Talk:Two by Twos/Archive5

The Cooneyites article and this article seem to be, based on what sourcing I have, essentially about the same group. We generally don't have separate articles on one group simply because of differing names. Unless there is evidence that the two groups are not in fact the same, it would make sense to merge the two. Considering that I have seen no evidence that they are not the same, I would, at this point,
Support such a merger. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support also.RSuser (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The two groups are not the same. The followers of Edward Cooney do not share with the CC's significant doctrines (homeless ministry, requirement to hear the gospel through a worker, denial of the history, etc.), and certainly not the same organization (the CC organization is considered by Cooneyites to be corrupt). Because the word “Cooneyite” was coined in, and still frequently used in Britain to refer to the group, and does create a bit of confusion. Not insurmountable, as the statement currently over there does direct people here who want to know about the larger sect. Deletion has been previously proposed[1][2] by RSuser/XXXXX and rejected, as was merge. The same attempts at deleting or merging have been made regarding the William Irvine article. • Astynax ^talk 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the AFD was proposed, I was surprised at all the references uncovered, but they were to the use of the term as a synonym for Christian Conventions before Cooney left. (This did come out in the AFD but too late). I doubt there are references establishing notability WP:N to 'Cooneyites' as a separate group. Also, I have since learned that the term 'Cooneyites' is still used today to refer to Christian Conventions in the UK/Ireland. I think one way out of the problem is to absorb the material about the followers of Edward Cooney into the Edward Cooney article. Cooneyites would redirect to CC, but Cooney would show up under 'See also' here. Little or no material is lost. Just a suggestion. An alternative would be to disambiguate Cooneyites into the CC and Edward Cooney articles or is that confusing.RSuser (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to go with RSuser's approach. So how about

This article refers to the Christian movement founded in Ireland by Edward Cooney. In some countries, the term Cooneyites refers to the Christian Conventions.

Keep the Cooneyites article with mutual See alsos. As RSuser proposes, the Cooneyites article might better be merged with Edward Cooney than merging Cooneyites with CC.--nemonoman (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on the grounds they're not strictly the same bunch of people, but something should be done. I like the idea of simply creating more powerful disambiguation as Astynax and Nemonoman suggest. I'm guessing the CC article would be getting close to the recommended character limit for a single article, in which case, after a merge, the Cooneyites section might need to be pulled out into a separate sub-article anyway. Better disambiguation could solve the need to link them with less fuss. Donama (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, I think it's up to you to summarize the opinions above and make the call. I'm not seeing a lot of new opinions showing up. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Social Impact of New Religious Movements by Bryan Wilson, Unification Theological Seminary Conference Series No. 9, New York:Rose of Sharon Press, 1981, specifically the paper "Yesterday's Children:Cultural and Structural Change in a New Religious Movement" by Roy Wallis, appears to deal with the "Conneyites", and seems to have received a favorable review in an academic journal per JSTOR, so it could probably be included as well. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Wilson is also supposed to have authored an article which is called “Persistence of Sects”(?) in the Indian Missiological Review which I've seen quoted. I've been unable to track down the article date, volume and page numbers in order to cite it thus far. • Astynax ^talk 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Lewis, in his book The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, Amherst, NY:Prometheus Books, 1998, ISBN 1-57392-222-6, p. 494, includes the following information:

• In the 1903 convention, the members were required to take vows of poverty, obediance, and chastity.
• It recognizes the King James Bible as its official book.
• Two sacraments are observed: baptism by immersion, and the weekly Lord's Supper.
• Members dress frugally, do not wear jewelry, and, often, don't watch television. Women aren't supposed to cut their hair or wear makeup. (Whether this means women are ever supposed to cut their hair, or just let it grow to be ten feet long or whatever, it doesn't say.)
• It is broken up into fields, which hold annual conventions. Each state of the US and province of Canada is counted as a field. They had 96 conventions in the mid-1980s, indicating a membership of between 10 and 100 thousand members in the US, and probably(?) as many in the rest of the world.
  

