Talk:Two by Twos

Good Article

Hi everyone; I've spent the last couple of hours reading through the archives of this talk-page, which at the time must have been an exercise in frustration for everyone involved. I just thought I would congratulate everyone on the final outcome here which is a decent article that gels with most of my experiences growing up in the religion. It is exceedingly hard to find information on the 'truth' so it's good to get so many people working on synthesising all of the disparate sources. Had I more wiki-fu I would contribute myself. Incidentally I'd like to give a shout out to anyone else from West Australia (friend or non-friend) who haunts this page (I know at least one person does). 203.38.24.65 (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced Article

As per the tag I have placed on the top of the article, please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints. This includes information regarding the missing facts that it was actually John Long who was the first to go out in faith and without a formal wage after discussing Matt 10 with William Irvine. It was also John Long who arranged the first mission. This article misses some information that was very instrumental to the events at the time. I am happy to start making small additions to this article if that is OK by all interested parties. Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning above does not show that the article should be tagged as "unbalanced". What has changed since your previous serial di spute tagging on the same points (as any detailed look at the archives will show)? You undoubtedly are still aware that John Long was a Methodist coleporteur during the time the Two by Twos were founded (even after he claimed to have gone "out in faith"). His diary notes that he did eventually resign his coleporteurship a year or two later, and took it up again following his ouster from the Two by Twos, eventually becoming a noted Pentecostal preacher. He did claim to have obtained venues for Irvine. Omission of those minor details does not unbalance the article, as they 1. are at best interesting side notes; 2. do not affect the issue of who founded the sect, since Long himself denied being the founder, instead attributing that role to Irvine; 3. rely on primary source material that Wiki editors are not allowed to synthesize/interpret or use as citations for statements; and 4. are not supported by third party reliable sources that make the claim that Long was "the first to go out in faith and without a formal wage". • Astynax ^talk 09:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, here is a bit of history for you that is easily verified. John Long and William Irvine both studied Matt10 together, but it was John Long who had the conviction to go out in faith, and did such. This was even despite Irvine's desire for Long to Join him in the Faith Mission. This is more than just an interesting side note as the article in it's current form, would give the impression that this was entirely and only William Irvine's doing. This is not a balanced representation of what really happened and it is better to let the reader see all the facts than only those that support a particular point of view. 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not "easily verified". It is only arrived at from a particular PoV synthesis of a primary source which is not supported by secondary or tertiary sources as required by Wikipedia policies. You have argued on this invalid basis before in defense of your tagging this article. The tag should not be there, period. • Astynax ^talk 20:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How could you possibly know whether I can easily verify it or not? This information is in at least two of the sources cited for the relevant section of the article. This information is deliberately left out, and that makes it an unbalanced article, and this is exactly what the unbalanced tag is for. Don't make this a discussion about whether the tag should be there it not. Leave it there and start discussing the points that I have raised above. 0oToddo0 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't raised a point based upon cited references, merely your synthesis of a claim made by a primary source. Even if you have a reliable source that claims that "it was John Long who had the conviction to go out in faith, and did such", you have not made a case showing how that makes the article "unbalanced". Instead, you have, as in previous instances and without discussion or references, simply slapped an unsupported tag on the article. • Astynax ^talk 00:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

One point I have raised is that it was actually John Long who had the revelation to go in faith from their Matt 10 study, and he did this despite Irvine wanting him to join the Faith Mission. Another point is that it was John Long who arranged the first mission. This is a very brief outline, but I just wanted to explain why the article is unbalanced. As I said at the start, I am happy to start adding this information (and yes, I will be citing reliable sources), but I don't want people like Astynax making it near impossible by playing his political games like he did with my "special meetings" edit, and making all sorts of unreasonable demands that he doesn't expect of others, or comply with himself. Let's discuss this calmly and logically and create a good article, that, as closely as possible, represents the truth. 0oToddo0 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is your point that John Long is the founder of the Two by Twos (rather than William Irvine as nearly all references state)? Nothing has stopped you from presenting your source here (or in your previous disputes over this well-established fact), so save yourself some frustration and lay out your source now. It would be highly curious if a "reliable source" would state something that Long himself refuted, so I'd welcome taking a look at any such source. If that is not the reason you find the article "unbalanced" then how does a factoid about John Long's convictions have any impact on the article's balance—or is it something else? • Astynax ^talk 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that John Long was the founder. John Long didn't consider himself the founder. No one else I know is suggesting that John Long was the founder, and I am not about to go looking for a reference that says this, because I don't think there would be one. The point I raised is that it was actually John Long who had the revelation to go in faith from their Matt 10 study, and he did this despite Irvine wanting him to join the Faith Mission. Another point is that it was John Long who arranged the first mission. What is interesting here is that you concluded from these points that I was suggesting that John Long was the founder, and you will now see how vital this information is to getting an accurate picture of what really happened. Yes, John Long was very instrumental to the events of that period, but the article doesn't reflect just how big of a part he played. So big a part it was that, when I mentioned just two points of his part, you thought I was suggesting that he was the founder. Wouldn't the readers of this article want to know of this huge part of this period?... YES. Isn't the article unbalanced if this viewpoint is neglected?... YES. Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for articles that are unbalanced?... YES. Let's put it up there until we can balance this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0oToddo0 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no reliable source puts John Long in the position of playing "a huge part". As has been stated before on these pages, the only source for Long's thoughts and activities is Long's own diary, redacted a couple of decades later. That is precisely why editors are not allowed to use primarly sources: because it only gives one party's viewpoint during the brief encounters between Long and Irvine. It does not tell us what was going through William Irvine's head, whether Irvine may have already been thinking and acting along those lines, when Irvine got "the revelation", whether Irvine used the passage to open Long's eyes to the idea, etc. All of that requires synthesis of several sources and editors here are not allowed to do that. We rely only on what secondary and tertiary sources have stated. • Astynax ^talk 18:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop assuming I am going to use John Long's diary as a source. I have never said this. You continue to argue about things I have never said. Start replying to the things I am saying and we might be able to make a little bit of ground on this. Also, if you are that worried about it, I won't even say that John Long "had a big part", but I will just tell the facts as they are told in sources that are already cited in the article. You need to stop being so afraid of the truth here, but I am happy to compromise and let the reader come to their own conclusion about whether he did or didn't play a big part. Either way this article is still badly unbalanced and you need to leave the tag in place until this unbalance is fixed. It seems from your reverting of my other small edits while making demands of me that you aren't making of others o yourself, that you are going to play games the whole way along here, so according to Wikipedia's guidelines, I will tag the article so that other editors can get involved. Don't hinder this process of improving this article with your continual and unwarranted removal of the tag. 0oToddo0 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, Do you have anything further that you want to discuss on the proposed addition of the points I mentioned above? Just to reclarify some of your concerns above... Yes, I will cite reliable sources, and No, I will not be changing the founder detail. All I will be doing is adding information relative to the period of 1897-1901. Are you OK with that? Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have something further: don't re-add the unbalanced tag as consensus is against re-adding it. More proactively, let's work to make the article more balanced. Winkelvi (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, if you have new information, and can add it without inserting your own synthesis, it is valid to bring that up here. Your claim as to John Long being the "first to go out in faith and without a formal wage" is not supported even by John Long himself. You seem to ignore that he did join the Faith Mission, even though not as a "pilgrim", and kept up his membership in that organization his entire time as a Two by Two worker and for many years afterward. He also kept his position as a Methodist colporteur for over a year following the 1897 Bible study with Irvine, which he identifies as initiating his own thinking regarding the matter of "going out on faith lines" (which was, coincidentally, already a Faith Mission term for its ministry's method). Long did not, before or after his term as a Two by Two member, espouse anything similar to Two by Two doctrine or practice (other than to do a great deal of traveling among churches in the Pentecostal movement), and he was expelled because he rejected some Two by Two claims. There isn't any solid evidence that Long played any role in developing the doctrines or methods of Two by Two'ism, other than his success in making converts. Only apologists for the church (of which only The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship is in print and already cited) have hinted at more of a role. So, yes, if I've missed something in the sources that you have citations for: what do you propose adding, and what are these references which you have yet to provide? That is asked sincerely, as I've done a huge amount of reading in providing citations for the statements currently in the article without coming across anything that would provide firm backing for a bigger role for J. Long, let alone anything so grand as to affect the article's balance. • Astynax ^talk 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Winkelvi, what do you exactly mean when you say that consensus is against adding the unbalanced tag? It is certainly not with my agreement that it shouldn't be added that is for sure. How do you come to the conclusion that it shouldn't be added to an unbalanced article that does not portray all the views? Please explain if you don't mind. 0oToddo0 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I was clear enough that you already know what I mean. Moreover, there is a consensus against re-adding the unbalanced tag (and you inappropriately placed at least one other tag) that dictates the article is not seen by a majority of editors already established at this article as being in a state that would warrant those tags. Winkelvi (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, regardless of what John Long thought, or did, or wrote in his diary, that is his personal experience, and we can't use personal experience, or John Long's diary on Wikipedia. You told me that yourself. Just as you reprimanded me on suspicion that I was using John Long's diary as a source of information, I now need to reprimand you on suspicion of doing the same thing. I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but can you see why I believe that you aren't here to cooperate and be reasonable with discussions about this article? You have a stringent set of rules about what can and can't be done, yet you fail to comply with your own expectations of everyone else. If you are going to argue this based on John Long, and anything he supported or didn't support, then you need to let everyone else use him as a reference. I don't want you getting upset, and I mean this in the kindest way, but your attitude here is hindering any rational discussion because you keep changing the rules. Anyway, I guess I can take your reply to mean that if I have reliable information, I am free to add it to the article without you going into edit war mode. 0oToddo0 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nor did I say anything about adding anything to the article upon Mr. Long's diary. This is the talk page, and I simply pointed out that the diary does not support your contention that he was a moving force in the early days of the movement (quite the contrary, he directly ascribes that role to Irvine), and noted that his story as told in other references also does not lend credence to a contention that he played any sort of major role in the church's founding, something which is ascribed to Mr. Irvine. I requested your source for this extraordinary claim, which you did not provide in your edits and tagging, so that we all can take a look at it. • Astynax ^talk 07:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

One place you could read is Cherie Kropp's book. Just to help you out, here are some extracts from it... . In John Long's own words, he and Wm Irvine were "the two instruments used of God at the origin of that movement." and John Long was responsible for obtaining the site for Irvine’s first independent mission held in Nenagh, Ireland. and another JOHN LONG became the FIRST one to go preach solely on Faith Lines according to Matthew Ten--NOT Irvine or Cooney! From the time they held the Matthew Ten Bible Study in July, 1898... I am sure you know very well that this article is very unbalanced, but you are holding tightly to your point of view. Not a very good thing when you are displaying such ownership of this article, and also very much against Wikipedia policy. I still don't know why it isn't appropriate to place an unbalanced tag on such an unbalanced article, but I guess that is just you making up your own rules to suit yourself. Anyway, let me know what you think of the above point of view. Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote: "JOHN LONG became the FIRST one to go preach solely on Faith Lines according to Matthew Ten--NOT Irvine or Cooney! From the time they held the Matthew Ten Bible Study in July, 1898..." doesn't appear to be on that site (or anywhere else on the 'net). With regard to the other quotes, no doubt they reflect how John Long may have remembered things in 1907, at the point of his excommunication a decade after he and Irvine had first met. He had earlier (in December 1898 entries) cited Irvine as being the driving force ("Irvine being a man of foresight, and feeling the tremendous responsibility of being a reformer and leader against his will") in developing the movement, and his entries are heavy with references to Irvine's activities with only faint hints at his own. Long also identifies "the revival" as beginning a year prior to the study of Matthew X in which he participated, which likely limits any role that Long may have played in the beginning days.

Even dismissing those memories, his 1907 statement can be read as hinting at, but not directly saying, that Long played a role in the establishment of the early movement. He only states that he was an "instrument of God", without specifying what his function was as an instrument (for garnering converts, helping as a companion, arranged for an abandoned Methodist church hall in which Irvine could hold a mission, or ???). We don't know whether, the next year, William Irvine had already been thinking along the "sell all" lines at the time of the Matthew X study, or if the study was an effort by "the Evangelist" (as Long called him) to get John Long to agree with Irvine's already-formed view of the passage, or whether they both came to the same conclusion at that time. Sources don't even tell us for certain when Irvine first went out "on faith lines" (we know for certain that Long did not immediately). Because diaries are one person's memories, they are only a source for what that person experienced and/or recollected, rather than a full picture. All of which is said as an illustration as to why Wikipedia editors cannot use primary sources such as diaries without qualification (such as flagged, brief quotes that do not stray into WP:UNDUE), and why editors cannot synthesize anything from them for inclusion in articles. • Astynax ^talk 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That quote may not be anywhere on the net, but it is definately in Cherie Kropp's book, because that is where I got it from. Just because you don't have access to it, doesn't mean it isn't real. You really have some serious issues trying to discuss things here don't you. Just because you couldn't find it on the net, you discounted it and refused to discuss it. Astynax, tell me honestly what we can do here that we can have a mature and sensible discussion without you trying to find every little loophole or lame reason to avoid this discussion? I am really struggling with your obstructive behaviour here. Please, I don't want to get you blocked. I want to discuss this... maturely, and without the little games. Is that too much to ask?

