Talk:The Way International/Archive 7

What should stay and what should go? (external Links)
I think that we need a consensus on what we include on external links. I just deleted a link to a website that lists references to EW Bullinger. Interesting, but not really relevant. Maybe link it on the EW Bullinger article.

In my opinion, websites that discuss TWI, good or bad should be retained. For example, stanleygoodspeed just put in a link to a website reviewing TWI publications. Appropriate IMO. GreaseSpot Cafe on the negative side, also appropriate.

We've also got links to what are referred to as TWI splinter groups or offshoots. These I think should remain. I think that an offshoot should be defined as a group that has some historical continuity with TWI, for example, a limb leader leaves TWI and hangs out his own shingle, taking some or all of his TWI followers with him. There should also be some doctrinal connection with TWI teachings, even if they have changed over time. Examples of this would be CFF & CES/STFI. Should an ex-wayfer who runs a bible study somewhere be considered an offshoot? Not in my opinion. Should a website by an ex-wayfer promoting a book por some other endeavor be considered an offshoot? Also not in my opinion. An example of the latter might be the link to The Genesis Pursuit.

Any thoughts?Ten of Swords 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop posting multiple links to Family Tables? All the redundant links can be reached from the home page. Also, I suspect that the anonymous linker is Stanleygoodspeed...please identify yourself when you edit...thanks! Ten of Swords 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO the latest link should go. What does it have to do with TWI? Ten of Swords (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

- Family tables need not stay as it adds NO information IMOpinion.. greasespot HAS to stay though lol of course! Lsjzl (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I think Family tables does add information. There is a section on TWI history and origins that balances Grease Spot and Messiah Lutheran...IMHO...I just object to additional links being added that turn out to be Family Tables under a misleading labelTen of Swords (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like somebody removed the link to Family Tables because there are "many websites" like it and therefore it doesn't need to be listed at all. While there is much of the same information on the surface level of this website, the forum on Family Tables is a fairly unique resource for anybody actively participating with the ministry. As mentioned above, it does indeed add some information, and it does provide a nice balance with websites/forums like Grease Spot and Messiah Lutheran. Being new to Wikipedia, I've never had to restore a link, but I'll see if I can put it back up.WikiWhat5 (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I managed to figure out how to put up the link to Family Tables, but I decided to group it with the other websites rather than by itself. I'm not really sure why it would need to be on its own.WikiWhat5 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To provide some feedback on the "splinter groups or offshoots" links, I agree with Ten of Swords. There should be some historical connection with The Way International, and the group should be an actual organization (such as STFI and CFF).WikiWhat5 (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I followed up with the above suggestions and removed unnecessary external links (personal/personal interest, promotional, duplicates, etc.). After looking at the-way-international.org, I decided that it wasn't really a "unique resource" (with a little more development, it might be worth including). I also changed "Links to web sites of ex-members/ex-followers and offshoots of TWI" to "Websites belonging to offshoot organizations from The Way International," which admittedly doesn't communicate that the websites are run by "ex-members/ex-followers," but I think excluding these terms may prevent people from posting external links to their own personal/personal interest websites.

I'm also beginning to wonder if any of the "offshoot organization" external links should be included at all since none of them can really be called a "resource" on the article's subject (none of them even reference The Way International for that matter). Such external links would be more appropriate to include under an article whose subject specifically pertains to the offshoot organization itself, no? I mean, what do these links offer to the reader, other than proof they exist?WikiWhat5 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian Movie Critic
Michael Elliot's Christian movie critic link keep getting posted. What does this have to do with TWI? If Joe Wayguy is a mechanic, do we post the website for his garage? C'mon, if someone disagrees, join the discussionTen of Swords (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

- Yeah, no need. Some links like these were pruned out a long time ago. Get RID of it! ;) Lsjzl (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Verification and Citations?
I am very surprised to see that there is no list of citations or references at the end of this article. At the very least, the items that come from The Way: Living in Love should be properly marked and formatted, yes? With all of the information listed, quotations from Dr. Wierwille, practices past and present of TWI and so forth, surely there are some newspaper articles or other documentation or verification that can be specifically attributed to the various statements presented here to make this information more compliant with Wiki standards? LovelyLillith (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that Pete Snowball has most if not all the TWI publications, perhaps he can assist with getting some citations in here. I'll start doing my own digging, but I've got limited time. Ten of Swords (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I got started on a few things, but we need Pete or someone who has access to books to supply the rest of the citations. I'll scour around for some flks who may be helpfulTen of Swords (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that obtaining some of the material may be difficult, but if we have no attributable documentation for specific quotes, we shouldn't leave it in, which is why I've inserted more citation tags to any place that has a book reference. It can always be readded later. Also, some of the references don't have enough detail, such as the OK weather records - the first mention of "this day" regarding snow is too vague (which day?) and the actual link doesn't go to any factual weather table, simply a statement of "OK meteorological records". The plagiarism accusation simply links to a main page of that website, I didn't see the specific area in which the texts were compared. Linking to the facts of these items would be helpful. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the Oklahoma weather reports and I know I have the specific dates around here somewhere. Added back in reference to The Way: Living in Love since it referenced the book and the page number. I fixed the link on the plagiarism charges, it now links directly to the page with the side-by-side comparisons. Ten of Swords (talk)

Date of The Way's Founding
For contributor bfrank, Archived Talk 2 has a section where this is discussed. In short, no organization called "The Way" existed in 1942. Vesper Chimes/Chimes Hour Youth Caravan was begun by Wierwille in 1942 and incorporated in 1947. The Way uses 1942 to mark the beginning of their "ministry"; The Way was incorporated in 1955. This is why the article uses the wording "claims a date..." to maintain NPOV. Ten of Swords 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

date of The Way's founding (from the archives)

 * I noted in 2 places that TWI counts their incorporation as happening in 1942, with Wierwille's Vesper Chimes radio show(and added its later name, Chimes Hour). Other than Wierwille starting TWI and starting the radio show, they have virtually NOTHING in common. Further, the date of paperwork containing the name "The Way" seems to change depending on who's talking. (I'll provide some specifics when I find where I left them.) Previously, the listing stated that 1942 WAS TWI's start. Pete Snowball 13:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Way_International/Archive_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ten of Swords (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also noted that on the Victor Paul Wierwille page the following:


 * "In 1942 he started the precursor to TWI, Vesper Chimes, which was a radio show broadcast from Lima, Ohio. He incorporated TWI in 1955, taking the name from Acts 9:2, which was used by early Christians."


 * The book "Born Again to Serve" by Dorothea Kipp Wierwille (ISBN 0-910068-79-8) says that "On June 12, 1955 the Board of Trustees submitted a resolution to the Board of Directors to amend and revise the constitution of The Way. Our original charter of incorporation had been filed Octorber 30, 1947, No 204759, with the Ohio secretary of state."

Not sure how this can be used but thought it would add to the conversation at least. Lsjzl 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems that there were several overlapping dates. Vesper Chimes/Chimes Hour Youth Caravan was operating for at least a decade while Wierwille was a working minster for several E&R Churches. There is no indication that Wierwille thought of it as a separate organization, more like a "youth ministry". If the original incorporation date of 1947 was correct, was it indeed incorporated as "The Way"? I can see Wierwille thinking ahead to an independent ministry at some point, since he was regularly teaching PFAL from 1952 or 53, and deeded the farm to "The Way" in 1955 while he was still an active minister in the E&R Church, which he did not leave until 1957.


 * For that matter, was The Way any more than a vehicle to promote PFAL before the influx of "members" in the late 60's and early 70's? It doesn't appear from reading Dorothea Wierwille's book that there was any kind of control over or accountability from non New Knoxville area groups who utilized PFAL before the filming of PFAL and the creation of the Way Corps. So founding dates are going to be open to interpretation.Ten of Swords 18:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just checked John Juedes' site: the information that he has shows that "The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan" was incorporated in 1947. Ten of Swords 22:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why the wording is "claims a founding date" rather than "was founded". No organization called "The Way" existed from 1942 through 1955, nor did the "Way International" post 1955 resemble in any fashion a youth ministry radio program. Rather than speculate on Wierwille's motivation in back dating the founding date of "The Way", the article states when TWI says that it was founded while recognizing that it does not appear to an outside observer that it began in 1942.Ten of Swords 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Way East & The Way West
The source for this information, bfrank is Karl Kahler's book The Cult That Snapped, which contains interviews with Steve Heefner and Jimmy Doop, the founders of these groups.

For whatever reason, The Way West was incorporated separately and independently from The Way International and had its own Board of Trustees. Heefner & Doop ran PFAL but the money stayed within their organization other than fees and payments for classes & books. Heefner moved to Rye New York and founded The Way East.

At some point Wierwille convinced the other two members of the board of trustees of The Way West to vote Doop out and install Wierwille in his place. Heefner resigned before the same thing happened in The Way East. Wierwille then merged these groups with The Way International. A similar independent organization in Indiana merged voluntarily. Peter Wade's affiliated, independent organization in Australia resisted merger and remained independent, eventually severing ties with The Way International.

Other areas of "outreach" like Kansas and North Carolina were "branches" of The Way International from day one and were never independent.

Long story, but that's why the article is worded the way it is, they did not initially "incorporate with Wierwille". Ten of Swords 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cult Accusations
It's not just fundamentalists who accuse TWI of being a cult. Not sure about the reference to Christian apologists either. I think we have an archived discussion about this. Ten of Swords 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Also I don't see how the original language was accusatory toward TWI's critics. Ten of Swords 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, it's not just fundamentalists - that's why I included mainstream Christianity as well. As far as Christian apologists - they've been calling TWI a cult since the 70's.  Anytime you use the word "critics" it paints a negative picture.SkagitRiverQueen 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Spotlighting mainstrean Christianity or Christian apologists (whatever those are) implies that it is only those groups who see TWI as a cult. Maybe you'd like to propose some changes down in the Criticisms and cult allegations section?

I would agree to possibly changing "Critics" to "Some" to make the language more neutral, but I'm not convinced by your argument so far. And no, I am not involved in TWI

P.S. If you respond, put a colon before the beginning of your post, that will indent it to separate it from mineTen of Swords 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I left the wording without "critics" in it set for a few hours, and IMHO it's too wimpy without it. Cult status is not a given, it's an accusation by critics - obviously the group doesn't call itself a cult! A critic is one who criticizes, it's not in and of itself a negative term. Naturally the one being criticized will look askance at the critic.

I think leaving the mention of fundamentalists, apologists or whoever else you want to throw in there, leaves the impression that the cult label is affixed only for religious reasons, which it is not. Ten of Swords 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Spotlighting mainstrean Christianity or Christian apologists (whatever those are)"


 * If you took the time to go to the highlighted link to the Wiki article on Christian apologetics, you would know what a Christian Apologist is before you dismiss them.


 * "Cult status is not a given, it's an accusation by critics"


 * No, in Christianity, "cult status" is not an accusation, it's based on certain criteria (and usually determined by Christian and Biblical scholars as well as sociologists and psychologists). People who have PhD's after their names consider TWI a cult, yet you seem to believe you know better how TWI should be viewed and who is actually scrutinizing them.  Maybe you should look up the article on cults as well to gain an understanding about something you don't appear to grasp.


 * "I think leaving the mention of fundamentalists, apologists or whoever else you want to throw in there, leaves the impression that the cult label is affixed only for religious reasons, which it is not."


 * Well of course it is! TWI presents itself as a Christian denomination (even though they deny being a denomination), yet they do not accept the very basic tenets of Christianity that would make them truly Christian in nature.  You can't decide whether a pseudo-Christian cult is precisely that based on secular precepts!  TWI is a religious group, ergo, it must be judged on it's religious merits.


 * And something else, Ten: it's really bad form, unfair, and completely inappropriate to try and hijack an article (as you appear to be doing with this one) just because you have spent alot of time editing it.  Others who may have more knowledge of and/or personal experience with the subject matter can add to an article in a way someone else cannot. SkagitRiverQueen 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me start off by saying that it's not my intention to "hijack" this article. In the interest of full disclosure (which isn't required, but would probably help our dialog) I am an ex-TWI "member" (oops...ex-follower...okay...no more attempts at humor) and have no love for the organization. If you check back and look at the earliest versions of this article you'll see that initially it was a virtual commercial for TWI. Before I started editing, many people, including at least one current TWI member, several ex-members who are nostalgic for the good old days, and others who were antagonistic toward TWI (in other words a good cross section of views) hammered out the basic structure of this article. Much of what actually bears my stamp was really a consensus arrived at with several others. This doesn't mean that what's here is sacrosanct, just that some work went into it. And consensus among various viewpoints.

Secondly, I did read the Christian apologists link and I apologize for the snide remark (oops...humor again...sorry) - I'm just missing what it has to do with anything. Maybe I need to re-read it. Which I will.

Lastly, let's look at your statement to me about cults:

No, in Christianity, "cult status" is not an accusation, it's based on certain criteria (and usually determined by Christian and Biblical scholars as well as sociologists and psychologists).

I'd be interested in what your POV is on this. Are we going to determine what's a cult and what's not? If so, then that's certainly not NPOV. "Cult" is a pejorative, not a neutral description. Mormons are listed in some of the cult books and left out of others, and I'm sure that they're not a cult in Utah! And by the way, have you noticed that there's a lot of areas of disagreement among Christians on many topics? Which "expert" shall we rely on for our doctrinal purity?

'''People who have PhD's after their names consider TWI a cult, yet you seem to believe you know better how TWI should be viewed and who is actually scrutinizing them. '''

Some of those PhD's do, sure. Can you find anywhere that I said that TWI isn't a cult? I personally believe that it is. But that is not NPOV. Your statement utilizes the logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority" - where the "wise man" is referred to as the ultimate authority without fully developing the premise.

Maybe you should look up the article on cults as well to gain an understanding about something you don't appear to grasp.

Oh, I grasp it just fine. Thank you though.

Well of course it is!

Statements that begin with "of course" are often followed by unsupported assertions.

'''TWI presents itself as a Christian denomination (even though they deny being a denomination), yet they do not accept the very basic tenets of Christianity that would make them truly Christian in nature. You can't decide whether a pseudo-Christian cult is precisely that based on secular precepts! TWI is a religious group, ergo, it must be judged on it's religious merits.'''

This is where we disagree. TWI, based on its doctrines may be described as "heretical" (we had a big argument about that on the discussion page) or "unorthodox" based on set religious principles. The definition of "cult" varies depending on who you talk to; to some it is, as you say, a deviation from the religious norm, to others it describes a group that practices a set of destructive or abusive behaviors. Since you referred me to the article on cults, you know that there is more than one definition of the word "cult" and disagreement on who it applies to.

Just trying to keep it all NPOV. Ten of Swords 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Just trying to keep it all NPOV"
 * I do believe you are, however, with the characteristic fervor of your fellow ex-Wayfers (as well as those still in TWI), you appear to be throwing out the baby with the bath water. TWI has critics, certainly, but in a media environment (like Wiki, like the press) using the word "critics" paints a negative picture and not one of a NPOV in this case.  Your original insistance that "critics" was appropriate to use smelled of a hypersensitive, over-protective and defensive Wayfer, IMO.


 * "The definition of "cult" varies depending on who you talk to; to some it is, as you say, a deviation from the religious norm, to others it describes a group that practices a set of destructive or abusive behaviors"
 * Yes, the definition does vary, but since in this case we are talking specifically about a religious group, and since religion is the basis for the group's existence, I don't see how you can deny the appropriateness of stating that those who study religious cults and their practices should not be noted! If TWI was not a religiously based organization, then the reference to Christian apologetics would not be as pertinent.  But it's like you're trying to ignore the proverbial two-ton elephant in the room...  What TWI does is practice spiritual abuse, which is a whole different pathology and etiology than non-religious cults.  Rick Ross is a good example of someone who has alot of knowledge about cults in general, but does not speak get the pseudo-Christian cults like a Christian "insider" would.  Do you see my point? SkagitRiverQueen 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Responses
Added a subsection so it's easier to edit!

As comfortable as it may be to put me in a box, might I request that you don't? ; - ) We all have our biases, perhaps between your bias and mine we can reach a consensus.

I would be glad to work with you rather than against you henceforth.

Regarding your two main points:
 * I don't deny the role that an out-of-the-mainstream religious doctrine plays in making TWI a cult; however most of TWI's doctrines can be found in other places without the abuse, IMHO the way you worded your statement implied that what made TWI a cult was its minority religious beliefs. There are groups out there that are offshoots of TWI that are pretty harmless, while teaching many of the same things.
 * I still object to changing the wording from having the cult designation being a matter of opinion to a matter of fact.

Frankly, I've worked hard to keep this article from reverting to a TWI commercial, and the characterization of me as a hypersensitive, over-protective and defensive Wayfer is mite offensive. But I'll assume that you didn't mean it that way and move on.

And no, I'm not at all interested in discussing "where [I] stand now on Christianity, [my] spiritual beliefs, and what part TWI's/VPW's teachings play in [my] life today", but I appreciate the interest. Ten of Swords 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling a group a cult is an opinion. Sure PhD's, theologians and "experts" have their reasons why some groups should be classified as cults, but their reasons come from a certain POV that is far from neutral. Keeping it NPOV requires that we present both sides. I recall a textbook from Bob Jones University that my ex-wife had purchased for our home-school curriculum, it described Catholoicism as a "false religion". Obviously the Catholics would disagree. A Catholic school textbook would probably speak less than glowingly about Martin Luther. as far as deleting references to cults or beliefs that are outside the mainstream: the purpose of this article isn't to present a whitewashed, sanitized view of The Way. Cult allegations and citations of deviations from orthodoxy are legitimate. Marc Remillard 19:43, 28

September 2007 (UTC)

Cult Section (Again)
I've put in a blurb that states SOME denominations consider TWI a cult, and some of the reasons why THEY believe this, as well as grouped the items under headings. Regardless of whether or not TWI actually is or was a cult, some do perceive it this way and explanation is necessary, including the deprogramming that was done to some because of the fear of the families who believed this. I am not aware of the beliefs other than religious for this labeling, so if someone knows specific non-doctrinal material for cult allegations to put under a subheading, please do. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the reference to deprogramming, however, doctrinal difference is not the only barometer of cult status. One of the others is abuse, mind control and other practices that have nothing to do with doctrine. There are TWI splinter groups in existance that teach virtually the same things that TWI does, without the attempts at control. Messiah Lutheran has some insight on this. Ten of Swords (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So I restored the intro on definitions of cults with its reference to Messiah Lutheran and left your other changes/additions. I'll work up a subsection when I have timeTen of Swords (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to provide information about TWI itself, not give a definition of a cult, which as we conclude, can be in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent anyway - if you have examples of accusations of mind control, abuse, etc. specifically relating to The Way, please put them in the subheadings. We may be better served by putting in a link to the main Cult article in Wiki for those who want more info on cults in general, instead of trying to explain it here ("see 'Cults' for more information"). As far as Messiah Lutheran and Greasespot, these are already mentioned under the first subheading.LovelyLillith (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. I'd like to see it remain there until I can add in the specific accusations of abuse and maybe provide a link to the cult page. Cult accusations are part of relevant information on TWI, and leaving the impression that they are simply doctrinal disagreements leaves the article incomplete. But you do bring up a good point and I'll be working on it207.91.61.98 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Ten of Swords (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And since you've already deleted the section (I checked the discussion page before looking at your change in the article) I went ahead and added a few of the specific non-doctrinal cult allegations and references. It's far from complete, but it should suffice until I can flesh it out a bit more.


 * I was trying to multi-task earlier, so the editing is a bit clumsy...sorry allTen of Swords (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Other theological differences
Sorry, the "but they are wrong" parts cannot stay. The Way teaches this, it isn't an article on errors of the way doctrine. Nor is there a good enough reason to spend time "refuting" their beliefs.

The following were removed:

"While all of these terms can be found in the Bible, nowhere can all five be found together, nor are they called anywhere called "rights"."

The Cry of Triumph section, though not seemingly asked for, at least has more info. (ps. it was not touched)

Also, I am not sure why the section says: "contains many of the beliefs and doctrines that set TWI doctrine apart from mainstream Christianity" yet contains a section on a belief that the bible is the word of God.. (wow not very mainstream huh?) Lsjzl (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're going to come back and play, I'm game for working with you at reworking the "beliefs" section...Ten of Swords (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * haha! Sometimes I forget about this page then come back. You seem to be doing quite a good job.. I mean.. hrm. Maybe I need to check on how much detail is on other pages. (Then again we don't do Wikipedia by copying other pages) I don't want to edit down too much to be seen as an insider "getting rid" of odd theology..yet I wonder if it is REALLY all needed. Lsjzl (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I kind of miss your input L. Lately I've become more of a watchdog against folks on both extremes putting in things like "Wierwille was a pedophile" or sub-literate verbal farts like "The Way are an evel kult" on one hand and remarks straight from the TWI website on the other. A lot of my edits are an honest attempt to make the article readable and NPOV, and frankly, it's not easy to keep the NPOV when I'm the only consistant editor. That's where the consensus of differing points of view helps.


 * What I look for when presenting TWI theology is to be as non-judgemental as possible, while not glossing over the reality that they are out of the mainstream at the least. For example, a statement like "The Way teaches that God is not a three-part being and therefore does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but they are wrong, II Julius 12:6 says otherwise" just inserts a theological argument into the article, the Trinity (or lack of it) is far from a settled doctrine within Christianity, no matter what either side says. However, I think that the recently deleted statement: "While all of these terms can be found in the Bible, nowhere can all five be found together, nor are they called anywhere called "rights"."Is a different animal altogether because it points out that not everything in TWI doctrine is a straight reading of the bible. A possible alternative might be to prune down the section of TWI beliefs to a bullet-point list, without any reasoning or scripture backup, letting the reader draw his/her own conclusions. This would cut out not only the statements such as the ones you deleted, but also the short explanations of why TWI believes a certain doctrine, the justification for it.


 * I'm also considering taking out the timeline, it seemed like a good idea when I put it in, but it looks kind of clunky the more I see of itTen of Swords (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I pruned the "Beliefs" section, taking out not only some of the "rebuttal" statements, but also the explanations and justifications pro-TWI and anti-TWI.

The Palms of God
It's been awhile since I've been here, but I've been doing further research on The Way's beliefs. Over the next 2-3 months I will try to submit 2-5 more beliefs that stand out from orthodox Christianity. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Stanley - Could you please review the recent exchange between Lsjzl and myself? Lsjzl, like yourself is a current TWI "member" and took exception to some of the "yeah, but TWI is wrong" sections in the article. In short, a TWI doctrine was stated with a remark as to why it was lacking in some way. Lsjzl pointed out that the article was not for debating TWI doctrine. I agreed in principle, but pointed out that neither is the article the place to propound TWI doctrine. The consensus was that TWI beliefs and doctrines could be listed, but that we would refrain from explaining those beliefs, in other words, not turning sections of the article into "mini-teachings". The description shopuld be complete enough so that a reader is clear about what the belief actually is, but that neither scriptural backup nor scriptural rebuttal would be inserted.


 * In light of this, I'm asking that you reconsider your recent addition.


 * ThanksTen of Swords (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just re-read your newest addition. I believe the main point that you are making is already contained within the subsection "Eternal Life Cannot Be Lost". The new section doesn't really add anything substantive. Ten of Swords (talk)

12:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After letting it set for a day I merged your newest section with an existing section that makes the same point. After all the point of the "Palms of God" and the verse on "adoption of children" is to illustrate the belief that eternal life, aka the spirit, born-again status, etc. cannot be lost or revoked, which had already been made. I added some of your wording to the "Eternal Life Cannot Be Lost" section, but deleted the scripture references and brief explanation. IMHO stating what the belief or doctrine is is sufficient. If we go back to "mini teachings" and explanations of why TWI (or the editor) thinks a certain doctrine is correct the door is open for scriptural refutations or rebuttals of TWI beliefs as well. Ten of Swords (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

09:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we compromise and leave the section where you first put it? It details one of TWI's core beliefs and shows why they believe that. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PS : I am now in a discussion with a current TWI member on the topic of "Remission" and should have a 2 paragraph submission on that subject by mid-April. Also, I might submit another 2 or 3 paragraph section on TWI's doctrine of "Scripture interprets itself" by June or July. That would be 21 TWI beliefs covered ... probably enough, but definitely not more than 25. That would allow for 2 submissions in 2009 and 2 in 2010. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly Stanley, if you really think that the explanation should stand, I'm going to go back to adding in "rebuttal" remarks on all of TWI's teachings. Do I think that's a good idea? Not really, but nor do I think that adding scriptures to justify their positions is what this article needs either. In my opinion what you're doing is going beyond "here's what they believe" to "here's why it's right" - I think that your remark in discussion "...and shows why they believe that" indicates that we disagree on how this should proceed. Again, if doctrines are going to be "supported" by scripture, in effect saying they're right, then other scriptures refuting their positions should also be inserted.


 * As far as compromise goes, I believe that merging the two topics and changing the wording to accomodate your wording was a compromise!


 * Finally, do you really think that "Palms of God" is a major TWI doctrine? Do you think we should add in every chapter from "The Bible tells Me So"? I doubt that you actually do, but think about it, do we need chapters on "When Judas Hanged Himself", "Study Be Diligent" and "The Lord's Brethren"?


 * It sure is ... I've heard it quoted from TWI members 30 or 40 times over the years ... I'd put it in their Top 10 core beliefs. "When Judas Hanged Himself", "Study Be Diligent" and "The Lord's Brethren" ... hell no, the only one of those I've ever heard of more than once is "Study Be Diligent" ... none of those come close to being a core belief. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Okay that last one wasn't really final) - And your proposal to add two more sections, 2 - 3 paragraphs each, on "remission" and "scripture interprets itself". C'mon Stan, are we turning this back into a TWI commercial?Ten of Swords (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think stating 21-25 TWI beliefs is a reasonable goal over the next 2 1/2 years ... this Wikipedia entry is #2 on the Yahoo! search engine, getting well over a hundred hits on a lot of days. That means literally thousands of people are coming to this entry to get information about TWI ... and I think they come here in large part because of the "Beliefs" section. It would go a long way towards establishing peace between me and you if you put that section back in, but I'm not going to push too hard for it right now ... when I've nailed down their 25 core beliefs then I might be a little more passionate about it.


 * "Remission" and "scripture interprets itself" are HUGE TWI beliefs ... they've had several magazine articles on the details of remission (which are unique to non-denominational Christianity) over the years and they have a MONTHLY section on "scripture interprets itself". Those would be excellent sections to have included. Have a good one, Ten. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's what I'd like to suggest to avoid a battle of opinions between you and I: let's post possible additions here first. I did this last year when I was doing some pruning and condensing and it seemed to work well. Post what you want in its entirety and let's discuss it. I've contacted a few people who have edited here in the past and asked that they start getting involved again, I'd like to see their input as well.


 * "Let's post possible additions here first" ... that'll work. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One of our points of disagreement that I'd like to bring you around on is your tendency to explain why TWI believes a certain way, in effect turning a section into a mini-teaching. This involves citing scripture and stating their rationale for interpretingt it a certain way. Here's why I think that doing it that way is not NPOV:


 * It gives the impression that the TWI POV is the correct one by citing an "authority" (the bible)- oftentimes other scriptures can be cited to "prove" an opposing view
 * Giving supporting documentation is in effect doing TWI's job for them. I'm all for stating their beliefs and even pointing out how they differ from mainstream Christianity, but it's not the job of a NPOV article to bolster one group's theology.
 * Supporting or documented the "why's" of a belief opens the door to rebuttal and refutation, turning the article into a debate.


 * The "why" seems even more important than the "what" ... what they believe is important, but the why is the heart of what someone who is investigating, or has questions about, The Way is after ... why do they believe this dogma here, and that assertion there. Including that makes Wikipedia the most qualilfied and unique source of information about TWI on the net. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding remission and self-interpreting scripture. Okay, I'll stipulate that they are huge. The fact that they believe that the scripture interprets itself is already in there. All you need for "remission" is a simple statement.


 * "Scripture interprets itself is already in there" ... yeah, I missed that. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that we don't all have the same opinion about what constitutes "information" about TWI; it could easily include rationales on why their beliefs are heretical, unorthodox, non-Christian, or cultish. NPOV Stanley. Have a good one yerself!Ten of Swords (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NCPOV ... neutral and comprehensive, my man. Take it easy, bud. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Sections That Make TWI Look Bad
Somebody who hasn't been signing their edits has been deleting whole sections that reflect poorly on TWI. While I'm sure that those sections weren't perfect, how about a little discussion first? (and thanks to whoever has been going through and correcting the spelling!)Ten of Swords (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted an edit that changed "religious" group to "christian" group. The intro plainly states that TWI describes itself as a Christian group. "Religious" describes TWI accurately.Ten of Swords (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and how is it that at the bottom of the page it says that "The Myth of Six Million" book does not deny the holocaust, but on that wikipedia article it says it does? It is a little ridiculous that they would just come in and change it like that.164.107.199.234 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
It would appear that a fair amount of article info seems biased against TWI, or at least to be coming from a non-neutral POV. Statements to let the reader know that the references (such as Karl Kahler, someone who is speaking from a negative personal experience, instead of a journalist's POV) are being made from those who may be more hostile (or favorable) toward TWI should be listed where appropriate, so the reader can take their perhaps less than neutral perspectives into consideration. This is why I put in the brief statement that he is ex-Way.LovelyLillith (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point about I.D.ing Kahler as ex-Way.


 * I'd disagree with you about the information being biased, information is either true or false, documented or undocumented; but would concede that some of us editors are biased against TWI. In my opinion including information that paints TWI negatively balances the information that portrays TWI as nothing but wonderful and benevolant, resulting in an overall neutral point of view. I do appreciate your apparently disinterested POV that you bring to this article though, and can't argue with your admonition to cite sources. Ten of Swords (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks
Hey, I have been taking out a plethora of quotation marks in the beliefs sections. I understand that the way has many wayisms that merit them, but i do not feel that "manifestations of the holy spirit" was that hard of a thing to grasp for non-wayfers.Dafhgadsrhadjtb (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I haven't looked at all of your edits, but it's my feeling that the quaotations may be overdoneTen of Swords (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore... Eternal life cannot be lost "Once a person is saved, or born again, he cannot lose the spirit through any sinful acts since it is eternal life. They have established an eternal relationship with God whereby they communicate and interact with Him as a son or daughter to a father. A principle called "renewing your mind" is taught as a way for a person to discipline his thoughts and actions in alignment with the Bible. "

I felt that everything in this sub-section had nothing to do with the topic, save for the first sentence, so I got rid of it. I suggest making another topic to discuss the doctrine that was lost. Also, is there really a need to use so many wayisms in this article? I understand that if youve talked to one, youve talked to em all, but i think that many of those terms need to be replaced with their understandable equivalents.Dafhgadsrhadjtb (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is my feeling that the sections should be brief and to the point. The awkward wording on that section was the result of a tug-of-war between Stanleygoodspeeed and myselfTen of Swords (talk)

Seven Administrations
I realized I'd perhaps not added enough explanation on this edit and some of the others I did throughout the section. IMO, the entire section contextually is about The Way's POV when explaining its doctrines, so additional statements of "The Way believes ____" are redundant, which is why I've removed them. Also, The Way is not the only group which believes in multiple administrations/dispensations - see this link for some examples. http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T1627 LovelyLillith (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catchTen of Swords (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
An anonymous editor adressed the following to me:

Matthew 12:43-45 Ten of Swords...enjoying the company you keep?

Following is the KJV of these verses:

 Mat 12:43When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

 Mat 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

 Mat 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

This is a personal attack and against wikipedia rules. Ten of Swords (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagerism Charges and true Integrity of an Article vs. Organization
I would so appreciate it if whomever donated information might be able to clear something up for me. I have trouble understanding the allegations being advertised in this article about the Way International, if under the paragraph subtitled PLAGERISM, the author or contributor of this article itself has posted a note that additional citation is required and needed for his or her own entry, and none the less, publicly begs for help to do so. Is this truely an article worthy of being in an encyclopedia, or should I describe it more accurately as an uneducated and unethical collection of assumtions, loosley linked, with large plot holes and lack of supporting evidence, but only backing "hear say" wherein the article itself is accusatory of it's subject being "guilty" of plagerism when this very article has posted a "safe note" to cover it's own legal agenda to avoid being charged with the same. I definetly understand more clearly now why my history teacher, during my college career, listed Wikipedia as an inaccurate and unreliable source to base any kind of research paper off of, and if we did, that our research papers would be immeadiatley be discredited. Apparently this is because the creators of Wikipedia are not only unable to properly cite thier information but they cannot seem to conduct any kind of accurate, noteable or proveable research themselves. But what I truely do not understand is if an online encyclopedia can not be reliable as a source for accurate research material then why exist in the first place? I have not found it popular in any culture, in any period of time in history, to read the encyclopedia as thier "before bedtime" story. So, I suppose that if there are editors that allow and/or disallow certain information to be added or subtracted to the articles within your encyclopedia, maybe they should consider taking things from a professional stand point and double checking not only the accuracy of thier contributors entries, but also make sure that they can at least manage to log proper citation information, especially before posting a "safe note" pleging thier inability to do so themselves directly under a paragraph which falsely accuses thier subject of being able to, and therefore directly comprimising the integrity of thier own.... "article"             96.227.107.53 (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The request for additional citations was for the article in general, and not specifically for the plagiarism section. Furthermore, this article is not the work of a single contributor, but quite a few over a several years-long timespan.


 * Most of what you have to say seems to be addressed to Wikipedia in general, and the whole concept of an open-source on-line encyclopedia and not this article in particular.

Ten of Swords (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC) MAYBE YOU SHOULD LEARN HOW TO SPELL AND USE GRAMMAR CORRECTLY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.45.26 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the person asking still didn't understand, I shall try to explain more simply. You asked about the notice requesting more sources. That is for the ENTIRE ARTICLE- which is why it says "ARTICLE" and not "SECTION." The section on plagiarism is properly footnoted- which is an obvious sign it's properly documented. No more sources are needed to prove plagiarism. (More can be found, but they're not needed.)

Everything else you asked either was an inflated gripe about the article making claims of plagiarism without sources- which was just your lack of understanding- or general complaints on how Wikipedia works, and those should be taken to more general Wikipedia resources.

You were given that as an answer by one editor. However, some other editor came along after him and added a rude comment. (Yes, you're a poor speller, but that's secondary to the problem you had understanding how Wikipedia works.) The editor who responded to you did not make a personal attack. Someone else (who didn't "sign" their edit) did. While we're on the subject of unsigned edits, you either have no account, or are not logging into it, which means YOUR edits are anonymous ALSO. Pete Snowball (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Plagiarism charges" is appropriate with proper citation. The second paragraph is unneeded. First, there isn't source citation. Second, it is moot that VPW properly cites sources of his books where there is no concern of plagiarism. Perhaps a short sentence of clarification simply stating "VPW's other publications properly cites it's sources" if one wants to present a balanced view. The statement that must be removed is the credit statement to Juedes. Juedes did not uncover anything nor was he the driving force behind bringing plagiarism charges to a mass audience. Those who started their own splinter groups should get that credit. I will give moderators a few days opportunity to remove the Juedes statement. If not, I will have justification to remove it. This is meant to be an informative article on TWI, not a vehicle to prop Juedes and his personal agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berringerfan (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

avoiding personal attacks
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that..seems you resorted to a personal attack...research is alot of work consisting of many learning avenues..I don't recall Dr.V.P.Wierwille denying at any time where he got his information from..be glad that he was willing to teach what he learned and quit complaining...I haven't seen you teach anything worth hearing..and Dr.Wierwille admitted several times where he got alot of his information from...for example E.W.Bullinger...Starr Dailey..Rufus Mosely.. and several others...so your information is not true ...maybe you should take Dr.Wierwilles P.F.A.L class so you can learn to put away lying ...and every man speak truth with his neighbor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.85.15 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, both Pete & I have taken Mr. Wierwille's class, but personal experience isn't the issue here. Ten of Swords (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither Pete nor I used personal attacks. The rude comment was by an unsigned contributor.


 * The plagiarism section of the article points to a link where plagiarism is brought up and where examples are given. The same section mentions how Wierwille referred to those who he learned from and how some of their books were on sale in The Way Bookstore. Not sure what you think is lying that needs to be put away. Ten of Swords (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Limits to external links
I removed the link "waybeliever" added to this and another entry. "waybeliever" seems to be under the impression that you can say ANYTHING and it's fine to include or link to a Wikipedia page. However, HIS page (and it's a personal page) falls short of the guidelines in several areas. The following are all direct quotes from Wikipedia's guidelines on what to avoid, and illustrate how this link falls short:

Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.


 * Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:


 * 1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, et cetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.


 * Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
 * 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
 * 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook)


 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent — even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Now, the link itself... The editor called it an "Official Way" site- which is FRAUD. TWI has no connection to that MySpace page whatsoever.


 * It is not actually Fraud, since the page does not claim to be an "Official Way" site.
 * It claims to be an "Official Way Believer" site, which is different, and it is accurate.

The preceding bold section was by an unsigned contributor, not Pete Snowball

The editor claimed it was of "historical" value-but its content entirely consists of an advertisement for another organization composed of ex-TWI members.


 * It is not actually an advertisement, since the point of view is in favor of TWI.
 * Also, it is false to generalize and say that the other organization cited is composed of ex-TWI members.
 * It is composed of many members from different backgrounds, the same as any church.

The preceding bold section was by an unsigned contributor, not Pete Snowball

The site itself claims that there's "results" of some sort of "research", but gives no indication of actual research, as if they made up the "research" and the "results" completely and just continued with their advertisement.

Rather than just consider all of cyberspace a matter of advertising and talking AT people, some editors should consider the idea of DIALOGUE- a two-way process of communication where ideas are EXCHANGED. That is more in keeping with what Wikipedia is about- not making up claims, disguising advertisements, then claiming they're "official" sites for groups they're not even about. Pete Snowball (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pete Snowball, please limit your emotionalism, as is proper on Wikipedia. Do not jump to conclusions
 * or feel that your assessment is necessarily accurate. You have spoken in absolute terms as matters of
 * fact where points are merely your opinion.

The preceding bold section was by an unsigned contributor, not Pete Snowball


 * Waybeliever or whoever else is not signing their posts, please make sure that you are logged in and signing your postsTen of Swords (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got to disagree with the editor who is insisting that "official" doesn't imply that it is sanctioned by TWI. That's what "official" means. "Official Way Believer website" is indistinguishable from "Official Way website" to the casual reader. Ten of Swords (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, those edits WERE made by Waybeliever and were unsigned. Wikipedia edits leave a "paper trail." If he ever finds he forgot to sign his edits again, he can make a new edit immediately afterwards to add the "signature." Anyone can make an honest mistake. Wikipedia editors are supposed to sign their posts.

Second of all, Wikipedia has both RULES and STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. None of us-including me and including Waybeliever- get to redefine things to suit us. A Wikipedia staffer notified him the initial reasons his edits were removed. I pasted directly some of the rules he was violating in editing and re-editing them. He almost certainly did so in ignorance and not in malice. However, editors are expected to educate themselves in what is permitted, and what is not permitted. By running afoul of so many rules at once, he didn't show he was making a good-faith effort to follow the rules.

Third of all, his (unsigned) responses to me are in error. His page (which is against several rules to link to) is not an "official" page- unless one is TRYING to deceive people as to what they mean by "official." His claim of "historical" value was fraudulent- which even he didn't try to challenge. Any fair reading of the page shows that it fits what any fair reader would consider an advertisement, and is slanted in favor of a froup that is NOT TWI. That group was formed originally of ex-TWI members, has most of its leadership at all levels as ex-TWI members, originally defined itself in relation to TWI, and periodically advertises to ex-TWI communities in attempts to get new members. It is also true that some people have also joined that were not TWI members, but they're the exceptions that test the rule. One may also note Waybeliever didn't challenge that his comments about "results" and "research" reference no "results" or "research" of any kind. Even if it WAS an acceptable source for linking on Wikipedia, that would be enough to disqualify it as a CREDIBLE source.

Fourth, his claim of "emotionalism" is without merit as well. "I don't like what you posted so I'm going to claim it was posted by you being emotional" does not equal "emotionalism." I was quite calm then and now making my edits. Finally, to be so uninformed of what's acceptable for Wikipedia editing while trying to claim I'm violating policy just by refuting him not only rings hollow, it looks dishonest.

None of that forms proper "dialogue", as should be done on the Talk pages. However, at least now you're actually discussing what you have in mind here- which is a good first step. You have a chance to earn the respect of your fellow editors this way. Whether or not you WILL do so remains to be seen-but it's within your power to do so. Pete Snowball (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

TWI Beliefs and Doctrines, Biblical Research
I am new to the Wikipedia system of editing articles, so bear with me...

The section, "TWI Beliefs and Doctrines" might be more appropriately titled simply "Beliefs and Doctrines" since TWI (The Way International) is the subject of the whole article.

I would like to completely change the sub-section "Biblical Research" as follows:

"The Way International encourages their students to follow a list of biblical research principles, the first and basic key being that 'all scripture interprets itself.' Consideration is given to discern the administration (or dispensation) of the writing as well as the intended recipient to whom the writing is addressed. The Bible is taken literally whenever and wherever possible, but when and where this is not possible, it is assumed that figurative language is being employed. For example, since the Bible is a collection of ancient eastern writings, idioms and orientalisms peculiar to this cultural context are to be studied and understood in order to achieve an accurate interpretation in biblical research. In theory, any student who adheres to the biblical research principles as taught in The Way's classes can properly discern the correct meaning, or 'rightly divide' the scriptures without 'private interpretation.' During Martindale's presidency, research was defined as 're-searching' the organization's existing publications, and The Way International still encourages its followers to read and study current publications before endeavoring to begin any personal research on a subject."

Obviously, I tried to maintain the focus of the sub-section while incorporating as much information as possible from the previous version. I don't intend to edit the article until I get some feedback, so feel free to comment.WikiWhat5 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I came back to edit what's written above a couple of times and I had another thought: should the current class offering "Practical Keys to Biblical Research" be included in this sub-section?WikiWhat5 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been changed, along with a couple other things, but not under the correct name.WikiWhat5 (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you've gone ahead and made the changes; I don't on the face of it see anything wrong, but I'll check it over when I haven't had a few beers!Ten of Swords (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate/Misleading Statements
I'm just going to list out a few inaccurate/misleading statements instead of making a category for each one.


 * For ease (for me) of discussion, I'm going to insert my comments and questions in the body of your section, indented & bolded. Can I ask what your source for this information is? Ten of Swords (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? Just common knowledge among those actively participating with The Way.WikiWhat5 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That answers my questionTen of Swords (talk)

“Volunteers signed up for one year to recruit people to TWI.”

This implies (in military terms) that it was possible to enroll into The Way itself. WOW's were sent out to register new students into The Way's classes.


 * TWI always insisted that they had no members, yet their non-members resembled what in any other organization would be called members. While I stand by the original wording, I would say that your alternate wording "WOW's were sent out to register new students into The Way's classes." makes the same point without the ambiguityTen of Swords (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that it would benefit from the change?WikiWhat5 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but I am saying that it would not detract from it and that I do not object to your wordingTen of Swords (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

“In 1982 Wierwille chose L. Craig Martindale as his replacement as President, taking the title President Emeritus.”

Technically, L. Craig Martindale was "chosen" as Wierwille's replacement in January of 1981, but he was "installed" as president in October of 1982.


 * Technically true! Change awayTen of Swords (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

“While this is still generally the case, the tree structure is no longer used as rigorously as it once was.” (Following statements are inaccurate as well.)

The tree structure is no longer used at all (the term "branch" remains since it has always been a common name for a subdivision).


 * I am checking my sources on this. This section may be outdatedTen of Swords (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * '''I checked with some of my sources who are still involved in TWI. I have been told that the "tree" terms still are being used, but inconsistantly. When I was involved in the late 90's and early 00's it was announced that the tree terminology was being discontinued, except, as you mentioned the term "branch". But "limb" and "trunk" were still used regularly nontheless.


 * I have, however, made some wording changes, changing the verbs to past tense to reflect the (at least) lessened usage.'''Ten of Swords (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that may be accurate. Official changes take time before they are in full effect.WikiWhat5 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

“As currently constituted, the first preparatory year is called the "Candidate Year", followed by an "Apprentice Year" when the prospect works on staff at headquarters or as a Way Disciple. The final two years are spent training at The Way's Gunnison Colorado facility.”

During "Apprentice Year," prospects for The Way Corps always enter the Disciple of The Way Outreach Program, however, they may also work on staff during their Way Disciple tenure. And, as currently constituted, the final two years are spent "in-residence" at The Way International headquarters.


 * The original wording says that Apprentice Corps either serve as Way Disciples or on staff, your correction says that they always serve as Way Disciples, but that their Way Disciple service may be to work on staff. Technically different, but hardly "innaccurate or misleading. Is your information that training no longer takes place at Gunnison? Ten of Swords (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though it may be splitting hairs, "technically different" and "inaccurate" are the same (see above comment on Martindale's appointment). My statement, to clarify, is that there is never a time when "Apprentice Corps" serve on staff at headquarters as opposed to serving as a Way Disciple, which is what seems to be implied by the word "or" in the article's statement. My statement is also that currently and indefinitely both two years of "in-residence" training takes place at The Way's headquarters in New Knoxville.WikiWhat5 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What wording would you suggest?

I'll come back to this...WikiWhat5 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this: "As currently constituted, the first preparatory year is called the "Candidate Year," followed by an "Apprentice Year," when the prospect participates in the Way Disciple program, and the final two years are spent training "in-residence" at The Way International's headquarters in New Knoxville, OH." (The fact that Way Disciples occasionally work at The Way's headquarters should be added to the section describing the Disciple of The Way Outreach Program, no?)WikiWhat5 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks right to meTen of Swords (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

“Virtually all ordained clergy and all leaders above the level of Household Fellowship Coordinator are Way Corps graduates.”

Not all household fellowship coordinators are Way Corps graduates.


 * It does not say that all HFC's are Way Corps graduates, it says that virtually all leaders above HFC are Way Corps graduates. Ten of Swords (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion (I don't have the statistics), not even "virtually" all of the household fellowship coordinators in the world are Way Corps graduates. If there were in fact statistics showing how many are Way Corps and how many are not Way Corps, I would gladly accept this statement.WikiWhat5 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you go back and carefully read the original statement as well as my comments? I believe that you are misreading what is written. Way Corps status of HFC's is not being addressed. What it says is that branch, state, national and Board leadership are virtually all Way Corps. I don't think that you could find a single state leader who is not a Way Corps grad and probably not any branch leaders either, but there might be a few.


 * You are quite right. I misunderstood the statement. Sorry about that.WikiWhat5 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

“Vice President and Secretary-Treasurer designations dropped”

None of these designations have ever been dropped. (President designation has not been dropped either.)


 * '''The Way International's website lists a "Board of Directors" with Rosalie Rivenbark listed as "Chairman of the Board" and no designations for the other four board members. Ten of Swords (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but this doesn't mean that there aren't any other designations. You may check recent Way Magazines under the "Prevailing Word Report."WikiWhat5 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't subscribe to The Way Magazine, is there a publically accessible source trhat you could point me towards?


 * I changed the wording from "dropped" to not listed on the TWI website", however my sources indicate that theold designations have been dropped. Perhaps there's some inertia regarding old designations, like when "leaders" became "coordinators" in 1980 and "twigs" became "household fellowships" in the mod nineties and people still continued to use the old terms. Ten of Swords (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I could point you to any other sources outside of Way Magazines or Sunday Teaching Services, but I can assure you that these designations are still currently being used in those places.WikiWhat5 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

“It is believed that water baptism belongs only to the "Gospel Age" from John the Baptist's ministry until the day of Pentecost, and that spiritual baptism takes place once a believer is born again, superseding water baptism.”

It is not believed that "spiritual baptism" takes place once a believer is born again, but "baptism in the name of Jesus Christ."


 * While I doubt that there is any real difference between the terms, I would go along with the term that TWI actually uses.Ten of Swords (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning that this change is acceptable by you?WikiWhat5 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we agree on this one!Ten of Swords (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, water baptism (according to The Way) applied to more than just the "Gospel Age." You can read what The Way teaches on this subject in Wierwille's book The Bible Tells Me So, in the chapter entitled "Baptism." I'm going to go ahead and add this change as well.WikiWhat5 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that's all for now, but I might come back and add more later.WikiWhat5 (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Way Beliefs
It seems to me that the Way Doctrines & Beliefs section is being turned into a Way commercial, much like this article was before editors such as Pete Snowball and Lsjzl came on the scene. Do we really need to turn the subsection on "The Bible, the Word of God" into a summary of session one? The "Biblical Research" subsection received similar treatment. Frankly the previous wording had more than enough information on what the Way's beliefs are, without providing a synopsis of various sessions of PFAL. Your explanations of changes as "moved a phrase", "added and shifted a few things" are quite modest descriptions of what's actually happening. While my opinion is that the sections should be reverted, I'd like for some others who have contributed to the building of this article to weigh in Ten of Swords (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Ten of Swords (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I reviewed every change to this article since its inception (even before I started making changes) so that I would have some idea about its history and what would constitute neutral point of view edits. You're going to have to show me how I have done otherwise. Of course the section entitled "The Bible, the Word of God" is going to have links with the first session of PFAL, because that's exactly where everything The Way believes about the Bible being the Word of God begins. If you don't agree with their views, you can't allow yourself as an editor to make changes (deletions and reversions) to reflect your own views. The quote about the greatest secret is from session one, and it directly binds together The Way's doctrine on "The Bible" being "the Word of God" which is the TITLE of that section. The other reference from Wierwille about hauling 3000 theological works to the dump is misrepresented in the section on "History" (it has little to do with The Way's history, and after compared to the actual quote, it's not an accurate statement either). Wierwille makes this statement many sessions later. Also, "added and shifted a few things" is modest because it's supposed to be a "brief" summary of the changes made. Look, I'm not here with a hidden agenda and I'm not here to commercialize The Way through Wikipedia, but I'm not going to continue to wasting my time to make contributions to this article if you think I am. Like I said before, if I've done something wrong here, show me where it is, and I'll make the necessary changes, but don't categorize me among the other people who've come in here before and done those things that I've not done. I've been careful to ensure accuracy and validity and neutrality. So let's talk.WikiWhat5 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are the exact sections "The Bible, the Word of God" and "Biblical Research" as I had them:


 * The Bible, the Word of God
 * In the PFAL class, Wierwille taught his students that the greatest secret in the world today is that "the Bible is the revealed Word and will of God," or that "the Word of God is the will of God." Wierwille impressed upon his students the importance of reading the Bible directly as opposed to reading around it, or reading what's been written about it, stating in his classes that one day he hauled over three thousand volumes of theological works to the city dump, because he found that "equally intelligent men, talking about the same verse of scripture, would be miles apart on their conclusions." The Way concludes that if God is perfect, then God's Word must be perfect, therefore contradictions and errors in the Bible result from mistranslation or misunderstanding, which thus underlines the importance of achieving accurate interpretation through biblical research.


 * Biblical Research
 * The Way International encourages their students to follow a list of biblical research principles, the first and basic key being that "all scripture interprets itself." Consideration is given to discern the administration (or dispensation) of the writing as well as the intended recipient to whom the writing is addressed. The Bible is taken literally whenever and wherever possible, but when and where this is not possible, it is assumed that figurative language is being employed. For example, since the Bible is a collection of ancient eastern writings, idioms and orientalisms peculiar to this cultural context are to be studied and understood in order to achieve an accurate interpretation in biblical research. In theory, any student who adheres to the biblical research principles (handled most extensively in the class "Practical Keys to Biblical Research") can properly discern correct meaning, or "rightly divide" the scriptures without "private interpretation." During Martindale's presidency, research was defined as 're-searching" the organization's existing publications, and The Way still encourages its followers to read and study current publications before endeavoring to begin any personal research on a subject.


 * Now, where do you think I've commercialized The Way? And do you really think ONE sentence on PFAL session one can be referred to as a full blown "summary" of that session? I will apologize for not discussing these changes (especially since it's a controversial article), but I really didn't think these changes were "controversial." I plan to continue to expand (or combine and delete unnecessary) subsections in the "Doctrine" section, so you and I had better settle on the difference between relevant information and "commercializing."WikiWhat5 (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you "commercialized" the Way, I don't know what that means. What I said was that the sections were being turned into a "Way Commercial", what I mean by that is that the sections are becoming an advertisement for PFAL & The Way. I also never used the term "full blown" in reference to summary. Perhaps a nitpicking distinction, but not what I said.


 * Well, this may also be nitpicking, but I did not quote you as using the term "full blown," but as using the term "summary" and as using this term to describe something I would merely refer to as a "reference." In other words, can you really call a single sentence with a couple of quotes from the first session of PFAL a complete "summary" of that session? (You said, "Do we really need to turn the subsection on 'The Bible, the Word of God' into a summary of session one?") Personally, I'd say it's a very small reference to the first session of PFAL, hence my question. And, I know you didn't use the term "commercialize" specifically, but it carries the same meaning as what you did say.WikiWhat5 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that less is better in this article, especially when describing beliefs. If you have reviewed all the changes made in this article then you have seen the early versions that were virtually transcribed from TWI's website as well as the sections that were mini-teachings and the sections that were rebuttals of what TWI doctrine was. To answer your question about "commercializing" and summarizing, I believe that your versions of these sections expand on the initial bare bones statements to present TWI teaching in a positive light. Maybe you don't see that as a bad thing, but I don't see the purpose of this article as presenting TWI teachings, but to present an outline about what TWI teaches. I'm going to start a new discussion subsection and address some of our disagreements more minutely.


 * You're right, I have seen the early versions of this article where some were nearly (and oftentimes exactly) verbatim with The Way's website, and others had "mini-teachings" or rebuttals. I do not believe my additions fall under these categories, nor do I believe I have presented statements in a positive light, but in the required neutral point of view. Again, you will have to show me where I've done otherwise. And while you may believe this article should be "bare bones," I don't think a little meat is going to be detrimental. In fact, it may even improve this article. Sure, the topic of focus is The Way and not The Way's beliefs and doctrines, but that doesn't mean we can't expand a subsection that's only using a single, solitary sentence to describe a relatively large and important doctrine or belief at The Way. Now, should the "Beliefs and Doctrines" section continue grow beyond the boundaries of this particular article, then maybe we can talk about starting new articles to branch off from this main article, but for the time being, I would say this article is more than enough to hold them all, don't you think?WikiWhat5 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I like some of the work you've done updating some of the detail on Way Disciples and making language about the WOWs more NPOV.


 * Thank you, I also appreciate having you as a second editor.WikiWhat5 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ten of Swords (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercials?
The Bible, the Word of God In the PFAL class, Wierwille taught his students that the greatest secret in the world today is that "the Bible is the revealed Word and will of God," or that "the Word of God is the will of God."


 * I believe that this is unnecessary. It's not inaccurate, because Wierwille did teach it, but how does this improve on what was there before?


 * This improves upon the previous statement because it serves as a direct quotation and an introduction to the topic of subsection "The Bible, the Word of God." What's under this subsection currently is one sentence, which is more about interpretation than it is about the Bible being the Word of God. I do realize the quotations do not have a source citation, but I do intend to include them eventually (after all, this is a work-in-progress).WikiWhat5 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wierwille impressed upon his students the importance of reading the Bible directly as opposed to reading around it, or reading what's been written about it, stating in his classes that one day he hauled over three thousand volumes of theological works to the city dump, because he found that "equally intelligent men, talking about the same verse of scripture, would be miles apart on their conclusions."


 * This statement implies that this is what TWI's actual practice was; there is some debate about whether he was merely giving lip service to what he was teaching


 * Well, lip-service or not, this is exactly what Wierwille said. You can include the fact that this is a controversial statement if you would like. Overall, I really don't think this statement implies that Wierwille was advising his students to trash their books (as a practice), because I've said that he was impressing upon them the "importance of reading the Bible directly as opposed to reading around it," but if I rephrase the statement to say "by stating" instead of just "stating," then I believe it may become easier to understand.WikiWhat5 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Way concludes that if God is perfect, then God's Word must be perfect, therefore contradictions and errors in the Bible result from mistranslation or misunderstanding, which thus underlines the importance of achieving accurate interpretation through biblical research.


 * Again, you're peddling the TWI line. Shall we include references to Wierwille insisting that never-found texts "must" exist as well?


 * How am I "peddling" The Way's doctrine? I'm not trying to sell anything; I've only laid out The Way's own logic for addressing the issue of conflicting interpretations of the Bible, and it's in plain, neutral language. I shouldn't have to point it out, but whether or not you think something "must" be true is irrelevant because this article isn't about what your beliefs are or what my beliefs are; it's about The Way International and If you want to include a reference to Wierwille's deductions about the existence (or past existence) of older, more accurate ancient texts, I don't mind at all.WikiWhat5 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Research The Way International encourages their students to follow a list of biblical research principles, the first and basic key being that "all scripture interprets itself." Consideration is given to discern the administration (or dispensation) of the writing as well as the intended recipient to whom the writing is addressed. The Bible is taken literally whenever and wherever possible, but when and where this is not possible, it is assumed that figurative language is being employed. For example, since the Bible is a collection of ancient eastern writings, idioms and orientalisms peculiar to this cultural context are to be studied and understood in order to achieve an accurate interpretation in biblical research.


 * Not so bad, IMHO, but kind of wordy. How does this improve on what was there before, other than it more closely follows the TWI company line?


 * While I may have more sentences here, I would say my sentences are not as "wordy" as the current introductory statement to "Biblical Research," which I find much more difficult to understand (there seems to be too many things stuffed into it, which is why I've broken it down a little more here). If it's easier to understand, it's an improvement, no?WikiWhat5 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In theory, any student who adheres to the biblical research principles (handled most extensively in the class "Practical Keys to Biblical Research") can properly discern correct meaning, or "rightly divide" the scriptures without "private interpretation."


 * Shall we include how in practice only the interpretation of the President is considered correct?


 * Why not? I wouldn't be able to substantiate this claim, but if you can, feel free.WikiWhat5 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

During Martindale's presidency, research was defined as 're-searching" the organization's existing publications, and The Way still encourages its followers to read and study current publications before endeavoring to begin any personal research on a subject.


 * I don't think that I'll be here too much in the next few days. Please don't get impatient if I don't respond quickly


 * Haven't heard from you in well over a month, so I'm returning the subsections "the Bible, the Word of God" and "Biblical Research" to their previous states.WikiWhat5 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Way Doctrines & Beliefs Follow Up
I took a vacation from Wikipedia and just came back the other day. Your patience in waiting a whole month is to be commended.

If the article is solely about what The Way says, then there's nothing wrong with what you have put in the two doctrinal sections that you have edited. However I see it as being more than about what they say about themselves, but what they actually do. I'm going to let it set for now and not engage in a battle of dueling edits with you.

I reserve the right to come back to these sections later, but for now I'm going to avoid making snap edits that may reflect a bias on my part Ten of Swords (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Leadership of The Way/"Passing the Mantle"
What's currently directly under the section "Leadership of The Way" reads as follows:


 * "Wierwille was the leader of The Way from its beginnings; he held the title of President until 1982, when L. Craig Martindal replaced him. Although there was a Board of Directors in the fifties and later a Board of Trustees with two other members besides Wierwille, there seems to be no doubt that Wierwille was The Way's decision maker. L. Craig Martindale was the president of The Way International from 1982-2000. Rev. Rosalie F. Rivenbark replaced him in 2000. The Board is now called the Board of Directors, consisting of five directors, with Rivenbark as Chairman of the Board."

I'd like to replace the above with the following:


 * President and Board of Directors
 * As founder of The Way International, Victor Paul Wierwille served as the organization's principal leader for forty years (1942-1982), from its original inception as Vesper Chimes (later renamed The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan) through its development into The Way. In 1947, The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan incorporated as a nonprofit religious organization with a President (Wierwille) and Board of Directors (later discontinued) consisting of twelve members. The name of the corporation officially changed from The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan to The Way in 1955. In 1982, during The Way's fortieth anniversary celebration, Wierwille installed L. Craig Martindale as President in an elaborate ceremony that included the passing of a literal mantle, representing the transfer of leadership and authority from Wierwille to Martindale. Until his death in 1985, Wierwille continued to hold the title President Emeritus. Martindale served as The Way's President for eighteen years (1982-2000), being replaced in 2000 by Vice President Rosalie F. Rivenbark following allegations of sexual misconduct. Rivenbark continues to serve as President of The Way International.


 * Board of Trustees
 * Wierwille's older brother, Harry Wierwille, began serving as The Way's Secretary-Treasurer in 1952, and in 1954, Wierwille asked his friend and supporter, Ermal Owens, to serve as Vice President of The Way. Together, Victor Paul Wierwille, Harry Wierwille and Ermal Owens formed The Way's original Board of Trustees, however their Trustee positions were not legally recognized until the Board of Directors authorized Wierwille, the President, to officially appoint Trustees for The Way in 1956. In 1977, the original Secretary-Treasurer and Vice President were replaced by Wierwille's son, Donald Wierwille, and by Howard Allen, respectively. At the time, the Trustee title remained strictly attached to the offices of the Secretary-Treasurer and Vice President, therefore Donald Wierwille and Howard Allen also replaced Harry Wierwille and Ermal Owens on the Board of Trustees. To date, the designation "Trustee" has been exchanged for "Director," the number of Directors has on the Board has increased from three (the President, Vice President, and Secretary-Treasurer) to five, and the Board has included individuals who do not hold officer positions at The Way. The current Board of Directors is not to be confused with the discontinued Board of Directors established through the incorporation of The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan in 1947.

The above revision includes information from the subsection "Passing the Mantle," which reads as follows:


 * "In 1982 Wierwille installed L. Craig Martindale as President and accepted the title President Emeritus. Martindale had joined The Way in 1971 while a student at the University of Kansas. He served as head of the Way Corps Director from 1977 to 2000 (retaining that position while President). An elaborate ceremony accompanied Martindale's installation as President, including a passing of a literal mantle representing Wierwille's authority passing to Martindale.
 * After Wierwille died on May 20,1985 of Hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) and melanoma (cancer of the eye), a period of disagreement developed between Martindale and some of the organization's other leaders and followers, lasting until the early 1990s, along with a general decline in numbers. (See section below on "Splinter Groups")
 * In 2000, Martindale's term as president was ended following allegations of sexual misconduct[5] and Rev. Rosalie F. Rivenbark replaced him. The Board is now called the Board of Directors, consisting of five directors, with Rivenbark as Chairman of the Board."

I suggest the above statement about "a period of disagreement" and the resulting "decline in numbers" be moved to the subsection on "Membership Growth," which could be renamed "Rise and Decline" or something else to reflect the fluctuation in numbers. Since the only other information I've not covered in the revision is Martindale's initial involvement with The Way, his previous office as Way Corps Director, and Wierwille's cause of death (all of which should be covered elsewhere, either somewhere more appropriate in this article, or in other articles pertaining specifically to these individuals) I believe this entire subsection could be removed.

Also under the section "Leadership of The Way" is a list of past and present leadership. I don't believe it is necessary to include every individual that's ever served in some capacity of leadership at The Way. Perhaps past leadership could be listed in a separate article, however I would like to simplify this list to current leadership only, which would read as follows (this list reflects the changes to take place at The Way's anniversary in October 2009):


 * Current Leadership


 * Board of Directors
 * Rosalie F. Rivenbark, Chairman of the Board
 * Jean-Yves De Lisle
 * Robert McCulloch
 * Vince McFadden
 * John Rupp


 * Officers
 * Rosalie F. Rivenbark, President
 * John Rupp, Vice President
 * Jean-Yves De Lisle, Secretary Treasurer
 * Gary Fredrick, Chief Financial Officer
 * Donna Martindale, Chief Administrative Officer
 * Rico Magnelli, Junior Officer
 * Brian Moynihan, Junior Officer

One final suggestion: I'm thinking "Leadership of The Way" could be changed and simplified to "Leadership" (the rest is evident by the topic of the article).

And lastly, I'm not sure if these revisions are in accord with Wikipedia's naming convention guidelines (I had to use the full name Victor Paul Wierwille to distinguish him from family members), so any input about this would be appreciated. I do believe Ermal Owens is better than Ermal L. Owens, Harry Wierwille than Harry Ernst Wierwille, and Howard Allen than Howard R. Allen, because these seem to be generally recognizable without the inclusion of a middle name or middle initial. This could probably hold true for Rosalie Rivenbark as well, but I'm willing to retain her middle initial since it is still fairly common to include.WikiWhat5 (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's been about a month since these suggestions, so I've made these changes to the article, with a few alterations compared to what's been written above.WikiWhat5 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nature of Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit vs. holy spirit
I would like to revise a few more things in the "Beliefs and Doctrines" section, involving the two following subsections:


 * Nature of Jesus Christ
 * Jesus Christ had no existence before his birth except in the mind (foreknowledge) of God. Although Jesus was a perfect sinless man, he was only a man, 'the second Adam', not God. Wierwille asserted that God and Jesus Christ are separate, independently-thinking entities who are literally father and son.


 * Holy Spirit vs. holy spirit
 * Regarding the Holy Spirit, Wierwille taught that there is a distinction between "The Holy Spirit" and "holy spirit", with the former referring directly to God the Father, while the latter refers to the gift from God (a.k.a. "the gift of holy spirit" or "Christ in us"). In Receiving the Holy Spirit Today he put forth his view that translators lacked understanding when they did not distinguish between upper case and lower case usage. [7] ."

The vast majority of readers will be familiar with the concept of "The Holy Trinity" and I believe it would be much easier to approach the above doctrinal beliefs from this common starting point. I suggest the above subsections be removed and replaced with the following:


 * Trinity
 * The Way International is non-trinitarian, believing the Father (God) to be a separate entity from the Son (Jesus Christ), and the "Holy Spirit" (with an upper case "h" and "s") to be a reference to God, but "holy spirit" (with a lower case "h" and "s") to be a reference to God's gift to an individual upon salvation.