Considering Lewis is also generally counted as a reliable source, I imagine this information can be included as well. He also states that while the group's beliefs have evolved over the years, it is hard to pinpoint them given the lack of official publications. Given the groups inclusion in this book on NRMs, I'm thinking that it might be useful to check in other books relating to NRMs and specifically Christian NRMs for some additional verifiable information. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncanny how the sources considered reliable ARE reliable.RSuser (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, does James R. Lewis cite his sources? If so what are they?

thanks, Jesse Lackman (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The church has no official headquarters and claims to publish no documents, although materials are created and distributed for internal circulation, including its hymnals, copies of various pastoral letters, sermon notes, lists, and convention summaries.

I'm not sure the second clause adds a hell of a lot of value. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "The church has no official headquarters and claims to publish no documents other than hymnals."

Do the hymnals have a registered copyright? --Nemonoman (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked one down. From the verso...

Compilation copyright © 1987 Pocock & Martin [whoever they might be]

All rights reserved. No part of the music or words of these songs or hymns may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the publisher or copyright owner.

This new compilation first published 1987 by

R.L. Allan & Son (Publishers)

3 Beggarwood Lane

Basingstoke, Hants RG23 7LP

England

Previous compilations entitled “Hymns Old & New” were published in 1919, 1928 and 1951.

R.L. Allan[3][4] prints hymnals exclusively for purchase and circulation by this church's ministers. I've never seen one offered for sale, except used. I recall reading somewhere that R.L. Allan also produces the Bibles given out by workers to new members. Most outsiders will never come across a hymnal or the other materials, but they may be observed when visiting a member's home (around here, frequently along with professionally done framed photos of ministers), goes to a gospel meeting (hymnal), or asks about something the item answers. • Astynax ^talk 19:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebay has a few copies of Hymns Old and New available. The only way to buy the hymnal from Allan's website is after using a password, so I guess access to them is rather restricted. No objections to removing the text, but might maybe add something to the effect that they have an outside publisher. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the password published on a few websites, it's not like it is very hard to find, has anyone tried asking Allan what it is? ->smile<- Access to these hymbooks is not as exclusive as some are making it out to be. Jesse Lackman (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??

"The church has no official headquarters and claims to publish no documents. It occasionally distributes Bibles and hymnals published by an outside publisher."???

?? or what's wrong with

"The church has no official headquarters and claims to publish no documents."--Nemonoman (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? Or maybe something like "The church has no official headquarters or official publications. It's printed materials are produced by an outside publisher." John Carter (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed to John Carters version. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemonoman,

As we agreed, I am bringing this discussion here from my talk page, so others might enter this discussion.

You said on my talk page, that "these two contemporaries were involved with the formation of the church", plus there were many others and it really makes me wonder why someone would (seemingly randomly) pick only one of those, to list as the founder, when there were many more involved, and in fact John Long did much more than William Irvine did, even though he was not as influential on the preaching side of things.

As far as the TTT site goes, and that they call William Irvine the founder, I have had discussions with the author of that book, and many others who claim that William Irvine was the founder and no one can tell me why it is that he is the founder and what he did to found it. They respond with many conflicting statements try to to prove it. So, feel free to blindly accept the cover of their book if you like, or you may want to look at the truth. All I have done is display facts that can be verified, even if they do come from a book that has William Irvine as founder on the cover. I used that book to show to you that people are trying to obscure the truth and the "founding" section here is completely misleading for that same reason.

As I mentioned to you, I will try to integrate the details that I added into the “founding” paragraph, but unfortunately, to do that we are going to have to drop all the incorrect information that attempts to paint William Irvine as the founder. 0oToddo0 (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thank you very much for bringing the discussion here. I see you intend to be an active editor. I'll note that there are many controversies surronding this article, and brisk walk through the discussion archives may prove helpful as you try to negotiate this minefield.