Also, you may question John Long's memory, but consider that there are plenty of the referenced books, who authors wrote things from memory, of their personal experience from many years before. You need to be a lot more consistant in your arguments, and not just when something suits your point of view.

Now, to get you back to the info I am proposing to add to the article, I am just going to add that it was John Long and William Irvine who both studied Matt 10, but it was John Long who had the revelation to go in faith, before William Irvine did, if in fact he even did. Stop assuming that I am using this as evidence to prove anything to do with the founding. I am just relaying what the source says, and that's all. Let's stick to facts and not pick and choose what facts we included based one what supports your point of view. Include all the facts and it will become a balanced article. Right now it is far from balanced, and your strong attachment to you point of view is hindering you from discussing this rationally, and hindering this from becoming a good article. You need to take a step back and make a choice to support the truth rather than continue your raging fight to try to keep the article in a state that only portrays your prefered view. Here's to some more productive and on topic discussions... cheers 0oToddo0 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"More productive and on topic discussions" That is all great to seek after, but I see nothing productive or on topic about your personal attacks against Asyntax. Let's try to keep comments about editors out of talk page comments, yes? Winkelvi (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote is not on her site, and her final book has yet to be published (I checked). You are welcome to report my behavior if you think I am violating Wiki policies and guidelines. Again, if you are going to continue to aim accusations against the article, provide valid references. • Astynax ^talk 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

John Long's role in the early days has understandably been underemphasized in most of the sites including this article. Basically, he was much more the 'idea man' than Irvine. Irvine was unquestionably the early leader and spokesman for the group, especially after he engineered Long's exit from the group around 1907. Because he and Edward Cooney were the primary voices after say, 1900, historical analysts have focussed on their involvement.Slofstra (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how you get around using John Long's journal since it and the letter of Goodhand Pattison are the only extensive accounts of the years before 1900. Correct this if it is wrong.Slofstra (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't get around it. We are not allowed to use primary sources such as diaries, blogs, etc. as a matter of policy, as you may recall. This is because such raw data requires evaluation and synthesis of multiple primary sources, something that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to make in writing articles. Policy allows us to report what secondary and tertiary reliable sources—that have already synthesized the various sources—say. The only exception to the policy would be as a backup citation for what a person said in a very limited way (e.g., "In 1952, Mr. X claimed such and such."). Long's or Pattison's viewpoint is just that: their own limited view of what happened that no historian would report as the full story. In addition, Long never claimed to be the brains or a prime mover behind the scene at all (quite the contrary). As far as I was able to determine from the British and Irish newspapers and journals that I looked at when citing the article, and which go back some 7 years prior to Long's expulsion, he went nearly unmentioned other than to note his public expulsion from the group in 1907. The article does state that he had no role, but we also may not synthesize a role that isn't clearly assigned to him in cited secondary and tertiary reliable sources. • Astynax ^talk 08:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree in terms of using reliable sources in putting the article together. I agree that Long's journal is a primary source. The problem is that the journal appeared only in very recent years, and is really the only detailed account extant of those early years before 1900. If Long's journal contradicts some of what is given by the more reliable sources, would you consider changing the article? Because, let's face it, most of the reliable sources have not performed any actual research on the Two-by-Twos and rely on hearsay accounts. My other concern with the resources you have used is that they were "in a hurry" to show there was a founder. There is a large ideological subtext and battle on this issue of a founder, and probably a lot more heat than light from both sides of the fence. All I'm suggesting is an earnest appraisal of John Long's role on the discussion page, what it was, and not so much what it was not. There is no question in my own mind that the entire 'faith lines' idea came from Long, and the Irvine was the laggard in going out along faith lines. However, Long clearly never had ambitions as you quite rightly point out.Slofstra (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Asyntax. We don't get around it and the journal is a primary source, therefore, it can't be used as a source. It doesn't matter that it's the only detailed account or that it appeared only in very recent years. It's primary, so it's not usable as a reference. Winkelvi (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hang on. It can't be used as a source, that is correct. But can it be used as a reference, for discussion, or to refute points made on other sources? I don't know, I am asking. There must be a precedent on this issue.Slofstra (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed the section on Irvine and the founding prior to 1900 is way off. The section reads as if everything came out of the mind of Irvine, and then he persuaded others to join him. This section ignores two major and specific influences on the early movement. First, the practices of the Faith Mission became the practices of the f&w. Second, John Long had a tremendous influence on Irvine, and one did not make any move without consideration for the other. I believe that Long preceded Irvine in going out on faith lines, although that needs fact checking as well. (later- Todd indicates so above, and Long and Pattison back this up. Also, Irvine asked Long to join him in the FM as late as 1898. Irvine did not leave FM until 1900a. Too bad, no sense in doing so, as nothing in Long's journal, the only detailed account of those years, can be used in the article.Slofstra (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The role you are crafting for Long and his relationship with Irvine is pure OR. I'm tempted to label it fantasy, as there is nothing behind it other than a misreading of the sources, let alone the cited references. Irvine was already operating on independent lines a year before the Matt X study with Long. Long DID join Faith Mission, though not as one of their pilgrim preachers. Long does NOT back up that he went out on "faith lines" prior to Irvine. As I have said the last time the subject was batted about, the sources can just as well be read to show Irvine as leading John Long and others to his own way of thinking regarding his new ministry/movement, and that seems to be the reason reliable sources date the movement to 1897 and not to the 1898 Matt X study. We do not use diaries and similar primary sources precisely because they tell only one side of a story at best, and because such sources require careful synthesis to form a valid picture of what transpired. Editors may not synthesize, period, and that seems to be what you are advocating, as indeed you have been doing for years. • Astynax ^talk 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What other primary sources exist prior to 1900? I know only of Long's journal and Pattison's letter. The "careful synthesis" that you describe was based on what primary sources? There are notable inconsistencies between Parker's account in the Secret Sect and Long's journal, because Parker did not have Long's journal as a source. When you say "the sources" what are you referring to? Here is what Long said about Irvine in the late 1890s, "Concerning the principals of the Doctrine of Christ, he was sound. He believed in the fall of man, in the Atonement, in the Trinity, in the Divinity of our Lord, in the immortality of the soul, in the resurrection of the body, the inspiration of the Bible, in Heaven for the saved, and in Hell for the lost. He believed in a personal Devil, the enemy of God and man. He believed and taught Repentance and that every person can be saved and know it, and that the conditions of Salvation were 'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' Romans 10:9. He taught that every saved soul is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ; and that the life of Jesus, is the pattern for everyone to imitate and follow; and that the life of forsaking all for Christ's sake was the best to live. The fruits of that teaching resulted in farmers, shop keepers, domestic servants, school teachers, police, soldiers, and persons of every occupation forsaking all that they had to follow Jesus; and to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God." At that time he did not have a new heterodox doctrine as is claimed. That evolved later.Slofstra (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Other primary sources include letters, files, interviews with eyewitnesses, itineraries, recollections, etc. It takes legwork to assemble documentation from a variety of primary and secondary sources before making assessments and reaching conclusions. I am aware of Long's statement and do not doubt that he thought it true at the time. However, people tend to look through their own, often rosey-colored, lenses. Parker and Parker, using a variety of sources noted (p. 11) that during the 1903 convention: "The process of desocialisation was complete because not only did they break family and social ties but Irvine insisted that success would also depend upon complete rejection of all Christian doctrine and traditional forms of worship". A huge amount of subsequent evidence suggests that Long got it wrong: The contemporary press accounts that do not show an orthodox Irvine (or his movement), Long's own expulsion for not toeing the doctrinal line that condemned all other churchmen to hell, the group's rejection of the trinity and other doctrines, Irvine's view of his own messianic role, etc. Those things did not spring out of thin air. As does any diary, Long's journal tells us more about John Long than anything or anyone else. It makes for nice discussion points, but it is incomplete and cannot be used to synthesize statements for Wiki articles. • Astynax ^talk 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1897 is too early a date, at least as far as Irvine's involvement. In December 1898 quite a number were preaching along 'faith lines' including Long, but Irvine was not one of them. He was still working for the Faith Mission. In 1900, Pattison notes how Irvine was "beset on all sides" and he finally resigned from the Faith Mission and threw his lot in with the others. Bright Words also has a reference to Govan visiting his overseer Irvine in the south of Ireland, and praising his work there. Check your dates. Check your facts. No one knows the exact date that Irvine began preaching independently of the Faith Mission. I'm not even sure what "independently" would mean; how do you define that point? We do know that in 1901 he resigned the Faith Mission. Please remember also that the Awakening was a time when there were many independent preachers in Ireland and Scotland; Faith Mission was one of many such preaching movements. Just because someone began preaching doesn't mean they were joining or starting a separate movement.Slofstra (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is the date overwhelmingly flagged by references. • Astynax ^talk 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

When did Long join the Faith Mission, and what is your source? Curious, as I haven't run across that. I do know that Long went with Irvine to the FM convention, I think in 1898, but I have to check.Slofstra (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is right there on the TTT site, based upon Faith Mission records. • Astynax ^talk 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, if your comment about Cherie Kropp's book not being published yet was suggestion that I shouldn't be using it as a source, then I expect you will be removing the references to it in the article. I assume you would be aware that those citations are there, seeing that you were the one that put them there... See. I know Winkelvi says I shouldn't make personal attacks on you but unfortunately it is you who is continuing to make a different set of rules for other editors compared to what you abide by yourself. I trust that you accept that I mean it in the kindest way, but I do find myself continually asking you to stop doing this, but it is only because you continue to do it. I would love to be able to have rational and forthright discussions here, without these little political stunts popping up all the time if at all possible. Thanks 0oToddo0 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My statement was not to do with use of material from the TTT site, but rather about your misleading claim to have access to an unpublished work by Cherie Kropp that is not available for verification: i.e., "That quote may not be anywhere on the net, but it is definately in Cherie Kropp's book, because that is where I got it from. Just because you don't have access to it, doesn't mean it isn't real." You may not base any statement in an article on such phantom sources. • Astynax ^talk 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, are we talking about this book? http://www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/ If so, it's not a phantom.Slofstra (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of the link, have read it and referenced it for some less controversial passages. However, the quote 0oToddo0 gave is not from that site, a misdirection further compounded by his claim to some other "real" publication by Kropp from which the quote was drawn. That IS a phantom source. • Astynax ^talk 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, regardless of your little games here, this is NOT a phantom source. The day that I posted those quotes above, I found her book on the internet. Despite the fact that she may not have it on her website, it is still her book, in full, with her name on it. You obviously didn't try very hard. Once again, you avoid discussing the truth, and make this a discussion about something other than the content of the article. How about you do what Wikipedia expects and assume good faith, because I know that you know very well that what I have quoted comes directly from Cherie Kropp's book. It would be far more useful if you stopped playing these games because it isn't conducive to sensible and productive discussions about the article. Because you have already unwittingly indicated that you can see that this information is huge as far as the importance to the article, it appears to me, and no doubt others, that you are simply doing whatever it takes to avoid acknowledgement that this information should be included. Please for at least a short time, assume good faith, and discuss the points I have raised above. Thanks 0oToddo0 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not wanting to get too deep into this, but I did search Todd's quote "the two instruments used of God at the origin of that movement /site:www.tellingthetruth.info" and came into that area of Kropp's site. However, that page appears to be under construction. For my own part, I believe Irvine was clearly the early leader of the movement. I've never particularly liked the word 'founder' because of how the movement came to be, and because Irvine had no identifiable differentiated theology. I also don't subscribe to the stump theory, advanced by some preachers in the movement, although some vague rendition of that will never be put entirely to rest. But please read my comments on the role of the Faith Mission. I believe the movement is best understood as an aspect of the Awakening, that in the course of events decided not to participate with any of the established churches of the time.Slofstra (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Searching on all 3 of the bolded quotations 0oToddo0 claims are from "Cherie Kropp's book" would show that at least one of them is nowhere on the www.tellingthetruth.info site. I searched the same day 0oToddo0 claims to have lifted the quotes, and the quote regarding Long being the first to go out on faith lines was not there. It still is not. Even had Long made such claims, how Long thought he was being "used" or what "go out on faith lines" meant to him are subjective or vague, which is (again) why raw primary sources are not bases for statements in articles and why we forego editor synthesis of such sources. • Astynax ^talk 18:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Special Meetings

0oToddo0 changed the "Special Meeting" section to "Special Meetings" and indicated that there are two meetings that day, not one single meeting. This edit accurately reflects what the event is called and how it happens. Astynax undid the revision and said, "please supply only sourced information." My concern is that the information that was there in the first place was not sourced. If we're going to tolerate unsourced information, then I'd prefer accurate rather than inaccurate unsourced information! ;) Obviously, the solution is for somebody to find a reference. I just don't know where to look. But I've been to a LOT of these meetings across Canada, and they're always called "Special Meetings," and they always consist of two 2-hour meetings with a lunch break between.Totoro33 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, every single statement in this article has been challenged and sourced. This could be a regional variation, or it might be a typo. The list of references footnoted at the bottom of the article may have something to support a plural. If you do not do so before me, I will try and re-check the source used to see if a plural is used elsewhere. Wikipedia requires that we go with what third-party references state, not with personal experience, research or synthesis. • Astynax ^talk 20:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that funny. Well, it wouldn't be funny for Wikipedia to see someone undoing accurate and clearer information only because it didn't show a source. You may not need me to tell you this because it is blatantly obvious, but Astynax has a strong point of view and is just out to make it as difficult as possible for anyone who would like to make the article reflect the truth. This sometimes means that he has to have two sets of rules... One for himself, and one for those who he thinks might be opposing his point of view. I added something to this article quite a while back, and cited a source for it, but it got removed and I was told that it wasn't a reliable source... Not long after, that exact same source was used, and is still there today without a word being said about it. I'm sure that Wikipedia wouldn't be impressed with the likes of Astynax playing political games on their site when they are trying to establish a reputable place for accurate information .

