholder revolt or court-order forcing divestiture), Seiberling would still be regarded as the founder of both. It would be fair to mention who was involved in any such revolt or lawsuit, but Seiberling would still be regarded as the originator of both organization. – Yes I agree that Seiberling would be regarded as the founder if this is what happened, but a shareholder revolt or court-order forcing divestiture didn’t happen to Goodyear nor did it happen to this group, so it is not much point in using this as an example. As I have mentioned before, I think it very appropriate to mention Irvine, but he should be mentioned in his true capacity in relation to this group.

Perhaps if you are saying that if they started something new, but they didn't. Rather, they continued in the same method of ministry and meeting in the home which Irvine set up beginning in 1897. They didn't start anything new - same ministry, same convention grounds, same overseers, same method of meeting in homes, same hymnal, etc. So he is, by definition, the founder of the movement (no matter who broke away from whom). – In the example you gave of Goodyear, you noted that Seiberling went with his loyal people and his Goodyear stock. I also acknowledge that he continued in the rubber industry, and would have been using the same materials, the same tools, the same methods etc, to ultimately make the same products. Using the logic you used above, this would mean that Seiberling Rubber is really a continuation of Goodyear and not a separate company founded in 1921, but you use inconsistent logic to put your point of view across how it suits you.

Nor did Faith Mission teach, set up, or promote the method of ministry and meeting in the home Irvine established. FM pilgrim workers were paid stipends, were not required to sell all, could have homes, etc.; and the people who attended their revival meetings weren't required to meet in homes, but instead encouraged to attend a local church (in church buildings, no less) - among many other fundamental differences. The FM did not put itself forth as a church in any sense, as I said, and what Irvine instituted was nothing like “just making small adjustments to the Faith Mission.” - Note that Irvine was not the one to establish the meetings in the home. His principles were specifically about the ministry and the idea of following Matthew 10. Meetings in the home was not unique to this group as other groups were also meeting this way, and it was done in the bible, but to say that Irvine established “fundamental differences” to the Faith Mission, citing the meeting in the home as the difference at the time of his founding, is wrong because this was not the case. If you want to look at the truth you will see that there was very little that Irvine did regarding an immediate or sudden change, and this is very much in line with him and those with him who said “we are not starting anything new”. Even the Faith Mission sent out workers in pairs, and often people thought this was still the Faith Mission. The Faith Mission even found it necessary to write, to determine that this group was not the Faith Mission after Irvine had left them, so I’m really struggling to see how you justify your comment that what Irvine instituted was nothing like “just making small adjustments to the Faith Mission”. This is not true at all.

As it happens still today, there were latter ministers who set-up fellowship meetings to accommodate those who wanted to meet with other like believers, but this was not a product of Irvine’s and didn’t come until years later.

There were things that changed over time away from the Faith Mission, and people observe these differences and say that it was because Irvine started something new (despite him and attesting contrary to this). They will then observe differences between Irvine’s belief and those that broke away from him and then just call that “progressive change” rather than something new (despite a clear difference of belief). Again, this is obvious inconsistent use of logic, to maintain a particular point of view. Tmtsoj (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine's “true role” was founding/originating/establishing this group. This is remarked upon by people who were there, by newspapers during that time, a sworn statement by Edward Cooney prior to the breakup, later statements from Irvine himself, and even a much more recent published statement about it being started by a “Scottish preacher” by a very senior worker. This is as close to incontrovertible historical evidence as you get. Irvine may not have been the first to start meetings in the home, but he was the first to put it together with a method of ministry and other precepts to originate this group. That the Faith Mission would write to disassociate itself with a new movement which was not along their lines was natural, proof that it was markedly dissimilar (as indicated in their newsletter). Again, the schismatics who barred Irvine from the meetings and conventions under their control did not initiate anything different from what Irvine established and continued on just as before.

BTW, you've accused us of not discussing this topic multiple times, when in fact several of us have discussed your objections at length each time. I've personally spent quite a bit of time going through RS materials to show that Irvine was and is regarded as the founder. You haven't yet answered those. Perhaps we need to treat the subject of founder in much more detail within the article. If so, by now I have citations/sources both for the quotes I've given in the discussions above which could be added in, plus other materials not yet mentioned which confirm his role as founder, and I haven't yet touched upon the source material on the web. Seems redundant to give a lot of space to a single point. But if the point needs to be driven home, it may be worth it. • Astynax ^talk 05:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with this?

Please review these summaries of the disputed sections. 1. Irvine started a group. 2. The group grew. 3. There was a schism, as many group leaders broke with Irvine. 4. Eventually the group reconsolidated.

I for the life of me can't see how what is being stated here is wrong factually, or varies from the many many many many assertions that Irvine is not the founder of the group. As the summaries above show, the current group can trace origins back to a group founded by Irvine, that then rejected Irvine. Isn't that what's been stated over and over in this dispute discussion: This group rejected Irvine. And isn't that just what the article says???--nemonoman (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is going to be impossible to satisfy some within the group with anything short of substituting for the very solid historical record, the claim that this church was founded by Christ on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Other churches hold to the same sort of direct lineage going back to Christ as a matter of doctrine (see Landmarkism), so this situation is hardly unknown. It appears that some within the CC's are much more militant about denying their history than is the case in other groups. How far can, or should, that view be reflected in the article?