2. I have again removed this section you added. It is all very interesting information, but not particularly useful or productive information in its current form. The title "Other details to consider" doesn't provide much context for what you're showing, and if you think the context is plain, it's not...or it certainly was not plain to me, and I'm supposed to be smart.

3. I appreciate your desire to revise the Irvine as founder elements of the lead paragraphs, but this is the generally accepted view of historians, it appears, although not, it appears, with members of this church necessarily. So my suggestion is that the Irvine as founder info in the lead stay more-or less intact as the information is well-referenced and about as mainstream as any info about this group appears likely to get.

4. If you wish to show that there are sources contradicting the many references that Irvine was the founder (including the very one you cited here, yourself!), please frame your information as such: like-- "Controversies concerning claims of church origins" or something similar, with specifics about how the evidence being presented in your new section contradicts the well-documented facts of Irvine being the founder. Say plainly that the information is being presented to contradict the established view. Then the section would be relevant and make sense.

5. I think that the controversies about Irvine as founder deserve to be outlined and documented. I hope it will be done -- or that you will do so -- explicitly, and not by inference or by subtlety. Of course documenting these alternate views is important, and I am not certain our resident Reliable Sources Critic, RSuser, will agree that your sources are reliable. If not, I'm sure others can be found.

6. And if you're going for the "It wasn't Irvine" brass ring, why not also go for gold ring of "no earthly founder" which in many respects seems (to me at least) a more defensible view?--Nemonoman (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I guess I will be an active editor of this article seeing it interests me. Yes I see that there has been a lot of discussion as I work back through lots of archives. I haven’t read it all but I will try to. If you see that I am discussing something that is being discussed elsewhere just move my discussion and point me there if you like.

2. I have once again replaced the section I added. I am not sure what you find not useful or productive about it. It is just plain simple facts. I get the impression from your discussion with other editors that you insist that William Irvine WILL be documented as the founder here regardless of the truth so you will try to stifle any comments to the contrary, regardless that they have citations, and regardless that the statements in the article that they contradict do not have citations. It appears that your initial deleting of my addition with the excuse of lacking citations was nothing but a poor effort to maintain your false belief in this article.

3. I’m sure that many historians do document that William Irvine was the founder, and it is not surprising that the majority of the historians have something against these people and want to portray them badly, especially by suggesting that they are lying about who the founder is. What they do is document all the history and then completely ignore it and call William the founder so they can claim that there are lies. That is like giving all the evidence why a car is blue and then still calling it a red car. Don’t expect that false info in the founding section to stay there because I have not seen anywhere that supports some of that sequence of events and dates.

4. Not really sure why you want to add a section called "Controversies concerning claims of church origins" because we can sort out all the contoversies here on the talk page and then have the article display the truth. Other than that, lets just put the facts out there in the article and let the reader come to whatever conclusion they do about who the founder is. Unfortunately for you and others, the truth does not indicate that William was the founder, and only when it is written falsely as it is no does it give some sort of indication that he was, but why not tell the truth seeing this is an encyclopedia.

5. I actually think the controversies should be sorted out rather than added to the article. The whole point of having an encyclopedia is so that people can come and read it and know the truth. If this is not your desire for Wikipedia, then I am certain that they would rather you didn’t edit here. As far as RSuser goes, I can see his point in most cases. The trouble is that the majority of these websites and books were not written to promote this group, but to speak out against them, and they mislead and stretch the truth dramatically. As you can see from the details that I added just how much they contradict the first 2 sentences in the “founding” section. This article was written very loosely to attempt at least to make it look at little bit like William was the founder with blatant disregard for the truth. This is the same with most of these websites and that makes them a very unreliable source especially they are going to put William Irvine as the founder on the cover of a book, completely disregarding the facts and events inside the book.