All over Australia these meetings are called special meetings also, and have two meetings that run for two hours, rather than lasting a day like the article tends to indicate. 0oToddo0 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal experience or original research. This is no game, just Wikipedia policy. • Astynax ^talk 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, this is certainly a game for you. Why else would you let all sorts of uncited info go through when it supports your point of view but come demanding citations when I try to write acurate info. Yes, Wikipedia has policy, but for the purpose of achieving good articles, not for you to use as a tool for leaving uncited bad info there because the good info lacks citations also. How about you stop making things so difficult for the people who don't support your point of view, and we can work towards making this a quality article. 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick 'net search turns up both singular and plural uses of "Special Meeting" (see here) for but one of many instances). As I said before, it may be a regional difference, and you have provided no reference that would support restricting the spelling to only the plural, or to support the time schedule that you have insisted upon in your repeated reverts. Nit-picking a controversy over this point without any foundation other than your own experiences is pointless. • Astynax ^talk 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in a net search as evidence, nor am I interested in that bloke's personal experience, or know if I can trust his attention to detail in his writing. There are two editors here confirming the same term used to describe the meetings, and the same format to the meetings but you still dispute it without providing any reliable sources. Maybe you and I are never going to sort this out ourselves, so I guess the right thing to do here is place a dispute tag in that section to firstly alert other editors to a need of help, and also to alert readers to the fact that they could get a distorted picture of the truth by reading that section. 0oToddo0 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, in violation of Wikipedia policy you are insisting on inserting your personal experience into the article. No matter how many editors have had personal experience corresponding with your claim, personal experience, original research and synthesis are never to be inserted into articles. You need a source (preferably multiple sources, as your contention is not supported by the sources used in the article) that say that they are always called "Special Meetings" (plural) and always follow your timetable before slapping labels on articles. • Astynax ^talk 03:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is personal experience with this group, whether positive or negative, considered a "conflict of interest"? Winkelvi (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Policy states that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." As an example, an actor could write about a studio for which he had worked, but promotional editing and PoV-pushing are not acceptable. See WP:COI for the guide. • Astynax ^talk 05:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, we are in dispute over this, so unless you leave the tag there to alert other editors to the problem, it is going to be just you and me here going nowhere. Secondly, Wikipedia policy says that it is better that there is no information rather than incorrect information, so if you so badly want me to comply with Wikipedia policy, then I will start deleting this info you insist on putting on there, because it is incorrect. You should know about this very well seeing that you are a stickler for Wikipedia policy, but I see that you only apply the rules to everyone else, and don't bother following them yourself. 0oToddo0 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you have not provided anything other than your own experience and/or viewpoint in support of labeling the page with tags for disputed and unbalanced content. Wikipedia does not recognize editors' research and viewpoint (including mine) over published sources, and as I indicated, there are online sources that do indeed use "Special Meeting" in the singular (so obviously, there are people out there, in addition to the source, that use that singular spelling). Perhaps you would care to share the Wikipedia policy that says personal experiences and viewpoints are ever to prevail over statements sourced in references? You know this issue well enough from your prior arguments on these pages, so I'm surprised you have again jumped in with the same tactics. • Astynax ^talk 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Todd, only you can have control over what you choose to do (right or wrong) anywhere. You are choosing to do the wrong thing here. I would hope you would want to comply with policy. So far all you've shown is that you want to get your way and do as you will with the article. Pretty much any change someone else makes, you revert. Articles are supposed to be the effort of more than one. MOre than one person is interested at this time in making changes and getting what's there right as well as adding to what's there. Doing so within guidelines and rules is important. If you can't follow those guidelines and rules and work with others, you're not going to last long. You also are showing some ownership behavior. You've haven't been blocked from editing yet, but I think it's probably on the horizon for you. Of course, you could change all that by stopping with the uncooperative behavior you've been demonstrating the last few days. It's about editing articles and being accurate, isn't it? Why not go for that as well as working well with others? I know I want to get along with people here. Don't you? Winkelvi (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, in case you haven't noticed, we are disputing 2 things in this section. Before I get back to discussing those points, I will get sucked into your little dispute about whether the tag should be there or not, and say this... Because of the fact that we are disputing a couple of points, Wikipedia has a nice little tool in the form of a dispute tag, which serves the purpose of letting readers and other editors know that a dispute rages on, and quite possibly enter into the discussion. You would know very well, that you and I could be warring here for the next 27 years if we go on in our current method of solving (or more accurately, not solving) this dispute. So, let’s move on from this unproductive method we are currently employing, especially the arguing over whether the dispute tag should be there, and the repetitive demands to follow Wikipedia's policy down to the last letter, when you aren't yourself. Let's start actually discussing the content of the dispute, and we might actually get somewhere, because your little political games are starting to get boring, on top of being unproductive.

The first dispute we are having is what special meetings is called, and so far you have only insisted that I shouldn't use personal experience, and I should find a reliable source. This is fair enough, because rules are rules and we should follow them, but let me ask you this... why is it that you demand I find a source, yet you aren't demanding that of anyone that will put "special meeting" in the article... shouldn't you be getting just as frustrated with them (yourself included)? This also goes for the second part of the dispute also. Here I was thinking that I was doing a great thing, and adding some detail that not a sole is going to dispute, because everyone knows that the special meetings are two meetings which run for two hours each. Ok, so we can't use personal experience, and rules are rules, but how about you start applying that rule to everyone instead of just me. I thought that adding a little bit extra detail to explain the meetings would be a helpful thing, and especially as it had no citations, and no doubt it would still be a helpful thing, but it has nothing to do with the content of what I wrote does it? I am sure you know that the content I wrote was very accurate, but this is about being as difficult as you possibly can, but only to me. The other editors seem to have been able to add the previous information without you jumping up and down about there being no citations, but not so with me. In fact you have got into me about not giving a reliable source, only for you to then revert it back to a version that has no reliable source. This is a blatant political game because you want to hide the real truth about this group. You need to stop being so destructive to Wikipedia. I am not the type to go reporting fellow editors, because I firstly try to work it through, but if you are going to continue your little game with being willing to discuss this maturely, I may be left with no other option. Consider yourself warned!! 0oToddo0 (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No 0oToddo0, the entire section was already referenced. Not only that, but quite apart from the reference (which uses the singular), a quick Internet search shows that both singular and plural are used. You may not be used to singular being used, but it is obvious that the term is not restricted to plural everywhere. Your attempt to change both the spelling and insert additional information without a source is not acceptable, and such unreferenced edits are allowed to be removed. • Astynax ^talk 08:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, firstly let me point out that, if it was me that was using an internet search as part of my argument, you would be screaming blue murder. Why is it ok for you to mention unreliable sources, yet if I do, I am threatened? Once again, take note of the different set of rules you apply to different editors. Please take this as yet another request to stop doing this. I don't believe it achieves much by getting editors blocked, but if you continue this style of behaviour in our discussion and your continual reverting of the article to a poor state, you may leave me with no choice. Secondly, I see no reference to a source that shows what the name of the special meetings should be, which means that I am free to go ahead, be bold, and edit it, along with adding a reference, unless you are going to come up with something more real than an internet search. It is time that you started taking notice of Wikipedia Policy. Kind regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reread the sentence introducing the section. Again, you may only make edits based upon cited sources, which you have been adamant in refusing to provide during your involvement with this article. • Astynax ^talk 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As it might become clear from this post, I do not have much experience in Wiki editing, in fact this is my first post, so my apologies in advance for perhaps a clumsy attempt. I read the above debate with interest and felt compelled to make a small contribution. I speak of over 20 years of personal experience so am already breaking one of Wikipedia's rules in not being able to provide verifiable content. Unfortunately as may be known by the contributors very little (written) source material exist within this religious group. The only acceptable documentation in the group would be letters written to each other, convention notes taken in convention meetings and workers, convention and special meeting lists as prepared by the workers (ministers) within the group. It would probably be golden if a letter from a worker (minister) could be cited as a source to confirm the correct terminology of singular v plural. The use of the term "Special Meeting" should be seen in the same context of "Convention" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_by_Twos). It's generally seen as an occasion tied to a specific location, as in the Special Meeting in Port Elizabeth or the Convention in Cape Town. A convention in some places are over four days with two meetings a day lasting two hours each and another meeting in the evening of an hour long. So when speaking of a special meeting it has less to do with the actual "meeting" or two taking place on that day and is rather a reference to the overall occasion, referring to the day's events of the two meetings. In conclusion I would suggest that a singular form of the name would perhaps be the most appropriate as the use of the term is in the context of a proper noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 05:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment 3knocks. :) I think it's a location-specific thing. After 30 years in Canada, I've never heard "Special Meeting," but always "Special Meetings" (plural). :) Totoro33 (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't wish to sound harsh here but I think the argument is about use of English, not any particular fact or verifiable detail. The concept of a special meeting exists and it's titled in the singular. Multiple special meetings are plural. It's that simple. Yes, it is anecdotally true for me also that they are referred to as special meetings, but that's when talking about a series that occurs in a particular region once per year. When talking about a specific event I've heard 'Place X Special Meeting' and 'Place X Special'. Sometimes people randomly pluralise it and that's fine, especially if there's a series of two in a single location over consecutive Sundays. And, as a point of language use, we could pluralise all of the items in the 'Gatherings' section in order to talk about them. That would be fine too and none of that would need new sourcing or whatnot. Just need to be consistent. Ootoddoo, I sense your frustration over what you see as a minor change in the direction of correctness, but understand that Astynax's efforts on this article - including the policing of changes - is what makes it the high quality article it is and I'm grateful for that. Donama (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the single-day event is referred to as "Special Meetings" because there are two meetings occurring on that one day.Totoro33 (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. "Special meetings are on next month" or "specials are coming up" is normal, but so is "I'm going to Mt Gambier Special Meeting" on "I'm going to Mt Gambier special" is the norm in my experience for the specific event. Donama (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes... I think that depends on what part of the world you live in. It's "Special Meetings" here, referring to the event in one city. Totoro33 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing tone

I'm in the process of changing the "tone" of the article's language. Reading it, it appears more like a pamphlet put out by the church rather than an encyclopedia article. Frankly, I find the tone of it stilted and even a little creepy and cult-like at times. As if the language used has been "approved" by the church itself. Since Wikipedia isn't an advertisement arm of the church but an online encyclopedia, I'm going to continue to work on changing the tone to a more neutral and readable nature. All Wikipedia articles should be readable and I really don't find this one to be that as it has been. Hence, my rewrite of the language and grammar, etc. Comments? Winkelvi (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed your January 18 changes and consider them generally helpful in making the language more neutral. Thank you. Totoro33 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Improving readability, while still accurately reflecting what sources say, is welcome. Please avoid deleting sources and sourced material without discussion, however. • Astynax ^talk 19:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you are probably aware, but there are many people who want to portray this group negatively and as a cult. I suspect that Astynax is a bit nervous of losing the cult-like tone, and would rather that it sounded like the sources, most of which make whatever attempt possible to portray it as a cult. I have personally talked to some of the authors of cited books, who believe it is a cult. Interesting enough, a large majority of the referenced books on this article are people who were, but are no longer, part of this group (ie. have a negative view of it), and I doubt that there are any cited resources of people still in this group (ie. with a positive view of it). I know I can't convince you that this article is unbalanced, but it is, very much so. Try to neutralize this article if you like, but it will invariably fall back to the cult-like tones eventually. Good luck 0oToddo0 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has been gone over several times by outside reviewers who have given suggestions (which have been implemented) to eliminate problems with tone. The comment was made by one reviewer from the NPoV board that, if anything, the article seemed to be painting a too-rosy picture (a sentiment Winkelvi seems to be echoing in his comment at the top of this thread). Your statement that "the sources, most of which make whatever attempt possible to portray it as a cult" is a mischaracterization of the 45 books, 49 journals and periodicals, 3 peer-reviewed scholarly papers and 6 websites) used to reference the article. Care has been taken by myself and other editors to keep any "cult" accusations out of the article. So perhaps you need to clearly list exactly what and where you find the article saying that the Two by Twos are a cult so that we can recheck the sources. • Astynax ^talk 08:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Astynax, I did not say that the article says that the two by twos are a cult. I was just echoing Winkelvi's sentiments of the cult-like tones. Please calm down, because your excitement is blurring your judgement. I think you have way too much attachment to this article to engage in any rational discussion, to the point where you make very poor assumptions about what is being said. You have done this multiple times, and I continually find myself telling you that I didn't mean what you have assumed. Anyway, I don't see you demanding that Winkelvi list out the places that say that the two by twos are a cult... but you just have something against me don't you? This would be why there is a different set of editing rules for me, compared to the more relaxed ones that you abide by. Could you please please please stop doing this? It is getting slightly boring, and also bordering on harassment.