Not all CC's seem to hold tightly to that view, however. There are at least some who accept that Irvine founded the group, and yet others who attempt to compromise with a restorationist theory that God raised up Irvine and/or some others (a line equally offensive to those who believe in a direct line back to the New Testament, with an equal lack of citation). Tmtsoj seems to be completely and simply dismissing the clear historical record of Irvine having founded this group, based upon what has been said thus far, and all without giving any indication of what s/he believes is the correct story. That's really not a dispute or discussion as far as the founder, simply a blanket denial. Astynax (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj states outright, above, "As I continue to edit the article I will use [the bible] which is much more reliable than any modern documents" as means of support of the founder of this group. As the bible says nothing about Christian Conventions, Irvine, or the split, such interpretation of scripture is blatantly POV and original research. Arbitration may need to be involved if it continues, though I don't think we're quite at that point yet.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm getting there. --nemonoman (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman, just for the record here, it was you who moved the dispute tag to the particular section it is in, not me. You are becoming typical of the usual attackers of this group in that you have put your own incorrect view on how you think things are, only to then find fault with it. The truth is that things were never as you depicted. Again, is it possible to have a continuous discussion under the one section rather than this continued creation of new sections? It would be good to have a responce to what I have written above. If people can't argue these points, it causes me to assume I am quite right to edit as I have discussed. Tmtsoj (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I think this is one of the silliest picture choices on all of WP. (Human is also bad but that's another issue.) What is the purpose of a group picture with everyone's face blanked out? It would be much better to have no picture. My personal opinion of course. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is far from an ideal illustration (see my comment asking for something better above). I could have put up a picture of Irvine, as many denominations use a picture of their founder or some symbol. But the current group denies him and eschews all graphic symbols. At the time the infobox was added, I only had access to more recent pictures and pictures published in other works, all of which involve copyright issues. Someone had uploaded an old image for use in another article, and perhaps it might work better here. I went ahead and switched it. Astynax (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The new picture is much better. BTW I have never heard of these people before. I guess they flew under my radar screen so far, which is interesting since I am interested in religion and pay attention to different groups. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The literature on them usually lists them as either the “Two by Twos” or “Cooneyites” rather than “Christian Conventions” - and I came across this article because the first term redirects here, and the second links to here. Astynax (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

When cleaning up the article I purposely left out pre-existing Controversies and criticism sections. I did this because the material was not cited, and a requested reference had never been provided. Someone has just put up a couple of links to WP articles on coercion and mind control, which I assume might work if the article still contained reference to criticism that these were features of the group. So, I'm wondering if that is an indication that someone sees a need to restore any of the Controversies material? There is probably documentation somewhere for at least part of that material. But my thought was that this article might not be a good place for airing a discussion of seemingly on-going debates as reflected in previous criticism and controvery sections. • Astynax ^talk 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutral, and this hypothetical section would not substantially improve it. It would just invite an argument.--nemonoman (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right. If the controversies and criticism sections are left out, I think that the 2 links added in the See Also section may also be removed, unless the editor who inserted them wishes to explain how they fit into the article. Without any references to mind control or coercion as the article now stands, these links may just appear confusing to readers. • Astynax ^talk 05:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally created the section and moved everything POV into it, so that at least there would be a main NPOV body. It was a political decision. The current article has become fairly POV again as I have specifically noted in my commentary below, and will add to it as I find things that are coloured in POV. Slofstra (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of church

Another subject popping back up from past editors. Tmtsoj, your latest edits to the “Church name” section seem to be arguing a PoV in the article. This had already been discussed at length last year and before. All the senior Overseers have official, denominational stationery and are over areas where registrations have been made. Thus, trying to limit this to “sections” is needless.

Your edit seems to be re-arguing the stance that this is somehow not a “denomination.” It had already been noted that the group denies that it is a denomination, and that should be sufficient. But to everyone else, it would indeed be a denomination by definition, since no one disputes that names have been taken. Therefore, I'm restoring the previous version of this section. • Astynax ^talk 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax,

your latest edits to the “Church name” section seem to be arguing a PoV in the article. - Could you be more clear about your claim of POV, rather than only say that it "seems" to be POV. I am not going to argue either way because I agree that this would be the the point of view of most in the group, but there is nothing wrong with documenting the truth even if it is also the point of view.

All the senior Overseers have official, denominational stationery and are over areas where registrations have been made. - The overseers may have official stationary, but it is not representative of the entire group (evidenced by there being more than one name, and not in all countries), and therefore is not denominational.

Thus, trying to limit this to “sections” is needless. - The fact that these registrations are only in certain locations is the truth. Also that there isn't registrations in all countries where these people live is also the truth. We are documenting the truth here, and even though it may contradict some people's point of view, there is nothing wrong with documenting this truth, which shows that there isn't a denominational name.