6. I will ignore that comment. It dosn't seem like you want to discuss this sensibly and sort this out. 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of our content, whether we like it or not, has to be based on, and inclusive of, where appropriate, relevant material from reliable sources as per WP:RS. All the reliable sources I've seen regarding the subject to date mention Irvine as the founder/originator/whatever of the group, so we are more or less bound by policy to say that. I am not myself sure of your reasons for thinking Irvine should not be listed as the founder, but I will for this statement operate on the supposition that he was, as the sources I have seen, the sole founder, simply for the purposes of ease of phrasing.

If part of your contention is that the group was substantially influenced by others after he started the group, such that it no longer necessarily resembles the group he founded, I could understand that, but that still wouldn't indicate that he wasn't the original founder, just that the group has evolved since then. If your contention is that others were also vital factors in the founding of the group, I would myself welcome seeing the sourcing which asserts that, but have to say that I myself haven't seen such comments. And, for what it's worth, I acknowledge some outsiders who write about various religions do so with the intention of damaging those groups to advance their own beliefs.

One of the outsiders who I have consulted regarding this matter is J. Gordon Melton, who is a Methodist minister. However, he is also, based on all the materials I've ever read of his, a firm supporter of all "reasonable" religious creeds which don't involve obvious irreperable damage to the adherent, and has even gone on record as being a kind of supporter of Scientology, so I don't think he is necessarily motivated by any sort of negative motivation in his own writings on this subject.

And regarding the possibility that the group, like most "restorationist" groups, claim that they adhere to the principles of the church/group that Jesus founded better than the majority of other groups which that group's members believe have adopted false ideas since then, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to add such information, if we can find a direct source for it, which probably wouldn't be all that hard. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will just add that the way the re-inserted section read, it seemed to be making a claim that John Long either founded the CC's and/or that he “went out on faith” before Irvine. Not so. The cited materials present a different story. While he did not join the Faith Mission, John Long at that time was clearly still a colporteur for the Methodist church and accepting support from that source. It doesn't really present a different picture, just additional details which do not contradict Irvine having originated the group.

I will also add that I've come across John Long's name in Heresies Exposed (pg. 73), where he wrote the author, not to dispute that book's statement that there was an originator, but rather to correct that the founder's name was William Irvine, rather than Irvine Weir. • Astynax ^talk 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, most of the "reliable sources" that are used in this article are critical of these people, so you can imagine why they stretch the truth somewhat.

I find it strange that you say that we are bound to mention William Irvine as founder because that is what these books and website who want to give the impression that the group is lying, also mention. You might know that for many years it was accepted that Thomas Edison, but does that mean that when we write an article in an encyclopedia about the light bulb, we should ignore the truth, and document Thomas Edison as the founder, or is the purpose of an encyclopedia to enable people to read and learn the truth? Just because many people accepted Thomas Edison as the founder, that does not make it true. When we really ask the question, we find out that making light from electricity was not Thomas Edison's idea, despite the fact that he spent lots of time working on it and also had the electricity to make a light bulb useful.

Another strange thing you have mentioned is about operating on the supposition that William Irvine was the sole founder simply for the purposes of ease of phrasing. Do you also have a blatant disregard for the truth that you would use such a weak excuse as "ease of phrasing" rather than document how it really was? I am quite sure people who read encyclopedia's do so to find out the truth, not to read something that was easier to write, regardless of the fact that it doesn't tell the truth. I have quite often asked why it is that William Irvine is called the founder any nobody can explain it without contradicting themselves and each other, and I have heard all sorts of silly things, but I have to say that this is the first time I have heard someone who wants to just mention William Irvine as sole founder for "ease of phrasing". I like it!!! ;)

Maybe you are able to explain why it is that William Irvine is the founder. What did he do? 0oToddo0 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any evidence from reliable sources to support your allegations, then do so. Otherwise, be advised that your comments above are almost all, basically, of little if any value to this discussion. Please confine your comments to reasonable discussion of the article, rather than such unacceptable commentary as is seemingly almost all the above comment is. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax, I had no intention of portraying John Long as the founder, but I was just adding some facts which as relevant to that period, and if you read those facts as seemingly indicating that John Long was the founder, then please ask yourself how you could then come to the conclusion that it was William Irvine. If you have some documentation that says that John Long didn't ask God for guidance regarding his thoughts on Matt 10, and then use that response to make a choice about joining the staff of pilgrims, as William wanted him too.