This article may well have been gone over several times by outside reviewers, but it seems that according to Winkelvi, they didn't do a very good job. So I would say that you need to accept that these reviewers didn't get it perfect, and let others edit the article, without having to engage in silly edit wars with you. 0oToddo0 (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You have misstated what Winkelvi stated, which was: "Reading it, it appears more like a pamphlet put out by the church rather than an encyclopedia article. Frankly, I find the tone of it stilted and even a little creepy and cult-like at times. As if the language used has been "approved" by the church itself." If you have a problem with the article labeling the Two by Two church "a cult", then you owe us examples of where it does this, and not more accusations. • Astynax ^talk 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(e-c) If someone has complaints about the conduct of others, or wishes to make aspersions regarding others, the proper place to do that is either on the editor's individual user talk page or on one of the noticeboards, not on the talk pages of articles. I sincerely urge all editors to thoroughly read and adhere to WP:TPG.

Having said that, this particular topic has a serious problem which most others don't. The topic is itself notable, but there is little if any really reliable independently sourced material on it. That being the case, there is a bit more emphasis historically on primary sources, which tend to be reliable for at least the group's own beliefs, and paraphrasing such sources can sometimes create OR or SYNTH problems. Regarding the "cult" matter, honestly, that seems to be a rather significant topic of discussion from some independent sources, or at least sources who have left the group, and it probably should be covered to some extent. Determining to what extent will be the problem, but I would tend to think, for the main article on any given topic, it should probably be a relatively small amount of coverage. The recent rephrasing looks good to me as well, If there were other sources which provided significant coverage of the topic, significant enough for us to use anyway, then I expect the number of relevant articles, as well as the content of this one, would increase. But, well, there aren't those sources yet, so we have to rely on those we do have. They might, in some cases, themselves be unbalanced to some degree, but, unfortunately, the only way to really know that, or to be able to invoke our relevant guidelines and policies regarding such, is to have other independent or otherwise very reliable souces say as much, and, well, those other sources don't apparently exist in this case.

I have said in the past I would very much welcome more sources on this topic, even from independent interviews of some of the lay clergy or overseers themselves. But I haven't seen them. That being the case, we more or less have to go with what we have and hope that perhaps eventually the Two-by-Twos might become a bit less shy, or paranoid, of independent coverage and cooperate in the development of sources we can use to a greater degree than they have to date displayed.

And, regarding Astynax's last point above, I think it is worth noting that Winkelvi indicated that the article in his eyes was perhaps too tilted in favor of the Two-by-Twos. Unless they themselves like being called a cult, that statement is more or less diametrically opposed to an indication that the article lays too much emphasis on the cult allegation. So I more or less have to agree that, rather than making vague general statements, it makes most sense for people to be more specific regarding exactly which changes they would make where. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to get something clear immediately. I am not saying one way or the other what I think of the church being a cult or not being a cult. My opinion on their cult status has nothing to do with the article. My comments above were probably poorly worded, but I never meant to say that I think any one person was trying to insert "cult propaganda" into the article. My interest here is on the article itself. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Much of the article sounds like a pro-church pamphlet and the language being used, in my opinion, does not contribute to a neutral tone. It also doesn't make for easy reading. We have to cultivate interest from all walks of life, not just those who have no problem wading through lofty and stilted language. I don't think the article is "too tilted in favor of the Two-by-Twos". I don't see the article as imbalanced to the point of where it needs a tag warning readers/editors it might be unbalanced. There are many vague statements at the end of points in the article that are largely a waste of space and reader time (also in my opinion). I haven't had time to do anything to the article over the last couple of days, but will probably tackle it a bit today or tonight. Hope this clears up my positions on the article and the arguments over same. It would be nice if some work on the article would be done rather than commenting on what the article's editors think about this and that and personal attacks on editors, too. Can we get back to editing and leave this tedious back-and-forth behind? Winkelvi (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and I can understand your position a bit better now. FWIW, I remember being one of those who in the past tried desperately to find independent reliable sources on this topic, and found only a rather small number of them, with a great deal of repetition and lack of really clear language. In some cases, I think it might well be the case that most editors here would prefer more exact language, but, in some cases, if the available sources themselves don't use such language, it is probably some sort of violation of OR or SYNTH to make statements which are more direct or precise than those made in the available sources. The only substantial coverage I can remember on this group in an academic book was one chapter in a book on several new religious movements, and that chapter was, surprise surprise, about how this group tries to avoid getting any sort of discussion. Melton is probably the best other independent academic source, and it is possible that his "Religions of the World" reference book might have some more information - I don't know, but I can check. James R. Lewis' The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions also has an article on the group, but I seem to remember checking it earlier, and it didn't have much information or sourcing beyond what was being used in the article at that time. I wish there were more, but in this case the group is notable, although only minimally covered in independent reliable sources, and that makes it a real pain trying to deal with what we say about it here. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I also recall your sharing what J.R. Lewis had to say (thank you), and your recollection is accurate. If you have ready access to Religions of the World, it would be interesting to know whether Melton has expanded his treatment of this church. I am aware of another academic paper that is supposed to be coming out in book form in a few months, as well as a revised second edition of the Parker and Parker book that is unquestionably RS. So, it appears there may be more information forthcoming, but nothing substantial seems to have been published since editors last looked at this issue a year or two ago. • Astynax ^talk 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just had a look at the article after at least a couple years' hiatus. It is getting somewhat better. My main concern with tone is the use of mainstream church theology to define the friends' theology, especially regarding the issue of Trinitarianism. I have no objection to the use of some of these terms as they do have specific meanings, and can be useful. I don't want to say that such terms should not be used. For example, the friends and workers seldom use the word "ministers", but that is what they are in common parlance. So it's perfectly fine to say that the friends call their minister's "workers" as the article does. After that it's arguable which term should be used. My issues are more with the use of the theology of the Trinity to define the church doctrine. It would be more precise to say the church does not support the Trinity doctrine, than to say it is against it. In my 30 years involvement I had never heard preaching against the Trinity doctrine. This is not to say there weren't workers against it, but with the focus on close reading of Scripture, and virtually exclusive use of the Bible, there is no room for extensive analysis yielding a Christology. There just isn't a single Christology, that you could say the friends and workers, as a general rule, are for or against. So why the focus on categorizing the church's Christology? Winkelvi, you also seem to imply that the article should have nothing positive to say, in your view. I find that mildly disconcerting. A description of church beliefs and doctrines should indeed sound more like a church pamphlet, I would argue; it should NOT sound like a mainstream church that is trying to marginalize the competition, which is the tone it currently has. We are describing beliefs after all, not verifiable science here. Let's be as accurate as we can in putting out there what the friends put out there.Slofstra (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add. The topic should still be dealt with, as those who come into contact with the group, especially exclusive mainstream Christians, deserve to know that the group does not support the Trinity doctrine. The easiest way to mark this departure is to indicate that they do not make use of any of the major Christian creeds.Slofstra (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

English variety

A bot recently inserted a tag that requires that the article use British English. The reason the bot used to change the English version is invalid (i.e., although this church started in Ireland and Scotland, it has long-since become international in scope, while the group has dwindled to near-insignificance in Britain and Ireland). The article needs to follow either American or British spellings. An argument could be made for changing to British spellings (most of the earliest sources use that variety), or we can continue to edit using American variety spellings and grammar (as is used in most of the more recent references). Comments please. • Astynax ^talk 20:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The church was founded in Ireland, but is most prevalent in which country now? If most prevalent in the U.S., then American English spellings and grammar should be followed, isn't that the way of doing things in the English Wikipedia? Winkelvi (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The only source I have at hand that remarks on the distribution (Melton) says: "The attendence [based on Convention numbers] would indicate between 10,000 and 100,000 members in the United States, and possibly twice that number in other countries." Melton's figure goes back a couple of decades, and other authors give widely varying numbers, but his is the most recent to give some sort of idea of the distribution. The question still remains, "What percentage of the membership outside the U.S. reside in non-English-speaking nations?" Last time I looked, there were no sources that give a good sense of how many members use Brit-Eng vs. US-Eng vs. non-Eng. The bot did not completely change the article to support British standards in spelling and grammar, so my inclination is to change it back to US-Eng. It can always be changed back again if there is a compelling reason, and/or if editors are more comfortable in that mode. • Astynax ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Church Name

Would it be helpful to add how the group refer to themselves internally? I happen to know that most of the names mentioned (Two by Twos, No-Name church, etc) except for two of the names are used externally by people who do not belong to the group. Internally "The Way" would be the more formal reference and often used in a question to find out if someone is part of the group or not, as in "Is John Smith in the Way?". Also internally, when the group talks about others in the group there would be frequent reference to the Friends. I don't have cited reference material but maybe someone else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to cite a source for any additional names. Feel free to list any here that are not included, and perhaps others can help with locating a reference. • Astynax ^talk 08:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is highly problematic. The list is going to be a very long one, and then how useful is it? The way, the truth, the friends, the meetings, and professing are all commonly used. I would suggest that these are used as descriptive words, uncapitalized, in keeping with the no name policy. Since no one in the church has every published a document, it is impossible to know if these terms are spoken with capitals. This is a conversation all on its own.Slofstra (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting to add a whole list of names but just to distinguish between 'names' as used by outsiders (which historically in some cases have been derogatory in nature) versus 'names' as used by the group themselves. To Slofstra's point, I can agree with the uncapitalized approach. And that it's a conversation all on its own. :) Not to get into the whole cult discussion here but there could be some interesting thoughts about how meaning is attached to certain words in the english language used in the group which become infused with a slightly different meaning (friends, workers, meetings, etc). 3knocks (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Doctrine

I noticed in a few places the phrasing of "rejection" of some orthodox religious principles. Example: "The orthodox Christian Trinitarian doctrine is rejected,...". I feel this to be stated too strongly. Rejection would imply its spoken about and then verbally denied/rejected on some agreed upon basis. This would generally not be true, at least not at the Friends level. I don't know what happens at Workers Meetings. A perhaps more accurate description would be that the principle is simply not acknowledged or spoken about, its non-existant from the point of view of those in the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that "Trinitarian doctrine is rejected" is stated too strongly. In practice, as I observe, the Trinity doctrine is misunderstood, and the misunderstood version of it is rejected. (They understand Trinity doctrine to be Sabellianism, which is actually opposed by Trinity doctrine.) That's why I'd rather it were worded more like what you said... "not acknowledged or spoken about." Totoro33 (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nichols et al says that "they deny the Trinity", Melton notes indications from sermons "a unitarian theology which denies the Trinity", Walker uses "they disavow the Trinity"; so "reject" seems to be what the sources are presenting. Others use similar phrases to describe in particular the position of church regarding Christ, i.e., they do not hold Jesus as being God, putting it at odds with a rather basic trinitarian belief. Based on the sources, we could use the word "deny" or "disavow" if either of those words is better in some way. I do not know that we need include the word "orthodox" however, as it might read as a value judgement, even though it is technically correct. • Astynax ^talk 08:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You are wading into difficult territory when you use the word 'they'. If you make a statement that is general, then you need some support that the teaching is general. The article is just plain wrong on this subject of the Trinity, as 3knocks astutely and correctly points out. Slofstra (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Reject" isn't too strong. It gets to the heart of their denial of the doctrine and doesn't use weasely terminology. Winkelvi (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the use of the word 'orthodox' has become sufficiently mainstream and used by the general public to understand that it implies 'conventional'. It would therefore be useful for the reader to understand where this group deviates from the conventional/orthodox beliefs. To state objectively from an outsiders view that the group does not appear to actively support the orthodox Christian Trinitarian doctrine in my view would be acceptable. Using words such as' reject', 'deny' and 'disavow' brings in a very strong view with perhaps an emotional component that perhaps is best avoided. (Winkelvi's comment above would prove my point).3knocks (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Does not appear to actively support the orthodox Christian Trinitarian doctrine" is, in my opinion, too wordy and leaves room for interpretation (hence, my use of the term "weasely" in my prior post). The church plainly rejects the Trinity as a doctrine. Anything else (such as what you wrote above) is vague and sounds like someone's trying to get dance around the truth. Remembering I had seen something quite a while back regarding the use of weasely language, I found this Wikipedia article: WP:WEASEL. Don't forget this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article with "just the facts". If a Two-by-Two was asked what their spiritual group's doctrine says regarding the Trinity, I don't see them avoiding using the word "reject". The church, from everything I've learned through reading about the group and discussing with former members, isn't shy about saying they've rejected former members and members they feel have strayed from their faith system. So, why should "reject" in reference to their anti-Trinitarian beliefs be avoided in an encyclopedia article about the group? Winkelvi (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the weasely article, I didn't know about it. My intention here is def not to be weasley but to state the facts as objectively and accurately as possible. Just a reminder, my starting point in this section was about the out-of-place use of 'rejecting' certain principles, in this case using the Trinity doctrine as an example. One could also include in the article that this group 'reject's' the Koran which would obviously be technically true but of course completely non-sensical. An an ex-member if you were to ask me about the Trinity doctrine while i was a member I would be at a complete loss. I wouldn't even understand the question and the term 'Trinity', the language and sermons in the group make no reference to it. In the stricktest sense if we wanted to make the article 100% technically correct, all references to orthodox concepts and terminology not accepted by the group would have to be removed - there would then be no reference to Trinity doctrine at all since as a stated principle it is non-existant within the group. But I do believe it is actually helpful to leave it in the article simply to explain to the reader the divergence from the orthodox. I also need to add that a baptism in this group is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost which is the basis of the Trinity concept. According to the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity) the term Trinity does not appear in the New Testament. This explains why the group does not use specific termonolgy for Trinity. Now, where does this leave us?  :)

