Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 3

Differing groups among Christadelphians
1. It took a disproportionate amount of space for an article on Christadelphians. 2. It contained a number of inaccuracies (e.g. the "Shield" did not come from the 1873 division. 3. It was insufficiently neutral - we can't have every fellowship saying "Our fellowship maintains the original Christadelphian position".
 * I have substantially edited this section because:

Please discuss here if you would like to expand the section further.

"A union of the Temperance Hall and Suffolk Street fellowships [...text removed by RJB...]."
 * For reasons of accuracy and neutrality, I have changed this...

...to this: "A union of the Temperance Hall and Suffolk Street fellowships [...text removed by RJB...]." Teutonic Knight 22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"A union of the Temperance Hall and Suffolk Street fellowships [...text removed by RJB...]."
 * Having discussed the issue further with an ex-Old Paths member, I have changed this...

...to this:

"However, a minority disagreed with the reunion stating that [...text removed by RJB...]" Teutonic Knight 07:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Teutonic Knight, I have removed the text above because this page was getting unwieldy. Users can see the amendments you have made by comparing versions on the history page of the main article. This talk page is for briefly stating how and why you have made an amendment, and for discussion by others if necessary. RJB 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this link temporarily to ask the question is it an appropriate page to have? I am in the Dawn fellowship yet part of the page states 'Dawn are probably closest to the original teachings....' or words to this effect. If there is to be a separate history page then maybe it should be neutral in tone ( as should be the main page on Christadelphians) and not subjective with comments such as the one mentioned. Maybe the history page needs to be correct before links added to it? Sorry forgot to sign in.

Statements of Faith
The article was 53kb, exceeding the preferred limit of 32kb. The two Christadelphian Statements of Faith are readily available on at Christadelphian sites, so I have replaced the full text of the statements with links to the text on external sites. RJB 195.92.168.167 13:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edit to Beliefs section
Someone had entered the following to the beginning of the Beliefs section: Total Bollocks !!!!

To the author of this, please do not do it again!! Your IP is known and will be reported next time: 213.131.98.65

Links
I note that somebody else has moved these links before but they have appeared back. I am not a Christadelphian but they do not appear relevant to the page.

Have moved 'see also' section to below links as it appeared a more appropriate place for it.

MAS 1/27/2006 ---

Would the person who constantly and repeatedly deletes a link which they don't like please take note that you don't own Wiki and you don't have censorship rights here. Would you also please take note that by deleting factual material you don't change the facts - you simply perpetuate a myth/lie which reflects your own extremely narrow view of Christadelphia.

I believe you are in contravention of the Three-Revert Rule and will be reported.

In an effort to be compromising I posted the following disclaimer at the end of the Christadelphian links:

"Please note that none of these websites are "official" in any way, and many are privately owned and managed. They do not necessarily reflect the points of view of other Christadelphians and readers are advised to search the internet for other sites which may offer different perspectives on Christadelphian teachings and practices."

I see that you've deleted it. Can you please give me one good reason for removing this comment. Ekklesiastic 08:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The long list of text in the links section is using this inapropriately and giving a very poor and highly innacurate impression of Christadephians to people reading this page. I have therefore deleted the body of text that was inacurate and due to bad formatting making the page very hard to read.

The links section now has a PVO boilerplate. Truth Alive, a non-Christadelphian, site will continue to be removed, as it is biased against Christadelphians.


 * Truth Alive is neither "non-Christadelphian" nor "biased against Christadelphians". It is a forum for Christadelphians and former Christadelphians to discuss the practical application of their faith. Ekklesiastic 09:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Removed link for "Truth Alive". It does not represent Christadelphians, is anti-Christadelphian and is run by an ex-Christadelphian whose only purpose seems to be self promotion. - Cdelph 14:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the Links section entirely as it reflects a highly divided Christadelphia (with links to at least seven different fellowships), yet does not fairly represent the full spectrum of opinion within the brotherhood (the links tended to represent the minority fellowships on one end of the spectrum only). By constantly deleting a link to a site of interest to Christadelphians, two people with a vested interest in another site have ensured that this section has constantly remained biased (and this is further demonstrated in the above comment by CDELPH which is untrue in all points). By promoting their own site while deleting the link to another they have been guilty of vandalism and breached wiki policies. The best option, in my opinion, is to remove this section altogether. Linking to a selection of Christadelphian sites is unnecessary in a Wiki article. If anyone wants more information they can easily use a search engine. Ekklesiastic 23:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The only one breaching Wiki guidelines is you. You left the community, and yet claim that you are still a Christadelphian. You run a forum that promotes anti-Christadelphian sentiment, and you also run a blog which promotes the same thing. The only one guilty of promoting untrue statements is you. - Cdelph 14:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ekkesiastic - I see no evidence of people from the TCO site 'promoting their own site' - the link to that site has been here for some time, and to my knowledge was not placed her by either KEM or Cdelph. It's usefulness was in providing a large amount of information in books, articles, and a forum for people who, having read the wiki article, wish to know more about Christadelphians. Whether you or I agree with everything on TCO or not, it is a useful resource for people wanting to know more. Though agreeing that Truth Alive presents a perspective not represented by the other links, I somehow think that there is not enough of relevance to the average wikipedia user looking for 'further reading'. The purpose of the links section is not to represent every point of view, but to provide a few sources for further general information.