I'm not sure what you were reading, but the cited information clealy says that John Long was not a colporteur for the Methodist church, because he resigned from that in Nov 1898.

Anyway if there are particular points of what I have added that you don't agree with, discuss them here as you have done but don't just delete the entire section so that it can't be discussed.

Either way, as I have mentioned before, as we sort out the facts, I hope to integrate all that information into the one paragraph but it is hard to do while there is conflicting information, and I am not like you who is just trigger happy in deleting information that someone has spent time writing.

I believe that the reason why people have trouble seeing how that information I added fits in there, is because they are thinking that the section is a "William is the founder" section, so any information that dispels that doesn't fit in their mind, but how about people start considering that William Irvine may not have been the founder, so that we can allow the truth to be put there rather than your preconceived idea of who the founder is. Please ignore the fact that every critic of this group says that William is the founder and just look at the facts and let them speak for themselves, as they obviously did to you and others when they thought that what I wrote was that William wasn't the founder. I didn't actually say that, but it sure looks that way doesn't it? 0oToddo0 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the material was removed was because all content has to be based on a source which meets the standards of WP:RS, not any of the rather strained proposals you have made above. Quite frankly, a website which uses the word "I" in its page about itself, as per here, makes it clear that it is entirely the work of one person. Virtually self-published material, which basically that website very obviously is, is not considered reliable as per WP:RS. If there is a printed source which meets WP:RS standards which substantiates those statements, that would be acceptable. But that self-published website is not. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from websites being problematical as sources, the source you cited only has Long and Irvine studying Matthew 10 together in 1898 - well after the mission in September-October 1897 when other sources have Irvine beginning to preach along independent lines from the Faith Mission.

The next day, according to your source, Irvine and Cooney met. Indeed, Long says that he disagrees (at the time of the writing) with using the "pattern" of Matthew 10. That the dates in some of the quoted material may be a bit clouded by the passing of the years is shown by the statement about Cooney in 1898: “for he very soon after gave up a very good situation, and distributed thirteen hundred pounds to the poor.” Actually, Cooney didn't do that until 3 years later.

And, again, athough John Long gave up his job as colporteur in November 1898, he did not leave the Methodist church at that time. Indeed, he was eventually expelled from the work because his views were so different from those held by the group (he refused to agree that all people and churches outside the new group were wrong and Hell-bound).

Irvine's support from Faith Mission seems to have been cut off in September 1898, although he (and other Faith Mission preachers who became CC workers) did not formally send in resignations until later. So even in your cited source, Irvine was going on independent lines, without outside support, prior to John Long. And the source does actually say that Irvine was founder, in any event. There is a lot of interesting information there which would be useful published, as I haven't yet seen anything in print which goes into such great detail about those early years. • Astynax ^talk 23:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, I was hoping that you would respond to some of my comments, but your response is fairly typical of people who are asked to explain how it is that William Irvine is the founder. I can't really see what is wrong with me pointing out that you are using weak reasoning to justify naming William Irvine as the founder. I asked for a legitimate explanation about how it is that he is founder and if that is the best responce you have, then please question for yourself whether you are upholding the truth here, or trying to suppress it.

You continue to demand that I cite the part I added when yet there is information there already that is uncited, and you haven't removed it, such as this... Irvine quickly became dissatisfied with Faith Mission precepts, and in 1897, after only a few months in Ireland, he became convinced he had received a revelation that the manner in which the disciples had been sent out in Matthew chapter 10 was a permanent commandment which should still be observed... Could you start being a bit fair here? I will add the section again and maybe other people can help out with a citations that suits your demands.