Making the article 100% technically correct in the eyes of the church itself or its former members isn't the goal here. Writing a neutral but factual encyclopedia article is. An encyclopedia article isn't meant to be an apologetics piece for a religion or church group. In regard to your comments regarding the Trinity and the church's rejection/denial of it: even though they baptize in the name of the F/S/&HG, they are doing so without believing in the orthodox Christian belief in the Trinity. I know from former church members that some factions of the church do state openly that they reject the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, so your statement isn't completely true church-wide. If you look in the article's infobox, you'll see: Classification: Protestant; Polity: Episcopal. These things alone give a picture to someone unfamiliar with Christianity and denominational differences that the Two-by-Twos are similar to protestant orthodox Christian groups. And to many, that means in a blanket sort of way that the Trinity is part of their belief system. The Trinity is a line in the sand for many Christian denominations. Most doctrinally teach the Trinity (even though the name "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible). Only a few do not. Since this is an article about a Christian group, I think it's important that the distinction and clear picture be made. It doesn't matter is the church itself would approve of the terminology used in the article and would object to "Trinity" even being inserted in the article. This isn't an article to endorse or even advertise for the church. It's not meant to be pleasing to the church. It's meant to be an encyclopedia article about the church as a portion of a very large group called "Christianity". It's meant to inform. Saying they reject the orthodox and widespread Christian doctrine of the Trinity is appropriate and applicable to the article. Winkelvi (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you would read in my comment "in the eyes of the church or former member" or "being apologetic". I've declared my status as an ex-member as i thought it relevant for anyone reading. That doesn't mean I'm not factual, objective in my views/comments. It also doesn't mean I speak for the church-wide. I don't think we disagree about the factual and objective need for an article. I'm 100% on board there. No endorsement or advertising from this side. 3knocks (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand. How can it be stated that this group rejects the Trinity as a concept if they baptise in the name of the F/S/HG, the very foundation of the Trinity? This is a factual question. Quite frankly, many member's don't even know what they believe about this concept. Questions and discussions are not encouraged and the Trinity would not come up as a topic in a sermon. The categorisation of Protestant and Episcopal would be completely foreign as well. If you read closely in my earlier comment you would find that I agree that it useful to include all these terminologies in the article whether or not approved by the church itself. 3knocks (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Saying they reject the orthodox and widespread Christian doctrine of the Trinity is appropriate and applicable to the article." I find this view a bit unnerving. Given the lack of research material on the topic as this requires deep analysis of the Christology, the best that can be stated at this stage is that there is a question about the belief about the Trinity. Going back to my earlier point: how can the group baptise in the name of the F/S/HG, the very foundation of the Trinity and not believe in it? This group has clear tendency to NOT give a name to certain beliefs and principles or acknowledge its existence. The fact that someone is silent on a matter is in my opinion NOT a sufficient basis to further deduce that there is now rejection as well. 3knocks (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding baptism in the name of F/S/HG, this is not what defines or is a basis for trinitarianism, all forms of which view F, S and HG as being the One God, indivisible and consubstantial. The concept of the Son, the Holy Ghost and the Father all being a single God is what is being denied or rejected, not the mere use of the terms F, S and HG. There are certainly other churches which are also classed as nontrinitarian (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Pentecostals, Mormons, etc.) and who accept the F/S/HG but reject teachings that hold that the 3 are God. The article, based upon reliable sources (and there are certainly more than those cited), merely mentions the fact in a manner that reflects sources; it makes no judgement as to whether nontrinitarianism is a valid or invalid belief, only that it is disavowed by this particular church. Nor do I think we can be certain that the leaders of the group have been silent on the issue, or that sources have not investigated the matter. As has been stated repeatedly in the discussions on this page, Wikipedia reports what sources say, and not personal experience. I personally don't find it surprising that some members would find the concept "foreign" or that the word trinity is seldom or never heard, especially since it is not something believed—many, if not most, nontrinitarian churches would also give little mention of "trinity" or to trinitarian teachings (why would they?). Though it may not be important to this or other groups, it is one of the ways churches are classed and would be relevant to people reading an encyclopedia article. • Astynax ^talk 08:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not weasely as you indicate. Incorrect statements are generally not weasely. I should tell you where I'm coming from. I'm a missional Christian, an ex-2x2, but very much a non-Trinitarian. The entire Trinity thing is besides the point as far as how I read my Bible, and I have read a good deal of Aquinas so I do quite knowingly ignore, but do not reject, the theory. Is the Trinity theory correct? Perhaps, but so far no one has come back from the grave to tell us. And frankly, I don't think God cares, so why should I care? I do resent ultra-religious, legalistic Christians who view everything through Trinity glasses, almost as much as I resent legalistic types who think salvation depends on women not cutting their hair. I think it's totally unfair to just put up a conservative evangelical Christian's report card, and that's your wiki article. What gives you the right to decide what a 'True' Christian is? But that's just me. As far as the 2x2s are concerned, as best I can tell, you can believe what you want about the Trinity. Numerous pro-Trinity statements from the platform have been documented by Nathan Barker. The key issue turns on the divinity of Christ, the three person Godhead is not in question. I don't believe the Trinity doctrine is resented, what is resented is pretending that you know such things. I'm sure that anyone who might preach either the pros or cons of the issues which confound the bright theological minds was preached, IOW, the usual academic beside-the-point BS, is going to be resented. So, to say that the friends reject the Trinity doctrine is NOT correct. To say they don't support the doctrine is correct. Sometimes you have to be weaselly. Slofstra (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a deeply troublesome philosophical issue here, and that is the idea that normative beliefs should define a religion, and all branches of that religion should be described with reference to that normative belief. This is problematic, because the language of the friends does not include a basis for arguing Trinitarianism pro- or con-. The basic language constructs do not exist in their view. It would seem that on wikipedia, an academic intelligentsia get to define what Christianity is, and then those people write about the Mormons, the JWs, the Scientologists and the 2x2s. Members of those marginalized groups have no say whatsoever. Here we see the machinery of marginalization at work. The privileged term is Trinitarianism, and other groups are defined not according to what they do believe but in terms of what they are supposed to believe by those who have been granted that power.Slofstra (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You call it "marginalization" because you are non-Trinitarian. However, you must confess that historic orthodox Christianity has embraced Trinity doctrine as Biblical and "Christian". As such, you are presumably opposed to historic orthodox Christianity, and wouldn't want to be associated with it. You make out like the two-by-twos are being separated by other Christians instead of acknowledging that they themselves have separated from mainstream Christianity, and wouldn't want it any other way. When I was a two-by-two, I didn't want to be categorized with Christians in general. We were the "right" people who had the truth. Try softening the statements about their stance on the Trinity, and you'll have two-by-twos on here trying to rip out the edits, and rightly so. Totoro33 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting comments, reasonable inference, and almost all wrong. I don't want to soapbox too much here. I dislike 2x2 exclusivism and dislike orthodox Christian Trinitarianism/ exclusivism also. But those are qualities; there are other qualities I like in both groups. Mumbo-jumbo like the Trinity stuff is yesterday's religion by any estimation; it's dying out as people finally see through it, at least in the Western world. The nice thing about the f&w denomination is that they eschewed all that theology mumbo-jumbo from the beginning, and the article should reflect that. Really, you can think what you like about the Trinity, and you'll never have a problem within this group. Speaking on it is another issue, but you won't run into trouble because it's the Trinity; you'll run into trouble because it's theology. If you want to correctly characterize the group, say that they reject theology, not that they reject the Trinity. And this is well documented; I'm sure Astynax can dig something up.Slofstra (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said and I agree: Official theology in general is rejected within this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading the Trinity page is interesting but also a very deep and complex topic, something for religious scholars to worry about. Given that this goes back to the 3rd century I would accept that this somehow forms part of orthodox Christianity. Also to both Asyntax and Winkelvi's points, its useful and a 'line in the sand' importance level (and I would add perhaps even more important for followers of other Christian denominations). Given how complex the topic is and given the importance of the classification it would be very unfair to the reader to so easily and lightly make a judgmental call on the categorization. Objectively I think the best that can be said in the article which I would support is that 'it's unknown whether the group supports the concept of the Trinity'. I find this to be objective, factual and useful for a reader. I'm sure Wikipedia is not unfamiliar in dealing with topics where the information is unknown, right? 3knocks (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely it's unknown if you look at the reliable sources. No secondary source has been able to offer primary evidence one way or another, but they do offer judgement calls. But there are scattered sermon quotes on both sides of the fence on Christology (is Jesus God, or only the son of God?). In conversation, workers will give you their personal opinion on the subject. But "reject" is far too strong, IMO. I think it will make a good discussion thread though, and I am going to begin one. I admit I've been wrong before, so who knows.Slofstra (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In rereading your comment, 3knocks, you make a very good point. Christians in orthodox churches, by and large, have a very general idea of what is meant by the Trinity. That is, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and as you indicate, the friends do not reject the Biblical concept of the three person Godhead. However, the academics and ministry in those churches, have a much more academic and detailed version of what the Trinity represents. Their academic definition goes completely beyond with the ideas of their general membership. For example, most church going people don't know that they must accept the 'hypostatic union' to be proper Trinitarians, yet their eyes will glaze over before you get 10 seconds into explaining it. Meanwhile, the friends are said to 'reject the Trinity' because they do accept the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but quite properly admit they don't know anything about the hypostatic union. As evidence of how much controversy still exists in mainstream churches around the Trinity concept, have a look at the controversy around the book The Shack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_shack#Reception In spite of its heretical view point, the book has been a #1 best seller. The author claims to be a Trinitarian, and I suggest we need a more relaxed view of what Trinitarian means, and at least a specific view of what it would mean to 'reject' the Trinity. Slofstra (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hostile sources

It must be kept in mind that most past authors and sources on this group are hostile reviewers. I don't mean this statement as a criticism or commentary, but it's just the state of affairs within the literature. The group discourages publication and analysis on theological matters and internal matters, so parties friendly to the group tend not to write or publish about the group. (The group leaders have generally encouraged or tolerated outside reportage and analysis of their events, as opposed to their theology.) So those who write about this group tend to be critical and hostile writers as a group. Anyone trying to defend the group or say otherwise to some of the claims made about the group, generally will have no sources or resources to back up their point of view. This is not a complaint, but a matter of fact, and has to be kept in mind in reviewing comments of 00Todd00 and other commenters on this page. The only alternative that more neutral and pro- commenters have is to refute statements which they feel are wrong, and demand better sources.Slofstra (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I support Slofstra's points above. In the interest of full disclosure, I myself am an ex-member. I've seen other other ex-members being very critical and hostile about the group in various places on the internet. I believe in the platform of Wikipedia in imparting factual and unbiased knowledge that would be useful to future readers. To that end I'm trying to offer my exposure and understanding of the group's mechanics to fill the gaps and hopefully sourced material will one day present itself to support the assertions. Regarding sources, I find that some of the books written about the group (which would all have been done by outsiders) fall into the same trap as perhaps implied by Slofstra. These writers can also be overly critical but because it is published it is acceptable to cite as sourced material. I find this a little strange but i suppose there is always room to indicate even cited material as biased by Wikipedia editors. 3knocks (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to pick on you, but I find your use of the terminology, "...done by outsiders" problematic. It indicates you see those who have never been members to be uninformed about how the church works and what it believes and, therefore, unqualified to comment or write about the group. It also seems to indicate you still see those outside the church to be the lost ("outsiders" is kind of subjective). Maybe I'm reading too much into what you've said. Winkelvi (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe reading just a little too much but i appreciate the comment. Using 'outsiders' was just to state a fact that those writing about this group would not be part of this group. I've read some of the published material many years ago and I found some of it no different from what can be found on web forums these days in the negative sense. Some of it is also very superficial just touching on very high level points and not getting into the nuances of the religion. Of course I haven't read all the material. 3knocks (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the commentators and writers have not acquired very much skill in academic writing or research. Many of the sources used are not really reliable sources as wikipedia defines it, that is, they are largely self-published by self styled expose journalists. After submitting various test cases for peer review, I have realized that the issue of reliable sources is a losing battle. Wikipedia did not get to be the size it is by relying solely on reliable sources. But no matter, the article isn't too bad, and certainly much better in quality than many of the sources that have been used. I also don't think that you can really "get" the theology/ doctrine as an outsider, unless you read a lot of the sermons. The most difficult problem for outsiders is that there is, by definition, no homogeneous, consistent analysis of Scripture as exists in most denominations, and is published by them. There are certain ideas that are very widely held, and those are ably documented within the article. Slofstra (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Funding is secret?