 * Cdelph - I see little point in these accusations against Ekklesiastic. It is neither appropriate nor productive to pursue issues in public that, though serious, do not directly concern the Wikipedia article, and are best discussed with the people concerned. I also feel that the objection to Truth Alive while tolerating minority fellowship perspectives is untenable with regard to the wikipedia guidelines, regardless of what our personal preferences may be.


 * I agree with Ekklesiastic's removal of the links section. It has been a constant attraction for people whose only interest is in promoting their own website. It is impossible to represent the range of opinion on some issues in Christadelphia without overstating the significance of minority viewpoints (e.g. the focus on Christadelphian divisions obscures the fact that 90% of Christadelphians are Central/Amended). A removal of the links section, at leasst temporarily, would put an end to the 'link wars' that have been going on for over a year, and restore the focus on the article itself. RJB 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly though the removal is exactly what Ekkesiastic desires if he cannot get his way. Repeatedly if he is unable to control the discussion or get "his way" he attmepts to incite problems such that it forces everthing to be deleted. AS you note the orginal links provided a specific purpose within the wikipedia and were not promoting a personal forum. However this now has been lost because of an insistence from one to promote his own agenda. And when he didn't get his way, it was to cause such a problem that the desire becomes to just forget the whole thing. Sadly this is how some operate and they are continually rewarded in obtaining their desired outcome and thus continue on in this pattern. People need to stand up to him and stop him. (Finally one forum did and he subsequently deleted all his posts in protest.) Kevin 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that KEM is carrying on with her stupidity of deleting a legitimate link to a relevant website, and not providing a reason or explanation for doing so. The reasons provided by CDELPH and Kevin are self-contradictory. For example, even if it were true that that Truth Alive is anti-Christadelphian (and it's not), then to exclude it while allowing a link to Apologetics Index is inconsistent. The statement that Truth Alive is "a place where Christadelphians of all fellowships and former Christadelphians can meet together to discuss the practical application of their faith" is true and relevant and no good reason has been given as to why the link should not be allowed to remain. Some comments by Kevin, KEM and CDELPH about the managers of the Truth Alive website are both incorrect and irrelevant but being of a personal nature they are also offensive and should not be allowed to remain on this talk page. Ekklesiastic 04:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. To KEM: It's rude, dishonest and contrary to Wiki policies to change something which an individual has posted to the Talk page, especially if they have signed it (which I did above). Please don't change my posts again. Ekklesiastic


 * Ekklestiastic, it is also DISHONEST in the extreme when you changed an established link to direct it to your website, under the pretence that it still had the name of the other site.


 * The matter is you are no-longer a Christadelphian, you are using wiki for your own self promotion (which is not what wiki is about) - you have been removed from other sites, because the manner of behaviour you have been caught out so many times by your own words when facts of the matter have been well known.


 * Further dialogue with you is futile, because the more damage you do to the brotherhood the more pleased you become and you want to win at all costs, and that is the same as the links, you simply don't care and that speaks mountains.


 * As mentioned, discussion with you is futile, because of your agenda and the site you promote which is slanderous to many groups in the brotherhood all under the guise of "Christadelphia" and then, such posts are signed in love, and even your audacity to try and manipulate wiki, evidence right here in the manner of linkage times even in a discussion page - KEM.


 * This is not a discussion forum on the the errors of other wise of Truth Alive or its participants. Please take your disputes elsewhere. If you have complaints about other wiki contributors, either discuss them on their user talkpages, contact them privately, or, if necessary, report them to a wikipedia administrator.RJB 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Please woudl the vandal that deletes links stop!!


 * Please see links section below, and the discussion why there is a problem with linking wiki to any Christadelphian site, because unfortunately, the links section is being misused.