Your edit seems to be re-arguing the stance that this is somehow not a “denomination.” - If you believe there is a denominational name, why is it not the title of the article, rather than using a name that by no means represents the entire group?

It had already been noted that the group denies that it is a denomination, and that should be sufficient. - I did not change the mention of how the group represents itself, but I removed what appeared to be subtle suggestions that the group was not being truthful in saying that they did not have a denominational name. It sounds to me like what you are would rather keep this suggestion there. And maybe that is why you want to avoid mention of sections, claiming it "needless", because it proves that there isn't a denominational name.

But to everyone else, it would indeed be a denomination by definition, since no one disputes that names have been taken. - Yes, names have been taken and this is still very clear in the article, but to say that the group has a denominational name because of multiple registrations that was required for conscientious objector and various other interactions with governments, is not true, especially considering the names are not related, nor are they taken in all places.

If you think that there is something unfactual about what is there currently, let's talk about it here, but it is not right to remove facts as "needless" especially if they go towards decribing the truth, and prevent a wrong impression that the group is lying about a denominational name. Tmtsoj (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj, it was you who removed facts without any discussion. Your first sentence (i.e., “a denominational name has never been taken by the group”) reflects your PoV, rather than fact (i.e., that no one disputes that the group has registered under denominational names). Indeed, one of the denominational names use is the title of this article. The archives show a lot of space has already been devoted pointlessly (IMO) to redefining the word “denomination” to support the strange concept that a church which takes official, denominational names is somehow not a denomination. The article ended up under the U.S. denominational name, and a peek at the archives will show that this ended as the consensus. That it has taken different official names in different nations is in no way different from other denominations. That they have only been taken in areas where it was required (for whatever reason) is also nothing different from many other denominations. As to the group “lying about a denominational name,” the article never said any such thing. But that the church has denominational names, and that the group denies that they have any name, are fact - seemingly irreconcilable, but facts nonetheless. • Astynax ^talk 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now that the thing you don’t quite understand is the meaning of the word “denominational”, and also the extent and purpose of the various registrations.

The first thing to note is that there is no name representing the entire group, and therefore there is not a denominational name. Because we are writing an encyclopedia here, we should use the correct meaning of words, and the truth is that a denominational name has never been taken, and this is how I documented it.

Secondly, historical discussion shows the debate about the title of this article, and yes, it was decided to select the name used in one of the government registrations, but if there was a denominational name as you insist there is, why wasn’t the denominational name used? Clearly the fact that this very discussion took place shows that there isn’t a denominational name otherwise that would have been a logical choice. The fact that consensus was reached between a few deliberating on a discussion page, it is laughable for you to suggest that this must mean that it is (or has become) the denominational name.

It appears to be your desire to claim both that the group insists that they don’t have a denominational name, along with that there is a denominational name. The truth is that there has never been a denominational name taken, and most of the group would have never heard of the names of these government registrations, let alone having made some form of association of themselves to these names (having not ever had a need to).

I will revert to my previous edit of this section as it has correct use of the word “denomination”, to reflect the truth. Tmtsoj (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tmtsoj: the situation with the CC church being discussed here is no different than other denominations. Would you, or anyone else, claim that the Church of England is not a denomination just because it has taken different official names in different nations? Of course not. And the same is true of most denominations. That this church has taken the name “Christian Conventions” in one nation, and “Assemblies of Christians” in another doesn't at all mean that it somehow ceases to be a denomination. Rather, the act of taking a name (or names) makes it a denomination by definition. It is also a highly organized group, as you've stated, which claims to follow the same beliefs and practices. The parts are both in a formal relationship and communication with each other. It doesn't really matter whether most in the group know of the names, or whether there are people who deny the names, they have been officially taken. It fits the definition of the word “denomination” exactly, and I see no logic or reason behind making a false pretense otherwise. • Astynax ^talk 08:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 'denomination' since the term implies a sub-class of the Protestant movement. But the Roman Catholic church is not a denomination, is it? Neither is this movement. The problem with the word 'denomination' is that it implies 'Protestant' and generally implies reciprocal recognition of other denominations which is not the case here. Slofstra (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with such reworking and parsing of standard definitions. No “reciprocal recognition of other denominations” is required to be considered a denomination, nor are denominations restricted to Protestantism (though the vast majority of sects - including the CC's - belong to that branch). The group adopted and used recognized official names beginning with WWI, which makes those “denominational” names. • Astynax ^talk 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism

Baptism by one of their ministers is considered a necessary step for full participation as a member in the group. Candidates approved by the local “workers” are baptised by immersion.[29]

CRITICISM -

The statement as presented is an inference made by the original writer. It's a much more complex issue and there is no central teaching on the point. The expression "Full participation" is vague and inaccurate. For example, members who have not been baptized may speak in meetings. The idea of worker approval of baptism is a common criticism of the group, but there is no "de facto" process by which workers approve initiates.