I'm not sure why this was changed from a clear statement on the absence of accounting of funds to the general membership. Is the funding secret? It isn't any secret to those who know, and it is secret from those who don't know. The use of the word 'secret' is judgemental. I suggest reverting this to the original wording. A parallel example is a private corporation, where most employees have no knowledge of the company's finances. Do they feel thus that this information is 'secret'? Well, quite a few people are shown the information, just not the employees. Slofstra (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Most churches have an annual financial statement available for all to see. That includes those outside the church. "Secret" probably does sound POV. Got a better way to say that the church keeps its financial information from pretty much everyone? Winkelvi (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't think using the word 'secret' sounds judgemental as that is exactly what it is. To the the parallel of a company's finances, all shareholders should have equal access to the financial statements. With this group, very few of the friends know anything about the contributions or expenses of the group. I believe even many of the workers do not know what is happening, especially the more junior ones. I think it's more the overseers who have the knowledge. As an interesting side-note, I think one of the top-line expenses would be air travel. The workers do love being sent to various countries to attend the annual conventions.3knocks (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So you would agree that "secret" is not only not judgmental but accurate? Winkelvi (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unless someone can think of a better word. If the suggestion was to use the word "secretive" then i would agree that this word sounds more judgemental. Secret would be a statement of fact. "Hidden" and "confidential" wouldn't fit either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should use clear descriptive language and let the reader decide for themselves whether the level of disclosure is adequate. See where I'm coming from. The issue is not whether it's "secret" or "not secret". The issue is whether the word "secret" is offering judgement or not. I personally prefer a higher level of financial disclosure in a church organization, but that is not the issue. A better word is non-transparent, better yet to say that financial statements are not produced and finances are not disclosed to the members, and leave it at that. A public corporation has to legally disclose its finances to shareholders; a failure to disclose is secretive, information not disclosed is secret information. No legal and arguably no ethical obligation exists here. Saying "secret" does imply that something illegal or unethical is occurring and there is no basis for implying such. I wonder if you could be libelled for this, in fact. Incidentally, I liked most of your changes, winkelvi. Slofstra (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "secret" indicates something illegal or unethical, just sequestered away from the eyes of anyone other than those authorized to see it.. We have the "secret service", we keep things secret from others, and neither of those concepts are implying something is unethical or illegal. Even Webster's dictionary states that synonyms of the word are "secluded", "hidden", "confidential". I would believe it's safe to say that all three of those words apply in this usage of the word "secret". I propose it's time to get a consensus on this and leave the argument behind. Winkelvi (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(e-c) Personally, I think "secret" in this context does qualify as clear descriptive language. Some might take it as prejudicial, but, honestly, some might take any word as prejudicial. It can in some cases be seen as implying some form of conspiracy, but, in all honesty, there does seem to be, given the apparent refusal of the group to engage the media to any reasonable degree, some basis to think that even that intimation is not unwarranted in this instance. Also, it would be useful to see if the comparatively few independent reliable sources which significantly discuss this subject use the word. If they do, honestly, so can we. Just about the only independent reliable source of a roughly academic nature I know of on this subject is the book Sex, lies, and sanctity : religion and deviance in contemporary North America, whose second paper is "Christians in hiding : the "No Name" sect by Benton Johnson". Unfortunately, I myself don't have ready access to that book, and have yet to find anyone who does. If anyone here can get their hands on it to see what it says, that would be very useful.

Regarding the end of Slofstra's last addition at the end of his comment above with which I was in conflict, I am not myself sure of the relevance. Specifically, I'm not sure if there is a public corporation involved here - if there is, I might have missed it. There are a number of small entities, generally limited to one country, involved here, but no single corporation responsible. Also, honestly, having read what literature there is on the subject, most of the funding of this group is from individual members to individual members, like the preachers, and on that basis wouldn't even necessarily show up on any corporate records anywhere, even if there were a single overall corporation in change. I don't know how common that sort of arrangement is, but I don't have any particular reason to think it is particularly standard.

Regarding Wikilevi's comment, the source of my second edit conflict, I think it might be better to raise this as an RfC as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This page doesn't seem to be on particularly many watchlists, and getting the input of a borader range of editors from different fields would probably be very useful here. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that a public corporation has an onus to report; the f&w do not. Thus they can do what they do without it being a 'secret'. The 'secret service' also take active measures to remain secret. But, it's not a big deal in any case. I readily concede the floor on this one. Now, on your statement, "given the apparent refusal of the group to engage the media to any reasonable degree". Incidentally, John, workers are quite open to the media. That is, they have allowed reporters to report on and have full access to convention grounds, and to gospel meetings. There are numerous articles on the group in various local newspapers, some of them linked from this article. I never found the group to be "secret" in any way in my dealings with them. In that respect I find them no different than any other conservative Christian group such as the Brethren or Mennonites, with whom I'm also very familiar. All of these groups do prefer staying out of the limelight. Are Old Order Mennonite finances "secret"? Perhaps so. I think that Irvine Grey also found the workers to be open, insofar as his academic research.Slofstra (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see the evidence of your comment that workers are quite open to the media. However, your personal opinions, one way or another, do not qualify as reliable sources as per WP:RS. Feel free to peruse the archives here, and you will see that I did an extremely extensive reveiw, of several databanks, to find only a very very few sources on the subject at all. If they were as "open" as you say, it is all but impossible to imagine that there would be so little coverage. Also feel free to check WORLDCAT for any material on the subject yourself. There is, so far as I can see, only the book I pointed out above which qualifies as "academic" which discusses them at any length. The entries on the group in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions and Lewis' encyclopedia also as I remember indicate the group seems to actively avoid media attention, and it is media attention which is most relevant here. Granted, any number of preachers will seem to be very open to members of the public, who generally don't check any sources to verify the statements they make and aren't in much of a position to make it public even if they were to find one. Most religious groups are "open" about the things that they have no particular reservations about discussing. Whether that qualifies as "open" or "non-secret" in the broader sense is another matter entirely.

However, I also acknowledge that it is possible that things have changed in recent years, or that you might have encountered some preachers who are more open to the kind of inquiry reporters give than others. If that is the case, I myself would love to see an interview on Wikinews of such preachers, as that interview would be among the few independent media pieces on them. I've been thinking of trying to do a few interviews with clergy/ministers of other smaller groupings for a few months myself, and I would very much be willing to assist in preparing material for a public interview. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. The workers do not publish any doctrinal material so why would you expect to find any? That's a different matter from a local reporter wondering who has set up tent on the outskirts, or who are the people who come into town every year for convention. There are plenty of that kind of article kicking around. Ask astynax. In any case, it isn't me that is describing them as 'secret'; it's you. I'm not sure why you think I need RS when I'm not writing anything.Slofstra (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And if there are no RS, then what are the several dozen different sources used to compile this article? Not RS by your own admission it would seem.Slofstra (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for consensus on use of word "secret"

• Keep: I do not believe that using the word "secret" in relation to how the church operates financially nor that it indicates something illegal or unethical, just sequestered away from the eyes of anyone other than those authorized to see it. We have the "secret service", we keep things secret from others, and neither of those concepts are implying something is unethical or illegal. Even Webster's dictionary states that synonyms of the word are "secluded", "hidden", "confidential". I would believe it's safe to say that all three of those words apply in this usage of the word "secret". I also believe using the word "secret" in relation to the church's finances is appropriate and not POV. Winkelvi (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: As a response to John Carter's suggestion we take this to RfC rather than use consensus: my feeling is that if we are unable to reach consensus, RfC would be the next step. Winkelvi (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The group is rather secretive in general, and has been regarded as such by sources. Also, the word "secret" does not necessarily imply that there is any sort of evil conspiracy, although some might take it as such. But, well, some people can spin any word any which way, and I don't think that the comparatively small chance of readers overreacting to the word here is so great that using it, one of the clearest and least ambiguous words available, is counterindicated. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Discard - The article should not just be a precis of counter-advocacy material, but should work to a higher standard, neutral, unbiased language as much as possible. The goal should be to provide a warts-and-all description, but any sympathizer or follower of the group will reject the article out of hand, if too many inaccuracies, and a high level of biased language creep in. Anything with a negative connotation requires an extra level of support, and I don't see any active conspiracy to keep financial dealings secret from those who need to know.Slofstra (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Simply regarding the last point, that "any sympathizer or follower of the group will reject the article out of hand," honestly, those are not the people we really expect to come to wikipedia to learn something about the group. As a Catholic, I know very few Catholics who come to us for information on that body, none in fact, and I have every reason to believe that the same holds true for any other group of individuals who have a preexisting POV regarding the topic. And, honestly, I still don't see how the comment above addresses the matter under discussion, or even how much of it actually relates to this topic at all. I very much believe that filing an RfC on this topic is probably the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As I just stated above in my note re: RfC, let's wait and see what consensus brings. Why bring others into it unless we are unable to attempt working together first? In regard to your comment that Slofstra's comment addresses the matter: I don't think it does, either. For what it's worth. Winkelvi (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to go along with the majority here. I felt I should state my opinion for the record, but as is so often the case here, people who actually know something about a subject are of no significance to wikipedia, compared to ironclad references from ex-members that have a hate-on for the group.Slofstra (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment and accusation regarding former members is really inappropriate and should be stricken. I don't know how many among us in this discussion are former members of the church, but I know I'm not one of them. I'm here because I stumbled upon the article and happen to know some former members as well as current members. Accusing folks here of editing in a biased manner because they are former members of the church is really out of line and unnecessarily creates an adversarial atmosphere. I hope you will reconsider those comments and do the appropriate thing. Winkelvi (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I did no such thing. The editors here are fine. I'm disparaging some of the sources and my characterization of these sources is both accurate and widely held. That includes hostile reports from the Impartial Reporter, writers such as Fortt and Daniel, various screeds from the CCM and books such as Heresies Exposed. Now please strike your inappropriate comment from the record.Slofstra (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I will further add that the selection from those hostile sources has been by and large, judicious, in this article. But they are hostile sources just the same. Now please re-read my comment so you understand what I mean. I mean, let's not get carried away thinking we have good reliable sources. I don't find much fault with the article, but there are a few sticking points that still make me cross, particularly the Trinitarian thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Slofstra, because I was curious as well as alerted by your passion in regard to this article's subject, I looked back on your editing history. It seems that you are what I've seen called a "Single Purpose Account". While you've edited a few other articles, the majority of your Wikipedia edits have been at this article and those associated with the subject of Two-by-Twos. I could be wrong, but this tells me you might be a little too close to the subject to be objective. There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia, surely you can find another subject and article to become interested in? I'm not saying you should leave this article completely, but I think you might get a different perspective on editing in Wikipedia if you tried another article or 20. Especially articles that have nothing to do with the church. I can see now that what it looked like you were saying about those editing this article isn't what you were saying. Perhaps if you look back on what you wrote from an objective perspective, you can see what I saw something else. It was your wording that threw me off and made your words sound like something you didn't mean. There were better ways for you to explain what you really meant, though. And I'm finding your attitude to be increasingly hostile and subjective. We understand that you don't agree with "secret" and the Trinitarian stuff. Christianity back to Constantine has been largely Trinitarian. The 2x2s do reject the Trinity, even if you don't like the wording and many members would see that terminology as foreign. All the more evidence that the church doesn't teach or accept the doctrine/theology of the Trinity. You usually don't teach that which you reject. If need be, we can start a consensus on the Trinitarian stuff, too. Winkelvi (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe there needs to be an element of promotion/advocacy outside of the interests of building an encyclopedia to be considered a "Single Purpose Account" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account). This is also my main reason for making contributions to Wikipedia given that there such a lack of objective information out there. Asyntax keeps reminding us that personal experience etc is not relevant and I understand that concept I think - books, journals generally would have gone some peer review process to check for errors etc. Unfortunatly I'm not that confident on the materials written on this topic in other books etc. This topic has so little unbiased and objective writings out there that there seems very little option but to at least hear what people have to say to perhaps find useful information to convey to readers of Wikipedia. 3knocks (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I definitely have a bad attitude toward wikipedia, but let's not even go there. I do have a very wide range of interests in general, but I'm pretty soured on the wiki experience. Your last statement, "that the church doesn't teach or accept the doctrine of the Trinity" is correct and for the sake of precision I would add, "particularly as defined by the Chalcedonian creed". Several of us have vetted the Nicene Creed informally on the discussion board and most friends have little problem with it. On the question of Incarnation though you do find a variety of opinions. I am off topic on this question of "secrecy" though, so please bear with me.Slofstra (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