In the mean time, could you please explain how it is that William Irvine is the founder? 0oToddo0 (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments, without an acceptable source, which your source is not, unfortunately aren't particularly useful. You would be better advised to spend your time finding a source which meets the requirements of WP:RS, which I suggest you read. To add the section again without reliable sourcing, and at this point you do not apparently have reliable sourcing, will only result in it being removed again, and, possibly, causing you to face disciplinary measures, so I suggest you not do so. It would be fair of you to provide the sourcing required as per policy for any content, rather than using that source, which is nowhere near acceptable by wikipedia standards. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, while you are not removing other uncited information, all I can assume is that you have a biased view regarding this article that you would remove my information on the claim that it isn't cited with a reliable source (the source, which by the way, is one of the more respected historians on this subject). You can't seem to explain to me how William is the founder, and use crazy reasoning that it is easier to phase, that you call him founder, therefore I think you have an alternative motive for deleting this information than that it isn't cited. Is it not reasonable to discuss the accuracy of this information rather than remove it? 0oToddo0 (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can assume whatever you want. However, as I have now said repeatedly, your sourcing is completely inadequate to add any material to the page. It would be reasonable for you to read the page WP:RS and seek to add material which has sourcing which meets the standards there, or, if you cannot do so, to confine your discussion to this page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, it is quite reasonable for you to expect that information is accurate, but while there is also other uncited information in that section that hasn't been removed, I don't see any reason why the information I have added should not stay there, and for that reason I will continue to add it for the purpose of discussing it. While you are deleting it and using ridiculous reasons for doing so, you are suppressing any discussion about the content of what I have added. It won't be discussed if nobody can see what they are trying to discuss, so I would ask you kindly to not delete it again, and this will give opportunity for that discussion to take place. 0oToddo0 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sentence: “Irvine quickly became dissatisfied with Faith Mission precepts, and in 1897, after only a few months in Ireland, he became convinced he had received a revelation that the manner in which the disciples had been sent out in Matthew chapter 10 was a permanent commandment which should still be observed...” That sentence is supported by the source cited elsewhere in the same paragraph. • Astynax ^talk 02:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this? 0oToddo0 (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the source (All in Good Faith) in front of me. • Astynax ^talk 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax, does that source cite its sources? If so what are they? Thanks, Jesse Lackman (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that I've come across John Long's name in Heresies Exposed (pg. 73), where he wrote the author, not to dispute that book's statement that there was an originator, but rather to correct that the founder's name was William Irvine, rather than Irvine Weir.

I too have a copy of Heresies Exposed. The whole phrase you reference is; "Mr John Long has written us that he was the man who obtained for William Irvine, "the first opening for a mission in Nenagh, August 1897." That "William Irvine is the name of the original leader of the Go-Preachers. William Weir was one of the first staff of preachers who emigrated to America; the two names seem to have got mixed up. He declares the movement dates from 1897."

The Cooneyites section was written by "W. M. R." whoever that is. The use of the word cult by W.M.R. is interesting. I'm pretty curious about who W. M. R. is. It seems the original name for the Cooneyites section was "Go-Preachers and Their Doctrines" so it might be someone who knew the early friends and workers as Go-Preachers.