 * On the bright side of things general search on the web for non-trinitarian or many or the other factors involved in our beliefs appear very high up on the search engines, be it Central, Amended, Dawn, Antipas, Lightstand, Unamended.


 * Wiki is an encyclopaedia, for information on Christadelphians, best to leave it as is, and there are many other resources on the web for those seeking truth - also best for all using wiki on the matter of Christadelphians not to "slant" the facts in favour of one or the other which has been happening more often than not in the "edits".

I see other people have had problems with this Ekklesiastic who it appears in his ignorance will stop at nothing to vandalise this page what do you find hard about understanding 'STOP DELETING LINKS'!!


 * Get your facts right. It's not me who is deleting the links.Ekklesiastic 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By your own admission 17th Jan historical section you reverted to a previous edition of the page presumably removing liks at the same time since I far as can be seen nobody else made changes at that time.


 * 86.129.211.190 whoever you are: look at the history carefully. You will see that someone else had previously deleted all the links (60.225.42.180 KEM maybe) and then they were replaced (by 194.81.98.191) around the same time as the changes to the Christadelphian history which were simply wrong (also by 194.81.98.191). When I reverted to the earlier (correct) version of the history the article simply went back to the version without the links. But I wasn't the one who removed them (60.225.42.180 is not me). In fact, if you've been paying attention (whoever you are) you will see that I have been posting a legitimate link which KEM and CDELPH vandalised by constantly deleting it. Maybe you should apologise. Ekklesiastic 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical accuracy
I have reverted to a previous version of the article as the person (211.31.31.224) who made the recent changes to the History section has an appalling knowledge of Christadelphian history, viz. the group which separated in 1873 did not become the "Shield fellowship" (it was the Nazarene fellowship, quite distinct from the Shied group) and the Suffolk Street fellowship was created over the practice of fellowship - it was not formed by brethren who believed the Bible was only partially inspired. The earlier article was more historically accurate, in my opinion, and less biased. Ekklesiastic 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Deleted the link to the Nazarene fellowship webpage within the body of the history portion. This is not the place for it.


 * Also changed wording slightly to improve the grammar. Cdelph 23:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the place for it? People keep deleting links from the "links" section, so that doesn't seem to be the place for it either. It seems to me that providing a link precisely at the point where a reference is made is the perfectly logical place for it, and this is a widespread practice on Wiki.


 * The place for it is in an article on the Nazarene fellowship. If one doesn't exist already, you might like to create it yourself. Teutonic Knight 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The place for it should be in an article on the Nazarene group, as mentioned. It may be relevant at the end of the main article also (if the Nazarene group is part of the Christadelphian community).  Within the article, the only link regarding the Nazarene group should be to another article providing details of the Nazarene group.  It is precisely this method of diffusion which Wiki encourages.  It needs to be followed more rigorously in this article. Taiwan boi 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * While the Nazarene fellowship has a common background with Christadelphians, their history branches off in the late 1800's. Their history is replete with attacks on Christadelphian belief, specifically on the Atonement. The Nazarene fellowship needs their own wiki page. Cdelph 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

--- Whoever keeps removing the sentence "A number from the Berean fellowship, and from the Dawn fellowship, joined the Central fellowship in the 1950s and the 1990s, respectively" please stop. It is a fact, as much as you may dislike it. Cdelph 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Article diffusion
It is clear that this article has become the battleground of a wide range of members within the religious community which it discusses. The frequent edit and revert wars demonstrate that the Wiki guidelines are not being followed. Various subgroups within the community are seeking to use this article as a vehicle for their POV, which is strictly against Wiki policy.

I would suggest that all contributors re-read the relevant Wiki guidlines (especially with regard to reverts, POV, and appropriate word use). It is understandable that within any religious community there will be a wide range of views, particularly with regard to the interpretation of its history and teaching, but Wikipedia is not the place to present POV.

This article requires diffusion, and frankly I cannot understand why no one has taken this step already. All POV edits must be removed from this article. Members of subgroups and movements within this community should represent themselves outside this article, not within it. They will also be free to present their own interpretation of the community and its history, provided that they make it clear that this is their POV, and do not represent it in their article as fact.

Members of the 'Old Paths', 'Nazarene', and 'Berean' groups (or 'fellowships'), should start their own articles, as should members of subgroups and counter-culture movements such as the 'Truth Alive' faction (who seem to be largely ex-Christadelphians in any case).