On the question of the finances being secret, I am in favour of retaining the old wording, which stated simply that finances were not released to the members.Slofstra (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: The word is amply supported by ironclad references. There is support for even more direct language (e.g., "That the occasional movement which seeks and claims to avoid all monetary transactions quickly becomes involved in deception is well illustrated by the history of the late nineteenth century Christian sect known as the Testimony movement (also known as Cooneyites)." Bryan R. Wilson and Eileen Barker in Understanding Social Change (2005), pg. 299. Personal views, experience or research have no place in articles as a matter of policy. • Astynax ^talk 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the quote and perhaps that is what you should use. The statement is accurate. The movement does seek to avoid "monetary transactions" in the sense of any kind of Accounting system, and although I'm not sure where specifically this has led to deception, there are documented cases showing a lack of fiscal prudence, and bad money management. There is no insinuation by Barker of a systemic attempt at shady dealings, and I myself think the problems are more those of imprudence. Of course, imprudence leads to error which can lead to deception. She appears to have an understanding in this sentence of how new religious movements actually work, although she does not indicate exactly what she is thinking of when she speaks of 'deception'. I believe she is referring to specific incidents, rather than systemic behaviour. Also, there is debate as to whether there are any more irregularities than when an Accounting system and proper oversight is present, in general.Slofstra (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit more, and having just glanced at Barker's work, I think the issue is like this. The friends would think they are above any requirement for the publication and review of financial statements, auditing, and financial controls. That's for "organizations", not for them. They can run on trust, and besides the finances are not complicated since the worker live just like the sparrows in the field. Occasionally, that kind of simplicity and trust does come back to haunt them, especially in dealing with the assets on convention grounds, but those incidents are not publicized; some might call those specific incidents a kind of deception. Hope that helps. You should understand that there is no cooking the books, or funnelling of funds for anyone's personal gain. Only one such incident has ever been documented in the history of the group.Slofstra (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Not sure where exactly to show my support but that's a 'yes' from me. Wording such as perhaps 'non-disclosed' would be too neutral as it nearly sounds that there might an option of sharing the information which there is definitely not. I would say there is some (strong) intent to not share that information which the word 'secret' would perhaps convey to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "that there might be an option ...". Could you elaborate?Slofstra (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Discard - The word “secret” suggests that there is something that could be disclosed if they decided to. It seems like people are comparing this to any other business or religion, that produces a financial or P&L statement. This is nothing like any organization or religion. What you need to remember is that these are donations made by random people, if and whenever they feel like it, and it is not the right of the receiver of that donation to disclose how much was donated, or who was donating. It is also not possible for the “organization” to have any idea how much money is sitting in the pockets of the people receiving the donation, and I don’t know myself, but I doubt that they even calculate how much of the leftover money is past into the many bank accounts of members in trust. And then there is the issue of asking someone how much money they get paid or how much they have in their bank account. Obviously it is never ethical to disclose this information, and it is not the right of anyone to reveal this even if they wanted to. Another issue that we are contending with here is that this is real Christianity. It is not some manmade religion run as a business, regardless that the many authors have tried to portray it that way. So in real Christianity, there are concepts such as “But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth”, and these things still happen. These things aren’t in the bible as some fancy words to make people dream of how good it could be. These things are real and still happening today. The left hand not knowing what the right hand does. One person not knowing how much another person donated. One person not knowing how much money another person has been given. The next verse following the one I quoted above starts with... “That thine alms may be in secret”, so yes, the word secret is in there, but if we really are going to use the word, let’s be clear about where the secret is being held... it is by the person giving the alms that is doing it in secret, and it isn’t for anybody else to produce any form of statement indicating who money is coming from, how much they are giving, and who they have given it too. Long have people made the mistake of assuming that this is just another run of the mill religion, and based on that assumption, they make other poor assumptions which end up leading to a conclusion that is so far from the truth that anyone within the group reading this article is going to think, wow, not even close to the mark. 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, Todd. If the word 'secret' is to be used, it should be noted that the group believes that alms are to be given in secret, and that strict confidentiality is maintained on all giving. Mind you, there are ways to achieve confidentiality than how they do it, but that's a side issue. It shouldn't be difficult to find a RS on this point.Slofstra (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal experience

In rereading some of my comments, I notice that a common response is "personal experience" has no place in the article. Please note that I'm not trying to write the article. I am merely pointing out mistakes, and trying to provide a more accurate picture. That effort is not based on personal experience, so much, but extensive reading, and discussion with friends and ex-friends alike. You don't have to listen to me, but I'm quite confident that what I write on this discussion page is more accurate and balanced than the sources used to compile the article, on those specific topics. I have had a view from inside for many years, but then also have traded information and insights with others in the know who inhabit discussion groups on the 'net. I'm not sure why someone who feels sufficiently motivated to compile their experience and opinions into a self-published book is any more reliable than what I would offer by comparison. Again, I fully realize that nothing I say here can be compiled into the article, but at the same time I can make a contribution in critiquing what is contained in the article. By necessity, that is a negative approach, but there is no way to contribute positively to the article because workers do not publish, and even the secondary sources are based on very scant evidence. So while personal experience cannot be used ni the article, certainly it can be used as a guide to which reliable sources are, in fact, reliable, and through the power of persuasion perhaps cull or sharpen the statements that are made.Slofstra (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Slofstra, you make a very good point here regarding the exact same frustration that I faced when trying to enter into discussion with Astynax. When I would try to discuss the real facts and truth about this group, which he knew very well was the truth, he would refuse to discuss the content of what I was talking about, and continually replied with something along the lines of, "you can't put personal experience in the article" (as you can see from his abrupt reply to me at 00:08, 16 January 2013 in the special meetings section). And this is despite that often in discussions he uses his personal experience. I have often thought I could provide a more balanced a real view of the group, but Astynax makes it virtually impossible to enter into any rational and logical discussion, and I have had to give up discussions and editing. I have also made mention to him that I will not be editing the article with my personal experience, but just discussing facts, but his refusal to even discuss these things is just one of the many tactics he employs to prevent other editors from fixing his article (yes, HIS article... but more on that later).

It is my belief that Astynax is not a suitable person to be involved with this article, and if I am the only one that feels this way then I have no problem leaving him to continue as he is, but maybe there are others who feel the same way. If that is the case, I would consider asking for a review of his behaviour, because the type of things he does here is surely not be welcome on Wikipedia. For an example, here are some things of note in his behaviour which I have talked to him about a few times...

• Getting back to the ownership of this article that I alluded too... He has almost 3 times as many edits as the next biggest editor, which in itself tends to indicate that he spends a lot of his time here, and considering that 300 of those edits are actually reverts, this indicates that he is also very protective of “his” article, and resistant to other editors making changes.

Yes, actually 90% of non-minor edits are his or nonemoman's. My own edits were all minor and long gone. Eddie Tor's non-minor edits are long gone. So it is a one person article, no question. Slofstra (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• The “source” that he was so possessed with regarding the “special meetings” pluralisation was hardly what you could call a very real source. The link says “This list of meeting types follows the list given in Daniel 1993, pp. 13–15.”, yet it is barely even recognizable as the same list. The heading is different, the names of some of the gatherings are different, and although it has “special meeting” instead of the plural, there is certainly no adherence to the pluralisation of words in the list because there are all sorts of differences between them. Be passionate about plurals if it is really that big of a deal, but be consistant. It obviously isn’t a big deal to follow the “plural/no plural” of the list because he wasn’t a bit concerned about the other gatherings. No, this is nothing to do with what the source says. This is Astynax displaying his very strong point of view, and picking and choosing what info he allows into his article, and what he would rather hide.
• In attempting to discuss some roles that John Long played, he asked for a source for the “extraordinary claim” I was making, so I gave him one, and copied some sections for him to read. After more than once simply trying to discuss these facts with him, his argument ultimately come down to... “The quote is not on her site, and her final book has yet to be published (I checked).” Now, this is fair enough, and one would accept that it is reasonable to ask that an editor use a published source.... except for the fact that this very book he is suggesting is not a suitable source, IS on the article as a citation, and it was HIM that added it... here. This adds to the ownership issue that Astynax has over this article, because not only is he the overruling authority on what is, and what isn’t a reliable source, he also decides when it is, and when it is not, a reliable source. And this is also why it is impossible to engage in rational discussion with Astynax.

In fact, John Carter commented above that there are few reliable sources. That made me wonder what the dozens of sources Astynax has used are supposed to be? The problem here, in general, is that wikipedia has a very lax view on sources, and in fact, a 2000 word article on the Strawberry Alarm Clock would not be possible if reliable sources had to be depended on. So the wiki rules on reliable sources are a chimera. And perhaps this approach is just fine, as long as no one pretends wiki- is anything else than it is. But I do find it ironic to see astynax insisting on reliable sources, when he has used quite a few newspaper articles and self-published books to compile his article. John Long's journal is not to be used? Come on, this is the ONLY first person account of the early years extant, and even the generally considered reliable sources, like Heresies Exposed, and even Melton's article, are based on hearsay and generally do not document their primary sources. Secret Sect is an exception and does document its primary source, but Long's journal was not available to Parker.Slofstra (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• When I mentioned some roles that John Long played, Astynax mistakenly thought that I was trying to tell him that John Long was the founder. This was his subconscious acknowledgement that these facts are very huge, even to the determination of who was the founder, yet he then proceeded to pass these off as merely “factoids”, that would not have any impact on the balance of the article. This guy is seriously hiding something here. He knows very well how big this is, and he knows very well that this information is well researched by historians and accepted to be the truth. This is yet another reason why I do believe that Astynax is not a suitable editor of this article.
• Another tactic Astynax employs (for editors like me who don’t share his point of view), is to demand that your edit be perfect straight up, otherwise it gets reverted. Wikipedia suggest that you don’t have to get it right the first time. It is a work in progress. Not so under Astynax’s reign. Your citations have to be bullet proof too. Fair enough... Wikipedia expects this. The trouble is though, that Astynax ultimately decides what is a good source, and has already decided that it isn’t. This recently included his decision that some additions to the article which were cited from a published hymn book, widely accepted to be used by the group, was actually not a reliable source...See here. It is getting quite ridiculous when a published, used, accepted, available, book of the group (hymns old and new), can’t be used to indicate the group’s belief. Not good enough says astynax... He will tell you what they believe... not their own book.

So, there is my evidence that it is impossible to discuss article content with Astynax, and edit warring gets a person blocked. The only other alternative is if Astynax no longer edits here, and I would assume from his passion for this topic (which could well be in all good faith), he would need to be banned. If I am the only one who feels that his behavior is unsuitable to the attainment of a good article, then I am happy to accept this, and leave him to his deceptive method of control over this article. If in fact that this behaviour is unacceptable to most, I am happy to be involved in doing whatever is necessary to either improve his behaviour (noting that I have already tried to reason with him over his behaviour), or have him removed from editing this article.

Sorry that I got a bit of topic here Slofstra, but getting back to your point, I guess what I am saying is that without one particular difficult editor, I think the majority of editors here can be honest about this group and actually create a real and true article, which is ultimately what Wikipedia wants, despite the Wikipedia policy that gets used by some as a tool to prevent this exact thing from happening. Totoro33 said it well in the opening paragraph in the special meetings section above, that it is better to have accurate rather than inaccurate unsourced information, and I am certain that we can achieve that once we are able to discuss the real facts and content, rather than continue to fall into discussion about personal experience not being allowed. We all know that even the published sources are also personal experience, and based on the fact that a large majority of the authors want no part of this group, this makes their view a very unbalanced and biased representation of the group, compounded by the fact that Astynax doesn't allow reference to the one book (Hymns Old and New) published by the group and reflecting their very own beliefs, and is also very selective about who he lets use the reliable sourses that he uses. 0oToddo0 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are concerns about personal behavior, that is best addressed at noticeboards, not here. Honestly, the above statement seems to me to be very much a personal attack as per WP:NPA on one editor, and I very very strongly urge all those involved from refraining from such commentary here. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that previous consensus on use of sources was to admit a wide range of sources. I can't understand now why John Long's journal cannot be used, but the autobiographical and unsourced work of the anti-friends community who all know each other, and self-publish as a group, can be used. And I don't understand why the hymns cannot be used to back up certain points of doctrine, since the hymn book is really the only widely used and generally accepted instrument published by the friends themselves. I just believe we need some level of consistency here. Again, I have found past wiki- tribunals on this to want to let in a wide range of sources.Slofstra (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to add the perspective that most of the article, at least 90%, maybe more, is quite accurate.Slofstra (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I very much question the relevance of this whole thread. It seems to me that someone is basically saying that we are obligated to assume that the alleged personal experiences of one editor who has never declared his or her own position is somehow something worth considering in determining the content of this article. If that individual can demonstrated somehow that he qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:RS, then I would agree that he is right. Otherwise, the relevant guideline would seem to be WP:POV. Particularly regardidng this, remarkaably poorly organized group, there is no way for any individual to determine either that their own personal experience, based on their own contact, which is almost certainly with a comparatively small group of people and generally limited to a small area relative to the group as a whole is either seeing things in a neutral way or whether what they perceive is also true of other locations. Most groups which have any interest in hiding things have gotten fairly good at not only hiding things, but also in making statements which do not indicate that things are being hid, and in some cases explicitly saying "they aren't hiding anything".

So, in large part, we cannot accept what some editor of unknown identity says is personal experience as being any more neutral or reliable than any other hearsay. I don't think anyone would ever think it would make sense for someone who was friends with Catholics in Cheyenne, Wyoming, to say that their personal experience of Catholicism in that one location does not agree with what the article on that body says, and on that basis challenge the content. I have no reason to think the same should not apply here.

I think it would be in the best interests of everyone if all involved were to review talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG. It can be, and sometimes is, the case that individuals lie or misrepresent their personal experiences for POV pushing reasons, and on that basis we cannot use such personal experiences to determine article content. This, unfortunately, applies to me as well, even though I actually served as Pope of the Catholic Church for about 30 years, and know it better than most anyone here. What, you don't think we have wi-fi in heaven? ;)

Regarding John Long's journal, I guess the best thing to do would be to demonstrate which independent reliable sources consider it a reliable source, by, for instance, its inclusion in their bibliographies. While there are not that many truly independent reliable sources out there, the original basis of our RS guidelines, in summary, was that the sources that are used by other independent reliable sources, like reference works, would qualify as reliable sources here. Having looked at Melton's work, and a few other reference works, I find that some of the sources whose reliability I would generally question are included in their bibliographies, and on that basis believe that they would qualify as sources here as well, in the absence of more clearly independent reliable sources. This particularly includes some of the more clearly critical material. If Long can be shown to have been regarded as worthy for inclusion or discussion by an independent reliable source, I would think that we could probably use that work in much the same way that they did, but we would need to see what sources use Long and regarding what specific statements.