SUGGESTED CHANGE -

Generally speaking, baptism by immersion by one of the group's ministers is necessary before members can share bread and wine with the group. Initiates who have been baptised by other denominations, especially as an infant, are usually re-baptized when joining the fellowship. Slofstra (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it permissable anywhere for anyone other than a Worker to baptise? Is it the case anywhere that an outsider can enter the group, profess and the worker is compelled to baptise with no other consideration or requirement? If not, then the existing language is accurate. You seem to be reading a lot into that brief statement. It also seems that sharing in “the bread and wine” ceremony would be a part of “full participation,” would it not? Your expansion of the language seems reasonable, but we'd need to cite a source on the rebaptism issue, since that will be an important doctrinal point and observation in the eyes of those outside the group. • Astynax ^talk 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read 'full participation' as 'any participation', but I see what you mean, so I agree with that statement. Still "bread and wine" is more accurate since that is the one privilege held back from the non-baptized. The practice of re-baptism is to the best of my knowledge; there is no citation. I wouldn't think you would disagree with that. The answer to your second question is no, there is no compulsion to baptise. But "approval" is not the right word for the process.Slofstra (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps “with the workers' consent” or “at such time as allowed by the workers”? Are there no other points of participation which are barred from non-baptised professing persons? I would assume that a non-baptised person would not be accepted as a minister, elder, etc. As you mention it, I seem to recall some mentions of rebaptism in the early newspaper accounts. Since this position has not likely changed over the years, we could cite one of those. • Astynax ^talk 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have this debate backwards. You're the one who is supposed to be arguing that there is 're-baptism' since it's symptomatic of exclusivist tendencies within the group. :) I think we're getting closer on the 'approval' point. Say, "Converts are baptized by immersion, once evidence of the guidance of the Spirit is witnessed by the workers." A bit awkward; I think you can see where I'm going. It's not totally at the discretion of the workers; their power to refuse or accept is constrained. I concede on the 'full participation' point. Slofstra (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christology

Since the group's inception, it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.[30] Though they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they have a unitarian view of Christ.[31] The Holy Ghost is held as an attitude or force from God. Jesus is preached as God's son, a fully human, even god-like (i.e., “divine,” though not God Himself[32][33]), figure who came to earth to establish a way of ministry and salvation.

CRITCISM - Unitarian has incorrect connotations about the divinity of Christ. The description is an obviously writer-centric opinion of the teaching, and inaccurate.