References to these divergent groups should be kept brief in the main article, with a non-POV description. As a model, I would like to recommend the article on the LDS. In this article, references made to divergent groups are kept non-POV, and link to articles which contain information about each group, whilst maintaining a non-POV presentation.

For example:

''The True & Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days, also known as the TLC, is a branch of the Latter Day Saint movement headquartered in Manti, Utah. The church was organized on May 3, 1994, in response to a perceived apostasy in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.''

The word 'perceived' identifies the reason for the schism, and yet maintains non-POV. I would like to see those members of the Christadelphian community who are editing the main article (and related articles), practice this level of editorship.

Alternative groups within the community should be referred to as 'divergent groups' rather than 'schisms', or perhaps 'counter-culture' where their aim is (or appears to be), an objection to and a reformation of the culture, beliefs and practices of the community (such as the 'Truth Alive' counter-culture appears to be).

Disambiguation may be necessary at times (it is not completely clear whether certain groups such as the 'Nazarenes' and the 'Truth Alive' are still within the actual community, or constitute an entirely new community of their own, merely derived from the original community).

The following alternative groups should start their own articles:


 * Lightstand group


 * Berean group


 * Dawn group


 * Old Paths group


 * Antipas group


 * Nazarene group (disambiguation may be required, as it is uncertain as to whether they identify themselves as Christadelphians)


 * Truth Alive group (disambiguation may be required, as it is uncertain as to whether they identify themselves as Christadelphians, since they combine members and non-members, or ex-members)


 * Unamended group

Please let's see an end to the revert and edit wars, and a higher level of responsibility to the Wiki philosophy and guidelines.

Taiwan boi 10:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Firsty why is Central missed of the list for having its own page. This is about Christadelphians in general. Secondly some ignoramous called cdelf keeps deleting changes made to Christadelphan History because presumably they do not like the fact some moved from Central to dawn in the 1990's. I tried ot be far and compromsie by removing any reference to moves between fellowships but cdelf still keeps reverting back to older edits. Such arrogance is astonishing in one who claims to be a Christadelphian. It puts Central in a very bad light if its members think they can bully other fellowships away!!!!! I hope outsiders read this comment and think twice about having anythng to do with Central Christadelphians if this is how they behave. Have now once agai nreverted back t my original commenst and will continue to do so until cdelf ceases deleting or compromises.


 * The fact is you kept deleting the info concerning the 1950's reunion of the majority of the Bereans, and the large set of transfers from the Dawn in the 1990's, and inserting words to the effect of However, in the mid 1990's a number joined Dawn from the Central Fellowship.. I have not heard of any significant numbers going to the the Dawn, just one or two here and there. Therefore I tried to keep the page as factual as possible without presenting a biased POV. I would ask you to do the following:


 * 1. Sign your name to you comments (a handle will do).
 * 2. Provide proof of your claim.


 * Please note that I have not claimed to be Central, Unamended, Berean or anything else. Please note also that non-Christadelphians also contribute to this page. Thank you.Cdelph 23:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

''Firsty why is Central missed of the list for having its own page. This is about Christadelphians in general.''

I was not aware that 'Central' were a breakaway from the main body, but a collection of congregations within the main body which chose to unite (this is how the article reads to me). Please correct me if I am wrong. I didn't list every subgroup, divergent group or counter-culture movement, because I am not aware of them all.

I have suggested that members of sub-groups, divergent groups, and counter-culture movements identify themselves with their own articles rather than attempt to insert their POV of history in the main article. I have requested that all members of this denomination not attempt to insert their POV of history in the main article.

It could indeed be useful for the 'Central' group to have their own article. That would certainly be a good idea. It would need to be identified whether or not they are a sub-group, divergent group, or counter-culture movements, or if (as the main article suggests), they are a collection of congregations within the main body which chose to unite.

If you believe that a significant number of the 'Central' group moved to the 'Dawn' group at some time, then you may refer to that in the main article by saying 'It is claimed by members of the Dawn group that a significant number of the 'Central' group moved to the 'Dawn' group', in order to maintain non-POV.

Bear in mind that without hard evidence for this claim it may legitimately be balanced by a counter-statement from 'CDelph' to the efffect that 'though no verifiable statisics or data have been presented to substantiate this claim'. Taiwan boi 07:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan boi wrote:


 * "Members of the 'Old Paths', 'Nazarene', and 'Berean' groups (or 'fellowships'), should start their own articles, as should members of subgroups and counter-culture movements such as the 'Truth Alive' faction (who seem to be largely ex-Christadelphians in any case)."