Lastly, I regret to say having looked in Melton's Religions of the World, this group isn't even mentioned in passing. That work is more or less organized on the basis of national, not tradition or denomination, and apparently this group wasn't deemed to be of such importance to any individual country or area that it was mentioned in that work. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My argument is that 'personal experience' is often what leads people to question a point. And then we find the sources are not actually reliable, or have a strong ideological bias, based on our own experience. It then comes down to why such sources can be used and whether our personal experience can be used to assess the bias of those articles. No one is suggesting using personal experience in the article itself. For example, the Impartial Reporter is clearly biased against this upstart movement. But let's not continue this, I just wanted you to be clear on my point.Slofstra (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Melton does have a good article in the Encyc. of American religions, but maybe you knew that. The movement is not all that significant in the big scheme of things.Slofstra (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to a separate work, which covers the religions of the world. I am well aware of the subject being included in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, Lewis' The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, and a few other sources, to various degrees, as well. As those sources meet the criteria for independent reliable sources, they are the ones favored for our use here as well. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I seem to be talking down to you here (that's not my intent), but, it doesn't matter what other independent reliable sources have to say about Long's journal. His journal is considered a primary source, and primary sources aren't for use in Wikipedia as reliable sources. See WP:RS for more. Correct? Winkelvi (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You do make positioning moves in your text as an authority, a wiki policeman, that is. I don't call that 'talking down' necessarily. Long's journal really is a Rosetta Stone in understanding the early days of the movement, and of course, that is the opinion of just two people here at this point. But that opinion is shared. Perhaps we can show that in time, but I don't know anyone who is working in this area, such as Cherie Kropp, and some of the lesser lights, who have ever contributed directly to this article to offer an opinion. If you like I could get people to comment on the importance of Long's journal in another forum and link. Again, I am not suggesting it be used as a source, but dates and events in that journal do not line up with synthesis that has been made on or outside this article. I believe those points shown to be false should be removed or at least tagged as a result.Slofstra (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can find sources which support your claim that Long's journal is a "rosetta stone," that would definitely be useful. Otherwise, although I really hesitate to say this, it is possible that the Cooneyites in a broader sense might have been sufficiently discussed for their to perhaps exist an article on the history of the Cooneyite movement. I am the first to say that I haven't seen any evidence to this effect mysself yet, but I've been wrong before. Otherwise, honestly, even the statement that it is a "rosetta stone" might violate WP:OR. Like I said above, I would myself welcome finding any sort of independent reliable source on this subject, even if it were to mean that I might have to do an interview of a subject for Wikinews. I am not a good interviewer, by the way. But we are bound by our policies and guidelines to basically reflect the statements of independent reliable sources. It is, I suppose, possible that some local history journals, which often qualify as independent reliable sources, might discuss the early days of the movement in some detail, or perhaps some other IRS'es in other fields. I can check the Heritage Quest databank of ProQuest in the next few days for local history journals, but I would not be particuarly optimistic about the subject getting much coverage there. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing, not arguing and focusing on editors

It's been nearly two weeks since the article's been edited. Pointing our perceived flaws in the personalities of editors is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. If you think you have a legitimate beef against another editor here, take it to an administrator or one of the noticeboards. Better yet, how about we all just move on and away from the mud-slinging and accusations being thrown around on this talk page? Winkelvi (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know if I do that, as I try hard to stay away from that kind of thing. I reserve the right to not buy into wikipedia as social ideology, however. Mean this kindly; it's just not for me.Slofstra (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Winkelvi, it has probably been two weeks because it is pointless editing this article as I and other recent editors have found. One particular editor (as his records show) has a bad habit of reverting edits. Add to that the fact that you and he tag team in edit wars, it is virtually impossible to make any ground in improving this article and eventually editors give up and don’t come back. No doubt your comment here was in reference to my concerns about the way that Astynax behaves on this article, and although it is unfortunate that a majority of the discussion has to be about him refusing to discuss certain points, or the way he dictates differing rules for different editors in regards to what sources they are allowed to use and even which editors are allowed to mention their personal experience on the talk page, or the way that he is dishonest about upholding what a reference indicates for example... this is his choice, and only he can do something about it. Once he changes the way he behaves on this topic, or removes himself from the ownership characteristics he displays, and his aggressive protection of this article, other editors will be able to do just what you are seeking here, and move on. This is not about mud-slinging, but (many) simple requests to stop playing little games here on the talk page, and get back to discussing article improvements. Can we not discuss the way this article is edited here on the talk page? I know that my actions have been discussed here. I raise these certain things in the hope that he will review his actions and do something about it. I am not interested in having any type of ownership over this article myself, and therefore not inclined to make an attempt to determine who edits here, and who doesn’t, because it needs to be a collaborative effort of many editors. For that reason I have not looked at the avenue of limiting his ability to continue as he has been, but feel free to tell me what notice boards or administrators would be interested if you like. Obviously I don’t want to bother an administrator if we can sort it out here between ourselves, and maybe with your help (I get the feeling that he respects you), assuming you are honest enough to acknowledge that there is a serious issue with the way he runs this article, we can get back to rational and productive discussions, which will ultimately lead to improving this article. It appears that we are both all for that. 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the pain that contributing to the main article would take. The synthesis on which the article relies, beginning with Heresies Exposed, has framed the movement as malevolent because it is outside their specific theology, which today is largely American evangelical Christianity. In addition, many of the writers sufficiently motivated to write about the movement have an antagonistic bent, admittedly usually with some justification. But that's too big a thing to fight, although I see progress. I post any information I have on the discussion page. Editors can decide if it is of any use to them. And people often read the discussion page so they can get more sides to the story.Slofstra (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but it would take a very long time to read through all the archived discussions on all the various points of contention on this article. I for one, will read an article with the assumption that all the hard work is already done to make it right. The only time I look to the talk page and read through the discussion is if I see a tag that says that some of the information is disputed. Try putting a dispute tag on this article though. Impossible, no matter how big the dispute is. You will be told that a dispute tag is not warranted, and be left wondering what the dispute tag is for, if not for disputes. I also prefer to discuss changes on the talk page first, but typically I have found that it is very hard to engage the other editors in the discussion while the article itself remains untouched. Adding a disputed tag prompts them to come to the discussion, but unfortunately it becomes a discussion about the disputed tag, and an edit war over the disputed tag, rather than on topic discussion about the article content. 0oToddo0 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute tags about specific poorly sourced elements of the history, as well as the doctrine section, would be a good thing. I had forgotten about those. You're welcome to battle these people, 0oToddo0, but I actually came to this page for another purpose which I'll post when I'm ready, and got distracted. There are two problems you will face that are insurmountable. The biggest problem you will find is that the editors here all stick up for one another when push comes to shove. It's all about consensus, but some have more consensus than others. But you're welcome to try. The second problem is that much of the Christian world has been written, described and analyzed from a self-perpetuating ideology outwards. Ideology means power and control. Their ideological axe is clearly documented here on Wikipedia and it is how they analyze everything. Good luck with that one. My comments are made without malice. Peace.Slofstra (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From the header at the top of the page:

• This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Two by Twos article.
• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Not an ideology, just pure common sense. I suggest you two (Slofstra and Todd), try it and then try editing the article. If you're no longer interested editing the article, then I suggest you find another article. Until then, all this arguing and finger pointing is pointless and wasting bandwidth. If you can't stop with the arguing and finger pointing, then take it to your own talk pages or even email. I've outlined the set guidelines for article talk pages. Please adhere to them or go elsewhere. Winkelvi (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this response. For example, I don't read 0oToddo0's comments as personal attacks, but very much to the question of the editing process. He has been admirably reserved given his frustration level, which I no longer share, incidentally. Surely, he should be able to explain his frustrations in not being able to place dispute tags, for example.Slofstra (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also interested in abiding by the wiki guidelines and making this a positive process. Sorry, but I don't see where I have broken any of the guidelines. I do assume good faith on the part of the individual editors, but perhaps you are bothered by my criticism of various sources. I should be free to make those kinds of criticisms, I believe, as they touch on the accuracy of the article. That is 'on topic' in my view.Slofstra (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, winklevi, I am wondering if it is you that should go elsewhere, and come back when you're not so upset and can be more rational.Slofstra (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear and to the point. If you can't see that your comments and Todd's comments on this article's talk page are in violation of those guidelines, then perhaps an administrator can help you see it. This has gone on long enough. The majority of your comments and Todd's comments on this page have nothing to do with editing the article, just general bitching about other editors. Do the right thing and make it stop. Taking it to your own talk pages or email is the best solution. I suggest you do it sooner than soon. Winkelvi (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, sorry, I can't see it, and you are unwilling to provide examples. You also conveniently lump my comments and Todd's comments together, but I've personally never made any negative comment about any editor that I can see. I have made a number of positive comments about astynax's work and I think minor edits by other editors have also helped with the tone. Not sure why you've got your shorts in a knot.Slofstra (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Faith Mission role

In good faith, I submitted well sourced comments on the role of the Faith Mission in the early part of the movement for discussion by editors of this page. I thought that was what I was supposed to do .. discuss major revisions before anyone edits the article. These comments have been deleted by winklevi. First, I get blamed for not editing (previous headline) and when I do suggest a major edit, I get blamed again.I can't win. Slofstra (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary when those comments were removed, the article talk page is for discussion of edits, not discussion of the article topic. Winkelvi (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? It's a significant edit, and contains almost no discussion of existing article content. It's not ready to be placed in the article though, as it represents a significant change in direction to the existing text with regards to William Irvine, but as an addition, not a refutation particularly. I wrote this a year ago, and it was extensively discussed and found extensive support on a discussion board I frequent. Both the influence of John Long and that of the Faith Mission are significant omissions from the existing article. I thought of placing this here when I saw 0oToddo0's remarks on the John Long journal. I suspect based on your action that you might be out of your depth on this topic. Is that possible? Are you knowledgeable on the Awakening in Ireland and Scotland and the Christian religion in the late 19th century in those areas?Slofstra (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It didn't belong on the article talk page because it wasn't discussion, it was something that could be considered article content. I don't know how much more clearly I can state this: article talk pages are not for discussing the article's subject, it's for discussing changes to the article. What you put here belongs in a Wikipedia sandbox or perhaps your own talk page, not here. Winkelvi (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is that indeed I was "discussing changes to the article". I'm not sure how you can discuss changes and avoid the article's subject. I don't think I've ever seen that, actually. Would you mind indicating what wiki rule you are referencing as I don't understand the distinction exactly, at least not the way you've put it. Maybe if I could read a more clear exposition I can put my suggested emendation in a more suitable format. But perhaps not, I don't know.Slofstra (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Not a forum and then read WP:Sandbox. Winkelvi (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I got WP:SOAP from your link. This entire section on the Faith Mission is written from a 'neutral point of view' and adds additional light and information to the subject. I'm not soapbox-ing here at all, it's not an opinion piece, although my comments in other sections tend that way. But I do want to be honest with editors such as yourself to understand my perspective, so my motive was honorable. You do realize I'm not in the movement, and have no particular axe to grind either pro- or con-?Slofstra (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Retracting previous edit. My link landed on WP:SOAP, but I see you are referencing the section above.Slofstra (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize if you saw my previous edit, as I was getting frustrated with your explanations. I understand your criticism exactly now that I have read WP:FORUM. Please try and use such links in the future at the very outset, rather than your own explanations, as they are much more clear.Slofstra (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So, further, the information on Faith Mission, CIM and the Awakening is not 'new information'. It is new in relation to the synthesis that has occurred in this article. But the entire content of what I wrote is well sourced and commonly known to those who have some familiarity with the topic. If there is some novel synthesis on my part, let's tease that out, and I will withdraw it, as that is not my intention.Slofstra (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is often the case that proposed additions to the content of an article are placed on the article talk page first. However, I also acknowledge that these sometimes include proposed additions which in no way would even remotely qualify for inclusion in the article, with an artificial example being "I propose the lead be rewritten as follows: Rin Tin Tin was the best dog in the world. He was ever vigilant in pulling Timmy out of the well, despite Timmy's apparent psychological fixation with that well, and also frequently rescued people who probably shouldn't have been let out of their houses alone from the nearby woods. He was also cute, got along well with people, and had a great TV show."

Beyond that, I haven't checked to see whether the Faith Mission has an article on its own here yet. If it doesn't, of if that article is poorly developed, it would probably make more sense to develop a section of that article on its "Legacy" regarding other groups. But we try not to duplicate content across multiple articles here, except in short summary sections, and an article on the Faith Mission itself would probably be the more directly obvious place for such content. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to absent myself from wikipedia. I feel my general disdain and lack of respect for the various editors on this wikipedia subject is probably unduly colouring my speech, and John Carter has pointed out a couple of personal attacks I have made, quite unconsciously, but there it is. My sense of tact is not notable, especially when I get unwound on a subject, so I'll vacate the field for now.Slofstra (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)