SUGGESTED CHANGE -

The group teaches that God is represented as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The group does not explicitly teach the Trinity doctrine; senior preachers will work through the Biblical narrative of the pre-birth Christ as found in Proverbs 8, John 1, Hebrews 1 and 2. They accept Christ's teaching in the Gospel of John as literally correct. They also preach a risen and now interceding Christ. Various comments and opinions exist within the group on the Trinity doctrine; there is no consensus of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slofstra (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to the connotations, other than some might jump to the conclusion that the term references the Unitarian Church. The unitarian view does indeed reflect the stance of everything I've heard and read from people involved with the group. I suppose we could just say "nontrinitarian" - although that term encompasses several views aside from the unitarian position I've seen. Obviously, that is also what Melton stated in the citation, so it seems not just an exceptional observation. This isn't an unimportant point to readers, and I would think to members as well. I personally find the edits obfuscate the group's view, rather than adding anything. • Astynax ^talk 22:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single predominating view on the subject of Trinitarianism; the group think is neither for or against Trinitarianism. I'm not sure what you've read and heard, but it smacks of interpretation rather than reportage. Many workers and friends are not particularly up on this point of mainstream church doctrine. I don't know why this point is particularly important to mention here. I suppose to a Hindu, what the group thinks about reincarnation is important, but we don't see any point of mentioning that. Why would Trinitarianism be important to anyone other than a theology student in a largely secular world? Slofstra (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding? But in case not, I assume that a group supposedly following Jesus should naturally be concerned with whether or not that Jesus was God, man, or some combination. Very curious that you posit that it is not so. Again, there are cited sources for that info (and there could be more if you like), and the statement really doesn't go further than that. What would be the interpretation and reportage you claim would be to offer the unsupported alternative you've proposed. • Astynax ^talk 23:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks are confined narrowly to Trinitarianism, which appears to be important to you. The question of Jesus as man and as God, is an important one to the group. I have heard workers say that Jesus is God, and I have heard otherwise, but not very often. But there are many theories and varieties of theories that accept Jesus as God without approaching full blown Trinitarianism. Notably Arianism and its various forms. Trinitarianism is a highly elaborated and specific theory. One of its contentious points is that Christ existed with God in pre-historical eternity, rather than being a personification "begotten by God" at some point in time. I would venture to say that most workers and friends will not give you an answer to this question and have not thought a great deal about it. You'd find it difficult to determine if they were Trinitarians, Arians, or neither one. Trinitarians insist that God and Christ always co-existed, that Christ was not begotten of God. There is a great deal of contention today within established churches on the validity of Trinitarianism. The dominant emerging historical case is that Trinitarianism was a political solution, not a theological solution. I personally don't find the theory spiritually compelling in the least, though it is interesting strictly as a socio- political question in the history of the early church. Slofstra (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly something which would be important to a reader looking at any Christian sect. Friends of my acquaintance who grew up in this group actually have discussed this, and they have all (to a person) supported the unitarian (rather than a trinitarian) view. They didn't seem confused or offended at all, and some went on to explain the reasons behind that. A couple first consulted with their workers before answering, but answer they did. They seemed surprised that other churches (apart from the Roman Catholic) would disagree. That aligns with what is stated in the cited materials. And that this isn't something recent is also supported. Moreover, I see some workers being touted as trinitarians over on TMB who were far from any such thing (according to the convention notes distributed which I still have). Makes no sense either, if the group has trinitarian leanings, that the words to hymns authored by trinitarian outsiders were changed in the 1987 edition to eliminate remaining trinitarian traces. Since this is, as you've said, would be important to them, I suspect that there is a fairly solid understanding and general agreement on a position. Exceptions, I'd certainly expect that, particularly among new initiates. • Astynax ^talk 09:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you describe the Christology of the movement, since you've discussed it and obtained a consensus from your friends? Not in terms of what it is not, but in terms of what it is? I'm not sure what you mean by "Trinitarian leanings" above. Trinitarianism is a highly specific exegesis. I'm not sure you can "lean" to it any more than you can be somewhat pregnant. I've discussed Christology with friends in many different parts of the world and listened to sermons for 30 years and the most accurate statement I think could be made is to say that the ministry is reluctant to provide answers to questions the Bible does not answer directly. The concern here is that we're taking a concern of mainstream Christian scholarship and trying to graft that onto this fellowship. I'd add that you can readily exist in this fellowship with whatever theory of Christology you wish; there's no specific doctrine on it. There might very well be pockets of unitarians within the fellowship, but it's by no means universal. Incidentally, my own theology is that the question of the exact relationship of God and Jesus is indeterminable because 1) the evidence is contradictory and 2) the subject is unknowable because we don't fully understand notions of eternity and infinity. Slofstra (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax, check this link, page 12. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what has been said in the cited sources, as well as from what I've heard from the friends and read in convention notes, I think the unitarian view sums it up neatly, though I can see some might confuse the term with the church that goes by that name. I don't think those I've spoken with would have a problem with the explanation of the group's view put forth in the “Trinity” section in the link you gave. They would certainly object that the author seems to be making an argument for a view contrary to their own. Is this book available in print (looks like a draft), and are you proposing to use it as a citation?

The exchanges I personally have experienced focused on Christ/Jesus, and that section also goes into much more detail regarding trinitarian views (e.g., whether the Holy Spirit is God or a person) that I cannot confirm. However, I mention those conversations and materials (going back over decades, but some as recent as last month) only to say that they uphold the statement in the article and the citations from which the statement derives. And, as I've stated, I personally know of a couple of people whose trinitarian views led to excommunication (or whatever you want to call being forbidden to take part and being told they were “not saved” by the workers involved). That some may not adhere to the groups general Christology is a given (you'll find differences in many other groups), though that does not mean that the group does not hold to a standard in this regard. The nontrinitarian view has been observed over a long time, at least since the time in the citation. Melton sees a strong influence from the Christadelphians, who also hold to a unitarian view.

As to “trinitarian leanings,” I was referring to references in the hymnal which seemed to reflect a trinitarian view (phrases something along the line of “Christ our God” and/or similar which were purged in the '87 edition) which had originated in hymns originally written by members of other denominations and imported back when the first hymnals were compiled using a mix of Faith Mission hymns, traditional hymns re-worked by members, and new hymns. What other reason would there be for the workers to have targetted those specific phrases, except that they would seem to support doctrine not accepted? Seems odd for a group that has no standards as to Christology to specifically eliminate trinitarian phrases. • Astynax ^talk 17:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanted you to read the section on Theology on page 12, which is more in accord with my reading of the issue. The section on the Trinity accords largely with your views. I've heard and read of Unitarian views held in some quarters, and I believe those quarters are the Western and Midwestern States. To the best of my knowledge, those views are not universally held within the group. Here's another interesting link on the subject: [5]. The link indicates that George Walker preached "Jesus is God". Don't misconstrue this as pro-Trinity. It is not. But from the article, "unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity, of Jesus". I've never heard that preached or said, myself. Good discussion. Slofstra (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed 'When I Survey' since I was very young and in a different denomination, so the change from "Christ my God" to "Christ my Lord" is quite pointed. "Christ my God" is nowhere in the Bible, and to my thinking, quite incorrect, therefore the correction to "Christ my Lord", which is Biblical. To say the change is representative of a specific Christology goes too far. I agree with you that it is important to say that the group does not preach Trinitarian doctrine. I think saying they preach against it is going too far; in thirty years of preaching I've never heard the word 'Trinity' come up. Slofstra (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'm just reading an interesting book by noted scholar Marcus Borg who argues that Jesus himself would not have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. Slofstra (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.136.134 (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIVING WITNESS