 * "The following alternative groups should start their own articles: ... Truth Alive group (disambiguation may be required, as it is uncertain as to whether they identify themselves as Christadelphians, since they combine members and non-members, or ex-members)".

Truth Alive is a forum for Christadelphians and former Christadelphians. It is not a "movement" or a "faction". A wide range of views are represented on the forum and being a forum it has no "culture" of its own and represents no one subgroup, counter-culture movement, faction or fellowship. Ekklesiastic 10:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the additional information. Having looked at the site, it is clear that there is an agenda being declared (largely counter-cultural, though some theological changes also appear to be mooted), and a movement aimed at implementing that agenda is being both supported and promoted.


 * That counter-cultural agenda appears to be the common cause of the forum members, both within and outside the community. I see no other way to describe it accurately.  I realise that 'Truth Alive' is a forum itself, but the 'Truth Alive' forum members certainly appear to be an identifiable counter-culture movement with a presence they wish to be recognised both in and out of the community. Taiwan boi 14:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Elpis wrote: * "I do not know who put this move from Central to Dawn in but as a Dawn member I do know that an ecclesia in Africa moved across and other individuals have over the years. If this is 'claimed' then the moves from Berean/ Dawn to Central also must be 'claimed'. You must be fair if one fellowship is to be unbiased so must another."

Certainly both statements must be supported with relevant references, or identified as 'claims'.

Elpis wrote: * "My own view would be to have no reference whatsoever to any moves on this page. If this page is about Christadelphians then to my mind it should no be biassed towards any fellowship but be simply factual beliefs and history."

I have seen no overt bias other than the removal of historical information regarding the movement by members of the 'Dawn' divergency, who removed several times the historical note regarding some of their members leaving the group and moving to the 'Central' group. That was clearly an effort to bias the article, by suppressing information. I have not seen similar bias from other groups, except from the 'Nazarene' group.

Elpis wrote: * "Central is not the 'body' nor is any other fellowship, numbers are certainly no indication."

I see no evidence that anyone is saying such things.

Elpis wrote: * "For example both Berean and Dawn preceeded Central, but then it could be argued the split producing the Nazarenes preceeded both."

It could indeed, and this could be placed in the article. But as I have said previously, such statements must be identified as POV. Phases such as 'It is argued by the 'Nazarene' group', and 'The 'Dawn' group claim' should be used. Details of alternative interpretations of the history should be included in the articles for these divergent groups.

Taiwan boi 14:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A note to answer to your comments to 'Elpis'. You wrote: members of the 'Dawn' divergency, who removed several times the historical note regarding some of their members leaving the group and moving to the 'Central' group." If you look through the history you will find that I did that after putting up with 'CDELF' continually removing my comments about movements the other way in the hopes of reaching a compromise by removing all references to movements. Elpis is right in comments thtis is the better way.


 * There is also a very clear bias in this page by central members note the one who put over 90% belong to central. Why do this unless you either are deliberately trying to provoke others which is not very Christ like at all or trying to bias the opinions of those from outside reading this page again not Christ like. You claim to want an unbiassed page ok fine that is as it should be. You claim in your comments to Elpis 'I see no evidence that anyone is saying such things.' Not in direct words but in comments made and attitudes most certainly Central do see this page as 'owned' by them. If you are geniune in wanting an unbiaased page then let Central members behave in an adult way and stop putting silly comments like the one above i.e 90% belong to Central. Which I have removed!


 * Elpis wrote: * "A note to answer to your comments to 'Elpis'. You wrote: members of the 'Dawn' divergency, who removed several times the historical note regarding some of their members leaving the group and moving to the 'Central' group." If you look through the history you will find that I did that after putting up with 'CDELF' continually removing my comments about movements the other way in the hopes of reaching a compromise by removing all references to movements. Elpis is right in comments thtis is the better way."


 * There were three problems with your comments. Firstly, 'CDelph's' comments are verifiable from a range of Christadelphian sources, whereas aside from a small handful of cases (I refer to one 'Dawn' source, a man called 'Andy Peel', who says 'Since then a handful have rejoined the Dawn Fellowship'), there has not been a movement from 'Central' to 'Dawn'.  As 'CDelp' rightly pointed out, his claim was verifiable, whereas yours was not.  Investigation has demonstrated that there is no evidence for a significant movement of members from 'Central' to 'Dawn'.  If you have such information, please provide it.


 * Secondly, your initial edit made the movement from 'Central' to 'Dawn' sound equivalent in size to the movement from 'Dawn' to 'Central', when clearly this is not the case (the movement from 'Dawn' to 'Central' has been far more significant by several orders of magnitude).