Heresies Exposed is declared to be " An Examination of the prevailing cults of today." It "exposes" not only the Cooneyites as heritical, but also Christian Science, Roman Catholicism, Jehovoa's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Unitarianism. I've seen the Cooneyites section cited as a source of information about the friends and workers by many people. [5] This is why I'm asking what the various authors cite as sources - there seems to be a fair amout of cross citing in published material about the friends and workers. Cross-citing does not automatically make the cited data true. Jesse Lackman (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All in Good Faith[6] (Mallon, Greaney, Moore, Carey, Cosfrave, Mallon and Moore, authors) is about Christianity as it affected a small Irish district from the time St. Patrick onward. The area just happened to include the village where Irvine held his first independent mission, and where some were recruited (Gill and Carroll families) who later played important roles as Overseers. There are a couple of other books, also sponsored by the government, which may contain further info on the church's early days, but I haven't been able to order copies of those from the library. The chapter of the book regarding the CC's mostly concerns the families. I expect that they relied heavily on local research (interviews with families, looking into local archives, baptismal records, etc.), as there are details I cannot recall seeing elsewhere. The “Sources” list The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney 1867-1960 (Roberts) and the TTT site (Kropp), and note The Secret Sect (Parker and Parker), Reinventing the Truth (Daniel), A Search for the Truth (Fortt). I thought it a good read.

W.M.R. is W. M. Rule. It seems to be largely material by that author which originally appeared in the magazine Our Hope, (January 1924 edition) with some edits. Google pointed me to that info on the TTT site, so I'm afraid I know nothing more about Mr./Ms. Rule. Older sources, even scholarly sources, tended to be much more confrontational than today (well, somewhat, even modern scholarly sources can get heated). The editor (William C. Irvine - what a coincidence!) was an Anglican bishop of Calcutta(?), IIRC, and the articles reflect that viewpoint and that time. Heresies Exposed went through 10+ editions and at least 38 printings through the 1970's. I was surprised to find it is again in print.

That Long arranged preaching opportunities (“openings”) in various Methodist churches for Irvine is also stated in the journal on the TTT site. So “Heresies Exposed” confirms that. However, Long did that while a Methodist, and not as either a CC worker, a Faith Mission worker, or an independent preacher. Long does later join Irvine's new independent mission as a preacher, although he was tossed out in 1907 for insisting that people in other churches could have salvation apart from hearing the CC's gospel (that event occurred in front of a newspaper reporter, who noted it in his story). My personal concern isn't with the John Long memoirs, it is more with invalid conclusions or insinuations being spun (i.e., that readers should "consider" - what? - that perhaps the rest of the history was wrong and Irvine did not found the CC's). I've finished it, and it says no such thing. It is consistent with Irvine having been the founder/originator as stated by the other sources. • Astynax ^talk 04:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have the inclination to read through all of this at the moment, because most of it has likely been thrashed around before. If the preferred wording re the founder can be provided with the appropriate source to back at such statements, that would be helpful. In doing so, please note that the following arguments are not valid:

• Irvine wasn't the founder because they returned to 'true' Christianity and Jesus/God was the founder.
• Irvine was not the founder because views later changed from what Irvine originally taught.

If there is actually some reliably sourced material (not anecdotal or revisionist) indicating either alternative (co-)founder(s), the information should be in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliably sourced material" does not automatically mean the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God. We all need to remember "reliably sourced material" can and does often include subjectively extrapolated conclusions and interpretations born out of a sometimes lustful marriage between limited facts and a lot of personal opinion. That's the problem with much of the published material on the friends and workers - skins of "facts" stuffed with personal conclusions, i.e. strawmen. Here's someone who has read what's out there and come to a different conclusion on the founder issue;

Two men were the founders of the cult, which they endeavored never to name, though once dealing with the Selective Service during WW II, I think they listed it in official papers as “The Christian Testimony”. These two men were William Irvine, and Edward Cooney, both of Ireland... ;[7]

See how it works? The real fact is that many conclusions based on an incomplete data set are being passed off as universal truths about the friends and workers - case in point the "rejection of trinity" conclusion. One could conclude the Wright Brothers were the only ones who ever worked on a heavier than air flying machine if one used only facts and sources referring to them - that conclusion would be completely wrong just as the "rejection of trinity" personal interpretation is. Personal interpretations and conclusions do not become facts through repetition.

