Talk:Cooneyites/Archive 1

insulted.
the cooneyites have but died out.i am a member of the original group and this discussion is utterly incorrect-firstly we arent a sect.sects are a group which have a dangerous potential and the meetings do not control people.i am free to remain in the meetings or leave.we are not protestant either and in fact protestants call us dissenters-we are anabaptists.anabaptists believe in adult baptism,staying as close to the bible as possible,plain,modest dress and such like.we meet in people's homes to pray,sing hymns and read from out bibles and discuss the gospel.other anabatists include the amish,the mennonites,brethren and hutterites.we arent as strict as the other anabaptists but very similiar.we use hymns old and new and have conventions during the summer months.our workers are chosen by God and forsake their careers and become like jesus nad the disciples,traveling about preaching and depending on the friends for food and shelter.the workers are male and female and respected.little children address them aunty and uncle and when they stay at peoples' homes often there is a good friendship and the worker is treated like apart of the family.we solve any quarrels and problems with the workers and donate money to areas that may need it.we do not own tvs or radios as they are a bad influence.this is a decision that we cherish.i grew up without a tv and i am glad i did.we do not attend cinmeas or theatres or pubs.instead we meet up a lot and go to the beach,have a picnic,go hiking,have a dinner party,go for a walk,sing hymns or go bowling.we respect other religions yet protestants look down on us and catholics laugh at us.i work,attend university,can decide if i want to be baptized into my faith or not but aparently i'm a member of a cult!?how can that be?we just keep to ourselves and try to obey the bible as much as possible.

The above section was added by PoppyDadswell at 16:40 on 15 October 2007. B1atv 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the messages which had been left for you you will see there is no need to feel insulted. Wikipedia has policies on original research, citable sources, conflict of interest and neutral point of view.  I have explained in my earlier message to you how you can correct an article you feel is incorrect with appropriate sources.  What you can't do is simply overwrite other edits.  As for sects being dangerous - that is one definition of sects; but not the general definition.  The Church of England is a sect as is Roman Catholicism.  The term isn't meant as a term of abuse but as a generic description.  B1atv 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

there is EVERY need to insulted.
there is EVERY need to insulted.that article is lies!a person from a different religion would be insult if they too found an article of lies, insulting their religion.i want people to know the truth of my religion not the lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppyDadswell (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed direction for this article
I am suggesting a short article describing Cooneyites since the division in 1928. Either an explanatory note or disambiguation link should indicate that the term in use before 1928 refers to the group described under Christian Conventions. Events prior to 1928 should not be included in this article, to prevent confusion.

Concerning Cooneyites since 1928, there are few reliable sources, Jaenen, possibly Roberts. Various primary source may exist - this is an unknown factor

Information about Cooney should be added to the Edward Cooney article, and it's to be hoped, much more work could be done there. Cooney is an interesting and relatively important figure in the movement; and that article can also synthesize Cooney-centric material from early days of Christian Conventions through to and including Cooneyites.

This particular article also contains some controversial statements and assessments which are uncited. These should be removed.

Roberts appears to be a credible source and is published, but may be SPS; definite SPS sources like Kropp should not be used.

I also feel it would be much wiser to move all 'Further Reading' and 'External Links' to Edward Cooney, Christian Conventions, and William Irving, simply because there is more critical mass around those articles, and duplication of effort will thus be avoided. Slofstra (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, certainly not. Please go elsewhere and maybe create something, rather than wasting people's time.--GwydionM (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Deleting and starting fresh would have been so much easier. I see that you base your opinions in this article on the self-published work of Kropp, a commentator on the movement and prolific biographer of its early leaders. Slofstra (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier, now irrelevant conversation

 * I have taken the liberty of changing the heading, GwydionM. My specific issue is with the lack of citations to reliable sources in the text of the article, not to the list of References.  There are only two citations, one to a SPS and one to a record of UK parliament. The goal of WP:V is that anything stated on this page can be easily checked by the reader against reliable sources. Slofstra (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, merger is a damn fool idea and is the third attempt by "Slofstar" to destroy this article, after two straightforward attempts at deletion. None of it makes any sense whatsoever.  Souces are quite good.  Overlap is normal.
 * I have removed my text, which was on a completely different topic.--GwydionM (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for the PROD - only one though, not two. I thought procedure was to put in an PROD before making an AFD.  Slofstra (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this article is just a rehash of SPS, who I believe are mostly anti- this group. Most of the information here is not cited, so its reliability is unknown.  Cherie Kropp is a WP:SPS.  I suspect that Roberts is SPS but it's almost impossible to obtain this work.  In any case, her work is not cited in the article.  Finally, there are a number of evaluations of the group contained within the article, again not cited. Observations made as per this version:

[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Edward Cooney info
Gwydion, can we move the Edward Cooney information to his page. That info says nothing about 'Cooneyites', per se. A couple of short facts about Cooney and a link to the Edward Cooney page will make this much better. I tried to add some things to the Cooney page already, but would you mind having a look at it.


 * By all means improve the Edward Cooney page. But I don't see why the information shouldn't be in two places, if it is relevant to both.--GwydionM (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article wrongly gives false evidence on my beliefs and as what others refer to as a'cooneyite', I am pointing out that we are a reserved group, not at all hostile as someone tried to say.In fact we get awful hassle from protestants in Ireland, who refer to us as ' dissenters' and refuse to acknowladge us as a genuine church.These protestants resent the fact because we do not tithe and have adult baptism and so on, that we have attracted other protestants.When people are editing this article please consider that the websites they cite as refernces are actuallly hate site set up by angry protestants.many of the stuff they say about us are not true, so please do not give us a bad name.we are a peaceful people,who just keep to ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.63.22 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should take this person's views into consideration. The tone of the article is quite hostile, and it's true that the web sources cited are anti-.  Further the source cited says nothing about 'Cooneyites' today.  She's actually writing about group in Christian Conventions. Indeed, there is nothing on that page after 1928, which is when the Cooneyites as we know them today came to be.  I am curious GwydionM as to what you actually do know about Cooneyites today, and what are your sources?  The only comments from actual Cooneyites (I would guess) are quite at odds with what you've written. Slofstra (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Marvelous idea to have this person's beliefs reflected in the article ... if that person would give them. If any member of the group would please outline your beliefs, I'm sure they would be delighted to add them. The difficulty seems to be getting past the rhetoric and getting any solid information as to doctrinal beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.23.251 (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor reorganization and addition
I have rearranged the article to flow in more chronological order without removing facts presented. I also added a citation which was requested to point to the relevant published material, and added some minor clarifications based on that and other sources (newspaper articles of the period). Hopefully, those clarifications will make it seem less hostile to the adherents of this group, since I don't see material which goes beyond that already published by Patricia Roberts (Mr. Cooney's niece).Astynax (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a brief section on doctrine and practice, which contains a few basics.Astynax (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a new reference for the doctrine and practice section.Astynax (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Supplied a reference for the last requested citation. I personally consider that this is about as much information which can be expected for this topic, given the current material published about them. Perhaps there will be more information forthcoming (I can hope). Astynax (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)