 * Thirdly, both your removal of 'CDelph's' historical information, and the tone with which you have continued this discussion, makes it clear that you feel sensitive regarding the marginal position of your group within the community, and wish to minimise factual references both to its size and its historically declining membership. That is clearly POV.


 * Elpis wrote: * "There is also a very clear bias in this page by central members note the one who put over 90% belong to central. Why do this unless you either are deliberately trying to provoke others which is not very Christ like at all or trying to bias the opinions of those from outside reading this page again not Christ like."


 * It is a legitimate fact, and I see no reason for it not to be mentioned. It is useful for readers to understand that the overwhelming majority of 'Christadelphians' whom they will meet will belong to a particular group with particular beliefs.  I refer you again to the Mormon article as an analogous case.


 * Elpis wrote: * "You claim to want an unbiassed page ok fine that is as it should be. You claim in your comments to Elpis 'I see no evidence that anyone is saying such things.' Not in direct words but in comments made and attitudes most certainly Central do see this page as 'owned' by them. If you are geniune in wanting an unbiaased page then let Central members behave in an adult way and stop putting silly comments like the one above i.e 90% belong to Central. Which I have removed!"


 * I believe it's clear that you are very sensitive to certain facts of the history of this community, and therefore read this article in an inflected manner which is not accurate. Taiwan boi 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I see you are still not signing your material, or supplying proof of your assertions. The page held a statement of fact, not a dig at anyone.  The simple truth of the matter is that the Dawn, the Berean, the Old Paths, etc. combined only make up about 10% of the Christadelphian population.


 * 2. As I stated above, you need to supply proof of groups of Central going to the Dawn in the 1990's. I know of only individuals, and very few of them at that.


 * 3. Your are making big assumptions concerning who is editing and writing for this page. There have been several non-Christadelphians that have contributed.


 * 4. By removing the information about the reunion in the 1950's, and the transfers in the 1990's, you are removing statements of history. Cdelph 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary you were the one who removed my original addition and by your own admission it was correct that 'some' moved from Central to Dawn. Therefore you vandalised the page because of your own bias - you removed a 'statement of history' presumably to suite your own ends.


 * Sign your notes please... And please note, that your statement made it seem like it was a major movement from Central to Dawn.Cdelph 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * CDELPH, you are a vandal - and a very rude and stupid one at that. If you delete a legitimate internal link one more time you will be reported (for vandalism, not for your stupidity).


 * After being told that the main body of the article was not the place for an external link (although I disagree, because it's a common Wiki practice to insert external links in the main body of articles) I asked "Where is the place for it?" Teutonic Knight replied: "The place for it is in an article on the Nazarene fellowship.  If one doesn't exist already, you might like to create it yourself." So I did.


 * Taiwan boi also wrote: "Members of the 'Old Paths', 'Nazarene', and 'Berean' groups (or 'fellowships'), should start their own articles ..." with the suggestion that the article on Christadelphians should "link to articles which contain information about each group [and he specifically named Nazarenes - my comment], whilst maintaining a non-POV presentation".


 * So, although I'm not a member of the Nazarene fellowship, I did precisely that. I wrote an article on the Nazarene fellowship and contacted someone in that group with a suggestion that they might want to edit or expand it and take some "ownership" of it.


 * Then along comes this CDELPH ratbag again and in his arrogance (and/or stupidity) ignores the discussion and spirit of compromise and unilaterally vandalised the article (again). No wonder his particular brand of Christadelphianism is so destructive.Ekklesiastic 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ekklesiastic, that comment didn't need to be here at all. It was entirely personal, constituting an ad hominem attack on 'CDelph'.  If you're a Christian yourself of some variety, one would expect better behaviour from you.  That comment (if it had to be made at all), should have been directed to 'CDelph' personally.  It has no place here. Taiwan boi 07:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In Australia (where I am) the word "ratbag" is a colloquialism which means 1. an obnoxious person 2. a trouble-maker 3. an eccentric or unconventional person 4. a person who is rigid or extreme in political views, etc. (The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary). In Australian usage it’s not a particularly insulting term and can even be used of a friend. Hardly anyone here would be insulted by it. However, I have learned that this word has a different meaning in other countries, so if CDELPH has been offended by my comment I withdraw it and apologise. Ekklesiastic 23:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's disturbing that you thought 'ratbag' was the only part of your post which may have caused offence.  Taiwan boi 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)