The Impartial Reporter reporters and owners are not immune to partiality either, consider this tidbit about William C. Trimble, the owner of the Impartial Reporter newspaper;

A fiery Ulster Scots Presbyterian who served his apprenticeship as a printer in Dublin, this was his ambitious brief:

'Regardless alike of the frowns of party, and the smiles of power, we shall state our own convictions [personal conclusions and/or interpretations] on all subjects which come under our review. We shall defend the Protestant when we consider him in the right, and the Roman Catholic may expect similar treatment.' [8]

Now remember that William C. Trimble did write articles about the early workers and friends; The Tramps or Go-Preachers [9]. I think it's imperative that a reader/researcher remember what is pointed out by Astynax, "Older sources, even scholarly sources, tended to be much more confrontational than today" - that's just another way of saying - "there's some subjective opinion, personal interpretations and conclusions in the cited material folks - be careful". The viewpoints of William C. Trimble, W.M. Rule, and the Impartial Reporter reporter(s) do have some fairly obvious subjective flavor. I will go further and say this is not a phenomena of the past - it is very evident in some of the sources listed and especially in some of the external links off the CC article - many have pointed this out in these pages.

Does anyone know the name of the Impartial Reporter reporter who wrote the articles on Irvine? Has anyone read any other articles by that reporter?

Jesse Lackman (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the section below, statements that contain subjective material should be introduced with something like According to {source}... rather than merely presenting subjective material as outright facts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seeing my point. Doing what you suggest would mean quite a bit of "according too" in the article.

Since a lot of statements (even in the sources cited) contain subjective material how does one balance them with real life experience of current friends and workers that's not officially published anywhere? Are we back to Nemonoman's suggestion?

This article is under-referenced, but it's the best we could do! Some the information is from actual human beings instead of from books! So sue us!

[10]

Jesse Lackman (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content which was added from the tellingthetruth website was content which was based on material published by a source which does not meet the requirements for a reliable source as per WP:RS. As such, it is our obligation to remove it. If this content can be verified from sources which meet WP:RS standards, than please use such sources. Otherwise, please be advised that addition of any additional material based on such unreliable sources will be obliged to be removed as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, removed the same content which

• Did not appear to have any source at all
• Rebutted comments made elsewhere in the article rather than working alternate expert opinion in along with previous expert opinion. Such contrarian rebuttals should ideally be integrated with the main text, not saved for a later section, per Wikipedia:Criticism sections. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned a few times, I have intention of integrating this section into the paragraph above it as per Wikipedia:Criticism sections. but I thought it more appropriate to discuss the points first. This is the whole idea of Wikipedia:Criticism sections. Unfortunately there is not being allowed opportunity to discuss this as everyone wants to just come along and delete it.

In it's current form the information does not have any source at all because I removed it due to John Carter's claims that the source was unreliable. I will mention though that the source I used is one of the most respected and known historians on this topic. I am happy to add that source to the article if you would prefer that it is there. 0oToddo0 (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in stultifying detail at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#One topic publishing house acceptable as RS?, the big problem with this page is with too many self-published and not enough reliable sources. Self published sources are sufficient for noting information that does not conflict with better sources. SPSes lack the power, however, to go toe-to-toe with more scholarly sources. The issue here is that so many of the sources are self-published. I am guessing that your "one of the most respected and known historians" is Cherie Kropp whose work is all self-published. At any rate, it's a source, and should be noted at the same time as you add the information. We don't add contrarian text to the main article for the purpose of discussion on the talk page; we add that text to the talk page itself. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unsourced criticism section. This information should be integrated as prose in the text of the Founding section if it can be reliably sourced. In particular please note that sourced alternative views should not contradict the article itself (e.g. "contrary to what is stated above"), but rather, wording should be employed such as:

However, according to {source}... {alternative information}...'<ref>{Reliable source for alternative view}</ref>

--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]