I wonder about statements like the following: "The term Living Witness Doctrine itself is no longer used in most areas, although it remains an underlying principle." This might be correct or not correct, but it is a supposition offered without any support. It is also very vague. I think the Living Witness doctrine is a very interesting topic, but one could easily write 2-3000 words for and against the writer's hypothesis. I'm sympathetic to the point, but wonder if wiki is the right place for this. Slofstra (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be more information on the Living Witness doctrine itself. A good source here - [7]

We could add a reference to that site, but really it is more of an explanation of where the doctrine came from, rather than for how the concept is used today. The sources cited both show that, should anyone wish to explore further. But I can personally think of no objection to adding a citation to TTT site here. • Astynax ^talk 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the Living Witness as underlying principle today is just an opinion. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it's unsupported. If you want to make that statement it should be fleshed out somewhat on the historical side and on its influence. Then we could argue further. Or else remove it.Slofstra (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could drop the LW term and leave the explantion, although at least some members such as yourself seem to be conversant with the term and how it fits into the beliefs held. Might your qualms be based upon the term seeming unfamiliar to current members? I hadn't heard the term used in my contacts with group members decades ago, but the concept (i.e., the necessity for hear and seeing the “gospel” through the workers, with verses quoted to support that) was certainly stated. Certainly seems still to be a strong principle as stated in the source cited. • Astynax ^talk 23:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I would rather see more on it. Read over the source above - it's very good on this particular subject. The statement "it remains as an underlying principle" should be sharpened a little. I think I'd rather see a section on "exclusivity of the ministry", what is meant by that, i.e. that only ministers who go along 'faith lines' as described in Matthew 10 can save people, the LWD analogy and its implications on the exclusivity of the ministry, the confrontation between Irvine and John Long, and exclusivity and the group today.Slofstra (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy

Control rests in the hands of a small group of senior male Overseers, each of whom exercises authority over a specific geographic region. Within the sphere controlled by each senior Overseer are junior male Head Workers who hold overseership of a single state, province or similar area. In turn, each Head Worker assigns companions and fields to the Workers within his domain. The more experienced of the pair of Workers has authority over the junior companion. Each pair of Workers has charge over several local meetings within the field assigned to them. Elders who host the local meetings in their homes report to the Workers. Correspondence, such as reporting, financing matters, and other instructions are channeled via this hierarchy. Length of membership, family connections, wealth, and other factors can contribute or detract from the standing of members, elders and workers within the group.[46]

SUGGESTED REWRITE - I have tried to use specific, plain English and non-contentious factual statements in my writing. The biggest lack in the above is that the explanation is not clear on the concerns of the overseers - it sounds kind of draconian as presented but on the other hand there have been issues around the church leadership, and my suggested rewrite below might sound too idyllic to critics of the group. The writer has also injected a lexicon never used within the fellowship. The last three sentences are purely opinion - a kind of sociological reading with some merit, but not factual in nature.

Suggested heading - Organization of the workers

The overall administration of the fellowship is performed by senior Overseers, all currently male, each of whom is in charge of a specific geographic region. There are perhaps 30-50 overseers world-wide at the present time (I think the best guess should be given). Workers are assigned to their fields by the overseers, two to each field. A field may be a specific area with established meetings; generally from 5 to 25 established meetings in a field, or it may consist of an assignment to the "harvest field" in an area with few or no established meetings. Only workers who feel they have been called to this purpose by God and make this known are assigned to the "harvest field". Slofstra (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatherings

For some reason the plain and simple writing of Eddie Tor was removed and replaced with a fairly opinionated description of the meetings. I prefer the original and the easiest would be to delete the new description since it is inferior to the original. I'm not sure why the writer did not work with what was already there. I have restored the original text but discussion will be required on how to best resolve the redundancy. Slofstra (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I might be considered presumptuous in reinserting the original text but it was there for a couple of years without complaint, and the wholesale deletion or substitution of these sections is questionable in my view. I feel that I'm correct in restoring. I have no personal ownership or vested interest in this text and do not know the author other than that his nom de plume is "Eddie Tor". I believe it was well written and the author took extreme care in the task. Slofstra (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information there had been amalgamated and whittled down to that for which citations were available. Even in the abbreviated form, there remained statements with which tmtsoj had problems, which resulted in some further paring. Long heading titles were pared to display better on small screens. The redundant material does nothing for the article, and citable info would be better merged than simply restored into the present mess. • Astynax ^talk 09:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A premise of wiki is that you work with the material that is there rather than replace it wholesale. I feel you went too far in deleting material in the article, which is why I restored those sections. In other cases what you've added is far superior to what was there. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent for the material I restored. Your description of Gatherings has POV issues, which I would prefer to avoid challenging by going back to the original material. My suggestion is that you work with what was there in the specific case of the topics restored. It would mean the loss of only a small section of your writing, and a consolidation, not loss of some other sections. The article would improve as a whole, given that the material there is reworked. I think you've done a good job in citing your work, but you are faced with the same problem; those are not RS in your citations. If we start following the letter of the law on citations there'll be no article at all. I found out the hard way that there is plenty of flexibility in how WP:V is implemented, and if you like I'll provide some reading for you on this. What do you say we get Donoma and/or Nemonoman's input on this? The issue could use some outside perspective. Slofstra (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. It will take a little while for me to do this however. Non-wiki life: what a drag....--nemonoman (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just had a quick glance. Needs a more thorough review than this, but this item sort of jumps off the page: The information is very pleasant and informative, but basically completely lacking in any citations. I have no reason to doubt or mistrust this information, which appears very credible. But what do I know. I've seen a lot of stuff kicked into this article in the very short while I've been involved, and some of that seemed much less credible. Still it seems to me that if uncited info is the norm, then anyone's uncited edits should be included. And having been over some of the history of this article, that looks like an occasion of sin. Can't we all just get along? and if we can't can we at least find some RS that validates those long, interesting restores?