 * God
 * According to The Way International, God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnipresent (present all places). He is also eternal and timeless, and since God is Spirit, He is invisible and undetectable to the human senses, but has revealed Himself to the senses realm through His Word, including the written Word (the Bible) and the incarnate Word (Jesus Christ). God is considered the Originator, Source, and Author of life, as well as the Creator of heaven and earth. In The Way's Foundational Class, students are taught that God designed the universe to support the earth and the earth to support "children" who can love Him. The Way also teaches that, as a heavenly Father, God is always good and never changes, and because God is Light, He cannot lie, meaning that God's Word must have absolutely perfect integrity, without any flaws or contradictions; God's Word has to be truth, pure and undefiled.


 * Jesus Christ
 * Unlike God, The Way teaches students that Jesus Christ is not omniscient (all-knowing), nor omnipotent (all-powerful), nor omnipresent (present all places). Jesus had a beginning (his birth), and did not exist before his birth except in the foreknowledge of God. Victor Paul Wierwille's book, Jesus Christ is Not God, has also drawn many other distinctions between God and Jesus Christ, His Son. Since God created the sperm to fertilize Mary's ovum, God became the literal Father of Jesus, and Mary became his mother. This supernatural conception resulted in a man who shared the same body as ordinary men, but also had the perfect, sinless blood required to be the ultimate Passover sacrifice, "without blemish and without spot."


 * Holy Spirit
 * In another book by Wierwille, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, his belief in the difference between the "Holy Spirit" (with an upper case "h" and "s") and "holy spirit" (with a lower case "h" and "s") is presented, the former being a reference to God and the latter being a reference to God's gift to those who become "born again." Neither of these are considered a "third person" in association with the Trinity. According to Wierwille, English translators of the Bible lacked a knowledge of this distinction to properly supply the best rendering at every occurrence and variation of the Greek words pneuma hagion (holy spirit), which in turn caused even more confusion on the subject. The Way International continues to handle this distinction between God the Giver ("Holy Spirit") and His gift ("holy spirit") in the Foundational Class, where students learn that God is Holy and that God is Spirit, and because God gives what He is, His gift is also holy spirit.

I believe these changes will make the subjects more approachable for the majority of readers. Comments?WikiWhat5 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

-- I will admit I didn't read through EVERYTHING you have written but it is much more accessable seeming and from what I did read I can't see current Way followers or those with no knowledge of the group having much issue. p.s whoever added this line "In the current version of The Way of Abundance and Power this topic is no longer a part of the class, but there has been no retraction of the teaching itself." to you: kudos. Lsjzl (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Been a month, so I'm making the change.WikiWhat5 (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
Right now, the article opens as follows:


 * The Way International is a biblical research teaching and fellowship ministry founded by Victor Paul Wierwille. It claims a founding date of 1942, the year Wierwille began his Vesper Chimes radio program, a.k.a. the Chimes Hour Youth Caravan. The Way describes itself as a Christian biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry that teaches others how to understand the Bible and operate the "9 manifestations of holy spirit". Critics accuse the group of being a cult; some point out inconsistencies between The Way's doctrines and orthodox Christianity. This group is non-trinitarian and believes Jesus Christ is the savior and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

My suggestion is to amend it as follows:


 * The Way International is a non-profit religious organization that describes itself as a "biblical research, teaching, and fellowship ministry." Founding President of The Way, Victor Paul Wierwille, began broadcasting the radio program Vesper Chimes in 1942, and by 1947 it had been renamed and incorporated as The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan. In 1955, the corporation's name changed to The Way, and under this new name the organization developed publications, classes, and programs, and also held special events, leading to rapid expansion and growth until its leadership changed in 1982 and a period of dissension and controversy followed. More recently, The Way has been updating and reworking its materials and methods of outreach. Critics have accused The Way of being a cult, pointing towards The Way's beliefs that break with traditional, orthodox Christian doctrine.

I'll be making this change a little more swiftly than before (in the past, I've waited as long as a month before making changes). Of course I expect feedback, but there seems to be a lack lately, so why wait?WikiWhat5 (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

College Division and Tree of Life
I have added the scholastic pursuits segment containing the College Division and Tree of Life. In the interest of trying to keep neutrality and follow the spirit of editorial disinterest per Wiki, I am disclosing that I was a part of the College Division (but not the Tree of Life) and have not been affiliated with The Way in close to two decades, but as no other editors have presented these topics and they were an important part of TWI, I felt it necessary to add that they existed. I am endeavoring to keep my additions to the Way's article as close to NPOV as possible and documenting references where I am able, and I hope this disclosure will not negate or weaken the strength of my various contributions here. If there are any editors out there who have additional material to support these branches, it would be appreciated. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read what you've written, and it seems fairly neutral. The only problem I see is that some of the information might be difficult to source (if a source exists at all). While I haven't yet included sources for the information I have added or changed in this article, I know exactly where the source information is located should there be a dispute. If you can cite your sources, there shouldn't be a problem, but it sounds like the information you've included is from personal experience, which will not suffice on Wikipedia. May I suggest you edit this information down to what you know you could source? For example, I don't know if you could prove that college students were referred to as "red taggers," but if you do indeed have a source, be prepared to list it. Also, I've never heard of "The Tree of Life," but I think what you are thinking of was called "The University of Life." Am I correct? I am appreciative of these valuable additions to the article. It's been pretty quiet on the discussion board, so it's nice to have another editor again.WikiWhat5 (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is why I was reluctant to bring up both segments - I have no external proof on hand other than possibly my own nametag (which I would prefer to fuzz out if I did upload) but as they did exist and Biblical research was a part of the ministry, I felt it had to at least be mentioned. I have been doing small bits of work on the article for a reasonable amount of time and was waiting for someone to bring up the College Division but it never appeared, so I added it. I was hoping another editor would have more documentation or sourcing to be able to contribute so it would not be just from me. I may have a map of the campus and will have to look for it. It might also be profitable to contact some of the Wiki religion editor groups who may know of someone who would have more documentation or proof. As far as the University of Life, I believe you may be correct in its name. I would have to confirm it with some other people as I did not participate in that, and again, finding sources for it may be difficult. Since the two areas aren't controversial I am asking that the information be posted for a number of months to give people the opportunity to find references for it and remove it later if none can be found. 24.145.158.153 (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Doh, wasn't logged in for this and below comments. LovelyLillith (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Organization: Additions, Omissions, and Changes
Right now, this article is 50 KB in size, and according to Wikipedia's "rule of thumb," this may indicate that it is too large. If it is indeed too large, then it can either be split or downsized, however, before doing anything, I think the whole the article could benefit some from being reorganized. Currently, the basic outline is as follows:


 * 1 History
 * 2 Structure
 * 3 Leadership
 * 4 Scholastic pursuits
 * 5 Beliefs and doctrines
 * 6 Controversial practices
 * 7 Splinter groups
 * 8 Criticism and cult allegations
 * 9 Way programs and events

I suggest the above outline be replaced with the following:


 * 1 History
 * 2 Structure
 * 3 Leadership
 * 4 Beliefs
 * 5 Publications
 * 6 Classes
 * 7 Programs
 * 8 Events
 * 9 Productions
 * 10 Controversial practices
 * 11 Criticism and allegations
 * 12 Splinter groups

According to this new organization, I would move "The Way Corps" (currently under "Leadership") to "Programs" and "Classes" (currently under "Structure") would become its own section. I think the "Beliefs" section needs to have some of its sub-sections combined or eliminated (there seems to be too many of them). "Publications" would include sub-sections to mention "The Way Magazine," "Household Heartbeat," and other similar works. Events would expand to include the "Rock of Ages," "Word in Business and Profession," "Advanced Class Specials," etc. "Classes" could be updated to include new classes that haven't been mentioned. "Productions" would include "Athletes of the Spirit," "He is Risen," etc., and also link to the separate "Way Productions" article. There are more things I could mention, but I think you can see the general idea. Any objections or further suggestions?WikiWhat5 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think making some of the sections their own pages (particularly the Beliefs section) may be a good idea. I actually think a number of the things in the article are valuable but need more sourcing. I don't know if they count separate pages as part of the whole or not but that might help. We might also consider moving some of the Martindale/Wierwille beliefs (like Eve having lesbian sex, etc.) mentions to their own pages instead of including them here, or eliminating them entirely if they can't be sourced. 24.145.158.153 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes Under "History"
I've been gone for a while. Here is a change I'd like to submit under "History." Right now, the first two paragraphs read:


 * The Way International founder Victor Paul Wierwille was ordained by the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1941 and took his first assignment in Payne, Ohio. In 1942 Wierwille started the Vesper Chimes radio show as part of his church's youth ministry. The radio ministry was incorporated in 1947 as The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan; Wierwille changed the name to “The Way, Inc.” in October 1955. The Way considers the first broadcast of Vesper Chimes in 1942 as its founding date.
 * Wierwille told the story that, in 1942, after only a year as an ordained minister, he was already frustrated with a lack of results and was ready to “chuck it all.” He claimed God spoke to him audibly that fall, telling him that He (God) would teach Wierwille “The Word like it hadn't been known since the First Century” if he would teach it to others. In the early seventies, Wierwille added to this account, saying that God confirmed this promise by making it snow on an otherwise clear day.

I would like to expand the first paragraph as follows:


 * On October 3, 1942, "Vesper Chimes," a live radio program organized by Victor Paul Wierwille, broadcast its first production, an event The Way International considers its original founding. During his first year as an ordained minister, Wierwille was discouraged by his inability to help others while serving as the pastor of St. Jacob's Evangelical and Reformed Church in Payne, Ohio, and later expressed, "I felt we had to do something to bless the people, and [believed] a radio broadcast might arouse some excitement and serve as outreach." To help him, Wierwille assembled a group of youth from local churches to travel with him to WLOK, a radio station in Lima, Ohio, where the youth would sing and perform and he would deliver short sermons regarding his experiences and "principles of the abundant life." Viewed as a supplement to their church, Vesper Chimes began broadcasting over WLOK directly from St. Jacob's in 1943. Soon afterwards, the program was renamed "The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan" to reflect the change in airtime (from Saturdays at night to Sundays at noon). When Wierwille and his family moved to Van Wert, Ohio to pastor St. Peter's Church in 1944, the radio program continued its live broadcasts over WLOK. Wierwille's first book, Victory Through Christ, published in 1945, was a compilation of his radio sermons addressed to young people. In 1947, The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan incorporated and Wierwille was named President. The articles of incorporation also provided for a Board of Directors with as many members as the President deemed necessary. That same year, "The Way: The Chimes Hour Young People's Publication" commenced monthly publications of writings by young people associated with radio program. Starting in 1948, Wierwille began broadcasting every morning in addition to the regular program which aired on Sundays. Ten years following the first broadcast, "The Van Wert Gospel Gift Shop and Multigraph Printing and Publishing Co." opened for business and released the first issue of "The Way Magazine." The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan continued to have radio and public performances by young people until 1953, reaching a peak audience of about seventy thousand homes that year, broadcasting over radio station WLW, Cincinnati. Wierwille continued, however, to broadcast his meditations over WIMA (formerly WLOK), Lima, WONW, Defiance, and WRFD, Worthington until 1955.

I would like to make this first paragraph a subsection of "History" and label it "Radio Ministry." I would also like to move the second paragraph to the beginning of the next subsection that already exists called "Power for Abundant Living." Activity still seems to be very slow here, so I will likely implement these changes soon, unless someone objects with reason. A lot of this information comes from Wierwille's biography "Born Again to Serve," and I'll have to include the references at some point.WikiWhat5 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Under the subsection, "Power for Abundant Living," I would like to replace the text with the following:


 * As Wierwille continued to study the Bible, he saw a connection lay between receiving the holy spirit and manifesting God's power. Desiring to learn more about this field of study, he traveled to Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1951 to attend "The Divine Healing Convention." At this conference, Wierwille was introduced to J.E. Stiles, an ordained minister, who led him into speaking in tongues for the first time. Wierwille believed this to be proof he had received holy spirit, and shortly afterward, he began to hold regular, weekly meetings in the homes of church members to instruct them on how to speak in tongues. Also in attendance at "The Divine Healing Convention" was B.G. Leonard, a Canadian from Calgary, Alberta, who sparked Wierwille's desire to learn more about the healing power of God. One of Leonard's students, Lee Vayle, taught Wierwille and his congregation about interpretation of tongues and prophecy in 1953. Following this, Wierwille traveled to Calgary to participate in Leonard's three-week class, "The Gifts of the Spirit," and a few months later, returned to Calgary with family and friends to continue his learning. In October 1953, Wierwille began teaching his own class in Van Wert, which he initially called "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." After teaching a second class, he wrote the first edition of his book of the same name in the spring of 1954. For the third class, the name changed to "Power for Abundant Living" to better communicate the broad scope of material covered. B.G. Leonard and his family visited Van Wert in August 1954 and taught them more fully about faith (or believing), miracles, and healing. Gradually, Wierwille incorporated into his class what he learned from B.G. Leonard, K.C. Pillai, and E.W. Bullinger, among others. He taught seven more Power for Abundant Living (PFAL) classes before embarking on an itinerary through Europe, India, and the Middle East in September 1955.

I would also like to rename this subsection "The holy spirit field." The information on later developments in the PFAL class during the late 1960's and 1970's that's already in the article could be moved a little farther down in "History." Specifically, I'm referring to this:


 * He initially taught this class live, traveling to areas where there was interest in it, rarely allowing others to teach the class in his place. In 1967, the Foundational and Intermediate classes was filmed (the one-hour section on Interpretation of Tongues & Prophesy was later expanded into a full Intermediate Class and filmed in the early 1970s). This allowed classes to be run without Wierwille's presence, facilitating growth. An "Advanced Class" was taught regularly, usually at the headquarters in New Knoxville. This class was taught live by Wierwille until filmed versions were put together from live teachings in the late 1970s.

However, the information about God talking to Wierwille seems less related to The Way International and more related to Wierwille himself. Perhaps this could be moved to the article on Wierwille? Again, since activity on the discussion board has been slow, I'll likely be making these changes soon, unless someone objects.WikiWhat5 (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing tag
This article really needs to be cleaned up and sourced properly to adequate sources in order to comply with Wikipedia policy. The Wikimedia Foundation has had a complaint about this article, specifically with regard to the claims about masturbation in the "The original sin of mankind" section. I had a look back through the history, wondering if this originiated as vandalism but it seems to have been in the article in various forms but always unsourced since at least 2006. If the people writing this article have a verifiable published reliable source for this claim, please cite the section properly. Any controversial claims that aren't sourced or sourceable to published reliable sources can be removed. Also, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we only report what has already been published elsewhere in reliable, verifiable published sources, so if any parts of this article are being written from personal opinion or personal knowledge, that too needs to be removed. Sarah 03:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this up. The links you have provided will be very helpful in determining what to source and whether the source is considered reliable. I'll do some work on sources next. As for the masturbation claim, I don't have a verifiable source. I will delete this bit of information if a source isn't provided within the next few weeks. (There is usually very little activity on the discussions page and so it may take a while for someone to respond if a source exists.)WikiWhat5 (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Way and Annihilationism
VPW does teach annihilationism in Are the Dead Alive Now?. He's not like Martin Luther with soul sleep followed by conscious hell as a belief. He only pays it lip service for I don't know what reason, but I'm associated with a Way splinter group, and they're definitely annihilationism-believers like JWs. They just don't emphasize it for some reason. Put that fact in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.73 (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cult allegation section - 3/17/11
3/17/11

I cannot find documentation of who stated the quote in the cult allegation section: Quote: "The Way operates like most high-intensity religious groups: their followers enter the organization voluntarily because they perceive it to offer positive value to their life. If and when it becomes negative, they are free to leave of their own accord or tend to drift away."

I googled the sentence to find who made the above quote. I can't find it. The only thing I found is the inaccurate statement that the Anti-Cult Movement stated such.

Also, the anti-cult movement is not a cult-watch group; it is a movement comprised of various people and groups.

I am going to change the wording to : "The anti-cult movement attempts to raise public [...] " I will endeavor to figure out how to link Wikipedia's article regarding the ACM with the change in wording.

If anyone can find who stated the quote, could you please document it? (see edits below to this entry - I found the quote and it was not made by someone in the ACM.)

Thank you, jchpiper

Former 28-year follower of The Way. I left in 2005.

Added edit note on 3/17/11:

(I can't figure out how to respond on this topic so am editing this entry.)

I am also deleting a section of the paragraph that states: "[..] it found no evidence of brainwashing or deceptive recruitment or control techniques:" If someone can provide this evidence and how it was obtained and can site a viable source for such from the ACM, then it would be an appropriate addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchpiper (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&

Edit update, 3/19/11:

I located the quote in question.

The ACM did not make that statement; Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance made that statement. Religious Tolerance is not part of the ACM, & I doubt would want to be labeled as such.

Many, if not most, in the ACM (such as Steve Hassan, the ICSA, Rick Ross, et al) would consider The Way to fall under the category of the label "cult."

I am going to change that section of the article to be accurate with the whole statement as it is quoted on the Religious Tolerance page.

Jchpiper (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)jchpiper

Below I quote the previous way this section read and the updates I made as of 3/19/11:

Previous: The Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) is a cult watch group that attempts to raise public consciousness of what they feel are the dangers of cult membership. They view a cult as a religious or other group that uses deceptive recruitment techniques to lure new members into the organization, and then subjects them to sophisticated mind-control techniques to reduce their ability to think and act individually (brainwashing). The ACM's assessment is that The Way is a "high intensity Christian group", and not a cult as it found no evidence of brainwashing or deceptive recruitment or control techniques: "The Way operates like most high-intensity religious groups: their followers enter the organization voluntarily because they perceive it to offer positive value to their life. If and when it becomes negative, they are free to leave of their own accord or tend to drift away."

Updated, 3/19/11: Some groups have considered The Way's beliefs, viewed as heretical by a number of denominations, to be evidence of cult status.[42][43] There have also been some accusations during The Way's history of sexual abuse,[44]  excessive control over members' lives, and brainwashing [45]  The anti-cult movement (ACM) attempts to raise public consciousness of what they feel are the dangers of cult membership. They view a cult as a religious or other group that uses deceptive recruitment techniques to lure new members into the organization, and then subjects them to sophisticated mind-control techniques to reduce their ability to think and act individually (brainwashing). Many, if not most, in the ACM consider The Way to utilize deceptive tactics in recruiting followers and in keeping them loyal.

Given The Way's high-intensity nature, in the 1970s, there were some instances of family members, who weren't a part of The Way, hiring deprogrammers to illegally abduct their loved one because they believed exposure to these doctrines or the followers was harmful. According to the Counter Cult Movement's (CCM) definition of a cult, the Way International would qualify. Note that this organization identifies a cult as being "basically Christian, but one which also holds some heretical beliefs." They define Heresy as "any deviation from the tenets of the historical Protestant Christian faith." According to CCM's diagnosis, Mormons, Roman Catholics, the Unification Church, United Churches, and hundreds of other new religious groups would also fall within the CCM's definition of being a "cult".

In 1983, Richard Abanes (the founder and director of the Religious Information Center, in southern California, an agency within the CCM) befriended members of The Way and reported: "Randy and the other people I had met in The Way were wonderfully kind and extremely intelligent. They were not spaced-out weirdoes. All of them were good-natured, friendly, funny, and always available for counseling. They visited me when I was sick and prayed with me when I was troubled. They seemed so 'Christian.'" He continued to describe the unorthodox beliefs of The Way when compared to traditional Evangelical Christianity. He apparently did not detect any trance or zombie state in its members.

Ontario Constultants on Religious Tolerance states, "It appears that The Way operates like most high-intensity religious groups: their followers enter the organization because they perceive it to offer positive value to their life. If and when it becomes negative, they drift away."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchpiper (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The "purge"
I am in general agreement with the entire article. IMO, one of the most thorough and accurate articles on Wikipedia. The section concerning "The "Purge"" has an issue. The opening sentence has proper citation and it's succeeding sentence is proper since it was stated within the letter. I am concerned with the portion:

"Later, however, Martindale called a "genuine spiritual suspicion" grounds enough for investigating someone's sexual orientation. Those who "genuinely want help" and "keep themselves clean" might eventually be allowed back into classes and ministry functions, pending leadership approval. The letter was followed the next month by the Rock of Ages festival in August 1994, which had convened closed meetings of first The Way Corps, then Advanced Class graduates, and also veterans of the W.O.W. Ambassador program discussing his belief that homosexuals had infiltrated the W.O.W. program and the ministry at large. He described this infiltration as "an attack of the Adversary" (the Devil) and outlined steps to combat what he saw as a major problem."

First, there is no source cited. Second, would this information be known by the "average" Christian that attends home fellowships? The sections last statement "Until Martindale stepped down from the presidency, the following years saw many confrontation sessions and "Mark & Avoid" and "Spiritual Probation" increased markedly." is appropriate for this probably would be information known to the average Christian attending home fellowships. Martindale's narcissism was transparent. Not unlike most men in positions of power, including most ministers and priests I've encountered over the years. Again, if the information can be known by the average Christian attending home fellowships, I have no problem if there isn't source citation, but "closed door meeting" reports, unless properly cited, is entering personal opinion territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berringerfan (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism Charges
The first paragraph of "Plagiarism charges" is appropriate with proper citation. The second paragraph is unneeded. First, there isn't source citation. Second, it is moot that VPW properly cites sources of his books where there is no concern of plagiarism. It doesn't change nor mitigate the plagiarism charges of earlier works. The statement that must be removed is the credit statement to Juedes. Juedes did not uncover anything nor was he the driving force behind bringing plagiarism charges to a mass audience. Those who started their own splinter groups should get that credit. I will give moderators a few days opportunity to remove the Juedes statement. If not, I will have justification to remove it. This is meant to be an informative article on TWI, not a vehicle to prop Juedes.--Berringerfan (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)