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

Actually wiki editing policies state exactly that: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information. And the complete statement, check the page, is: Be bold, but be not too bold. :) It is kind of like saying 'Use common sense'. Encouragement to beginners, that is all. The practical problem, and forgive me if you have not run across this, is that the fellowship publishes nothing. And I mean: nothing. And they discourage the publication of anything that represents or purports to represent the fellowship or its beliefs in any way. The other issue, is the quality of the sources that are used. The only reliable sources on the group are a few one paragraphers in encyclopedia's. Lots of primary source material up until about 1915. Then that cuts off. See my note below on the sources heavily used in this article from R.I.S. What's the difference between a citation from a non-RS and no citation at all. None. I'm not saying we shouldn't use the non-RS sources; but let's cut a little slack on a topic like "Order of Worship" which is plain, uncontentious fact. Slofstra (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed things in “Order of Worship” and other restored sections which have since been challenged (see tmtsoj's edits) and removed. Most of the material was carried over when the article was reworked and the material cited. I personally don't find much new or enlightening there, and more than I would think an ordinary reader would wish to know (I cannot find articles on other sects which go to such lengths to describe procedures followed in their services). But am fine with merging so long as new stuff can be cited. We're not going back to a completely uncited article left hanging out there to be summarily deleted by whoever wishes. • Astynax ^talk 22:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see more and more material that has been removed entirely. For some reason Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information was not followed. It is true that the restored material needs to be re-organized and also could stand to be shortened somewhat. Again, none of the material was written by me. Noted that reference to George Walker's important letter is gone. Someone had inserted the entire letter at one time, but I had shortened it to a key line or two.Slofstra (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slofstra, I am not at all convinced that "try to fix/improve" overrules Reliable Sources and No Original Research. I came to this article based on a request on the NPOV notice-board, so I am an editor only, not a contributor. As a principle editor (and contributor) of a couple of GAs, I can tell you that good editors asks for sources, and remove material that can't be sourced. I've got a ton of 'hearsay' info about the Taj Mahal, really great stuff -- and it's in my diaries, based on talks with Indian scholars and experts -- that was in the article and is now deleted because there were no reliable secondary sources. And I pissed and moaned, but I have learned to live with it. Because even though I am honest and reliable, I see that lots of bad and unreliable information is constantly being inserted in that article by contributors with an agenda -- in this case Hindutva, a sort of nasty political movement. And the RS and No OR aspects of Wiki Policy provide the solid backbone for a reasonably factual resource.

So I'm not convinced. In fact, au contraire, as an editor with no dog in the fight whatsover, I'll be removing the unsourced material when I get around to it. --nemonoman (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I argue in the Non-controversial statements section, there are no comprehensive, reliable sources for the article. The entire founder argument inserted by astynax is based on OR. What you have now is a nicely cited article based on WP:SPS. So there is no case of using OR or RS to overrule fix/improve. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-controversial statements

Can we agree to the principle that non-controversial statements do not need to be cited? Actually nothing here meets WP:V even with the footnotes which generally all reference one set of self-published works. Slofstra (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) That way, we can focus on whether a statement is NPOV or not, as opposed to the quality of the citation, which should have a secondary focus. If so, I will remove the [citation required] tags, which were maliciously inserted by an anti-group POV writer. Slofstra (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already made the same complaint that everything is self-published and/or non-RS - untrue. As for not citing sources, that certainly gets the article nowhere. No one here is able, even by consensus, to designate some things as "non-controversial." It doesn't work anywhere else on Wikipedia, and certainly won't here. We've gone through yet another round of identifying controversial statements, and you've raised some further points, so I'd think it would be better to discuss those. • Astynax ^talk 00:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a complaint so much, but all we have to go on. I would say that if you don't allow non-sourced non-controversial material, you won't have an article. There is no simple description of the group, its practices and beliefs, basic information that can be sourced, which was the original strength of this article. Without that all you'll have is a compendium of controversies, since almost all the secondary material was written with a specific agenda in mind, 99% of it anti- the group. In point of fact, I believe that wikipedia is largely built on non-RS sources and RS is not rigidly observed. RS are supposed to be reliable secondary sources, correct? There are huge debates floating around about this, some of which are referenced on my talk page. I do believe that controversial points be sourced, and that we source as best we can. But there is much of significant import that cannot be sourced. Building consensus still carries far more weight than sourcing. Slofstra (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the group defies description without relying on uncited statements is getting wearisome, aside from being in violation of Wiki standards regarding original research. A source does not have to have no viewpoint or even an encyclopedic, neutral viewpoint to be considered reliable by Wiki or any standards. Neither are the sources you've mentioned neutral by any means. If you take a look around at other articles touching on religion or other subjects, you'll find most rely on sources that aren't necessarily to the taste of one or another faction. Your past objection to everything from books to websites is too restrictive, as was noted by others. There would be no articles on groups ranging from JW's to Margaret Thatcher were it not for such materials. The article gathers material for which citations can be found, and the idea is to make sure that the article content (not the sources) is NPoV. If the text is accurate and supported by the source cited, then that is not a problem. As for text within the article that is not accurate, then that definitely should be discussed. • Astynax ^talk 08:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons your sources are not RS has nothing to do with point of view. They are self-published works. Material cited from a non-RS source, such as another web site or a self-published work, carries no more weight than material which has no citation at all. If you permit the former, you should permit the latter. This case is unique in that the church publishes nothing and there is very little RS material. If you like we can take the sections I restored, place them on a legitimate web site, and then cite that web site. Would that satisfy you? I won't bother responding to your assessment of my previous position. I think we agree that POV and accuracy issues are more important than sourcing in this case. However, controversial statements should always be sourced from a RS. Slofstra (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard that the Parker book was self-published, though I cannot confirm (MacArthur Press is what appears on the title verso, though I have no personal knowledge whether that company was merely paid to print or actually published). But Parkers are well-cited in other works, which Wiki allows as an RS. Your contention that the materials cited are self-published seems to stretch the definition of self-published to speculate on say, Roberts' relationship to the Trimble company, or Benton having some pull with JAI, or Fortt/Daniel subsidising the Research Information Service company for those books, or Melton having subsidized Gale company to print his encyclopedia, or the authors of All in Good Faith being self-published because their authors are closely involved with the Dair Rioga. Not that all self-published material is forbidden (some such are even considered primary source material), but I question whether your repeated contention is accurate - doesn't fit with my info. Like the materials available for other small to medium-sized denominations, demand for publications dealing with them is miniscule, so no one expects best sellers with a MacGraw Hill imprint. As for materials cited on the web, those are photographs of primary sources, also allowable as RS. • Astynax ^talk 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favour of using these sources. But let's not say they are RS when they are not. It has nothing to do with the money involved or the print size run. It's really a question of whether editors, lawyers and/or academics were involved, and the recognition the author has an authority. Most of these writers are self-proclaimed experts. WP:V is much more relaxed in practice than wiki standards indicate, so I think we make the best use of what there is. The main bone of contention between us is still whether unsourced writing should be permitted in the article. I prefer allowing it in cases where no other source is at hand. Slofstra (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the reason I say these books are 'self-published' is that generally the so-called 'publisher' has published only one book, or at most a few books on the movement, and nothing else on any other subject. Either that or an obvious vanity press. For example, your writing relies heavily on two books from Research and Information Services, but when I look at their entire book list here [8], I see that it consists entirely of a few books written on the fellowship and nothing else. Their site is also highly polemical. So my RS skept-o-meter is running very high on anything else that you claim to be RS. Slofstra (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly what you find and expect for published material sourced for other articles and research material on small to medium sized sects (as well as many other topics outside religion). There aren't large publishers who take on such subject matter - understandable given that there is there little to no market for them. And that authors or publisher sites do not reflect a non-neutral viewpoint is irrelevant. You raise a very high bar for RS that is impossible to meet for almost any article, and not just this one. This doesn't need to sink into Wikilawyering. • Astynax ^talk 20:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple. Are these works self-published or not? Is R.I.S. a legitimate publisher looking to sell books, or just a couple of writers on a mission. Why the focus on ONLY the Christian Conventions group? What credentials do they have? What is your personal association with R.I.S?Slofstra (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not raising the bar; I'm trying to lower the bar. Non-RS is okay by me.Slofstra (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'll add something on your comment "your past objection to everything from books to websites is too restrictive". I don't disagree with that, but you have to understand that the article was constantly being damaged with negative POV opinions. Ask Donoma. Some of them are in the archive discussion; most are not, but they are in the change log. I basically said "enough is enough" and insisted rigidly on WP:V. Personally, I've not written anything in the article, other than a little wording and clean-up. I'd rather just play clean-up on other people's writing. Anyway, this is a new day.Slofstra (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories