Talk:Two by Twos/Archive 5

Slofstra - clarification
Recently on a discussion board my name was mentioned by Cherie Kropp as an author of this article, and I've occasionally received comments or emails from individuals thinking that I was an author of this article. I wish to clarify that I have made no contribution here under my name or any of my aliases other than to challenge some of the information presented in the Discussion section. In times past, I did make correcting entries to statements I considered false. However, since that time the citations for the article have improved considerably, so there has been no ability for me to make edits based on personal knowledge. In any case, with very few exceptions, I have never added information to this article, and even those exceptions are long gone. Please kindly leave this as a marker to clarify this misunderstanding. So far as I know, no active member of the so-called 'Two by Twos' has made any contribution to this article; it's entirely constructed by critics of the movement. Slofstra (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge the editing of this article has been dominated by independent or interested individuals who are neither critics or advocates of the church. I am in this category. Some member and ex-members have definitely contributed too, but not dominated. To assume its been "entirely constructed by critics" is patently untrue. Donama (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can examine the article's history and make their own determination. To my knowledge, there is not a single substantive contribution, say, a sentence or longer, by any member of the movement. Donoma, I believe you have stated that you had a personal association with the group, so if that is what you mean by 'independent', let's agree to disagree.Slofstra (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, that association was limited to early childhood, and not to be construed as either a pro or anti stance toward the church. Donama (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Notes from 70.116.77.215
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.77.215 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There are no members, just those who attend meetings.
 * 2) This group does not meet the formal definition of a sect or cult
 * 3) Anyone who went to meetings knows better than to say they don't emphasize Jesus as Savior


 * 1. I appreciate that the word "member" is not used within the church but it is used in the Wikipedia article as a useful generic noun who describes someone who is considered to be "in" the group. You know yourself the term "outsider" is used to describe non-members. But terms like insider and outsider are inappropriate to use here because they'd convey some kind of emotion and don't sound neutral. See WP:NPOV.
 * 2. You're right to challenge use of the word "sect" since it's not a precise word and again the more generic and non-emotive noun "church" is preferred to be used in this article, except of course in the many quoted references which do use the word.
 * 3. Given the church has been around for well over a hundred years, I'm sure some things have shifted. All we can go on in a Wikipedia article though is solid, verifiable, non-self-published sources (see WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE). Please don't change information which already has such a solid citation without discussing why, based on new source(s) or reinterpreting the existing source(s), on talk page first.
 * Cheers, Donama (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Doctrine
Could the "Doctrine" section be expanded? For example, (1) the church does not believe in a bodily resurrection, but only a spiritual resurrection; (2) their salvation doctrine is Arminian (i.e., they reject election unless based on foreseen faith/honesty/willingness, they reject security of salvation, reject perseverance/preservation of the saints, and believe that God's sovereign grace can be effectively resisted, so that Christ is losing some of those the Father gave to Him). Totoro33 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem in the past has been that Wikipedia policy demands that statements in the article be backed by references. If you have additions to the article which are backed by sources, there is no problem in adding them. We have had even innocuous and self-evident statements be quibbled with or flatly denied by either members or former members, so statements do get challenged, particularly if the matter is controversial or if someone decides the reference isn't sufficient to support the statement. &bull; Astynax talk 09:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay... I don't have any of the books about the two-by-twos, so I don't know if any of them clearly discuss doctrine -- I'm guessing some do. Thank you. Totoro33 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is some material on Google Books and others are available from libraries. Some of the references at the bottom of the article contain links to online versions, and there may be other reliable material out there. I agree that more doctrinal information would be an addition worth pursuing; I was just mentioning the requirement that articles reflect material in published sources. &bull; Astynax talk 20:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Split references to new article
There is now a tag in the references section which suggests that "some content from this article or section be split into a separate article titled Bibliography of Two by Twos". The references in thisare not a "Further reading" section, as the reference section is linked to citation notes within the article. Because these are references to statements in the article, this list of references cannot simply be moved or split. However, as there are other works regarding the Two by Twos which are not cited in the article, perhaps the person who placed the tag was thinking that the list of references could be used as a basis for a separate Bibliography of Two by Twos which could be expanded with other entries. If that idea has merit, then such an article can be started, and I still have a list in my notes with additional works that could be added along with any that others may have encountered. However, unless there is some new way to link citations between 2 separate pages of which I am unaware, the reference section in this article cannot be moved to a new article/list, since they are linked to the citations within the current article. &bull; Astynax talk 04:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Unbalanced Article
As per the tag I have placed on the top of the article, please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints. This includes information regarding the missing facts that it was actually John Long who was the first to go out in faith and without a formal wage after discussing Matt 10 with William Irvine. It was also John Long who arranged the first mission. This article misses some information that was very instrumental to the events at the time. I am happy to start making small additions to this article if that is OK by all interested parties. Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning above does not show that the article should be tagged as "unbalanced". What has changed since your previous serial di spute tagging on the same points (as any detailed look at the archives will show)? You undoubtedly are still aware that John Long was a Methodist coleporteur during the time the Two by Twos were founded (even after he claimed to have gone "out in faith"). His diary notes that he did eventually resign his coleporteurship a year or two later, and took it up again following his ouster from the Two by Twos, eventually becoming a noted Pentecostal preacher. He did claim to have obtained venues for Irvine. Omission of those minor details does not unbalance the article, as they 1. are at best interesting side notes; 2. do not affect the issue of who founded the sect, since Long himself denied being the founder, instead attributing that role to Irvine; 3. rely on primary source material that Wiki editors are not allowed to synthesize/interpret or use as citations for statements; and 4. are not supported by third party reliable sources that make the claim that Long was "the first to go out in faith and without a formal wage". &bull; Astynax talk 09:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Astynax, here is a bit of history for you that is easily verified. John Long and William Irvine both studied Matt10 together, but it was John Long who had the conviction to go out in faith, and did such. This was even despite Irvine's desire for Long to Join him in the Faith Mission.  This is more than just an interesting side note as the article in it's current form, would give the impression that this was entirely and only William Irvine's doing. This is not a balanced representation of what really happened and it is better to let the reader see all the facts than only those that support a particular point of view.  0oToddo0 (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not "easily verified". It is only arrived at from a particular PoV synthesis of a primary source which is not supported by secondary or tertiary sources as required by Wikipedia policies. You have argued on this invalid basis before in defense of your tagging this article. The tag should not be there, period.  &bull; Astynax talk 20:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How could you possibly know whether I can easily verify it or not? This information is in at least two of the sources cited for the relevant section of the article. This information is deliberately left out, and that makes it an unbalanced article, and this is exactly what the unbalanced tag is for. Don't make this a discussion about whether the tag should be there it not. Leave it there and start discussing the points that I have raised above. 0oToddo0 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't raised a point based upon cited references, merely your synthesis of a claim made by a primary source. Even if you have a reliable source that claims that "it was John Long who had the conviction to go out in faith, and did such", you have not made a case showing how that makes the article "unbalanced". Instead, you have, as in previous instances and without discussion or references, simply slapped an unsupported tag on the article. &bull; Astynax talk 00:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One point I have raised is that it was actually John Long who had the revelation to go in faith from their Matt 10 study, and he did this despite Irvine wanting him to join the Faith Mission. Another point is that it was John Long who arranged the first mission.  This is a very brief outline, but I just wanted to explain why the article is unbalanced.  As I said at the start, I am happy to start adding this information (and yes, I will be citing reliable sources), but I don't want people like Astynax making it near impossible by playing his political games like he did with my "special meetings" edit, and making all sorts of unreasonable demands that he doesn't expect of others, or comply with himself.  Let's discuss this calmly and logically and create a good article, that, as closely as possible, represents the truth. 0oToddo0 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is your point that John Long is the founder of the Two by Twos (rather than William Irvine as nearly all references state)? Nothing has stopped you from presenting your source here (or in your previous disputes over this well-established fact), so save yourself some frustration and lay out your source now. It would be highly curious if a "reliable source" would state something that Long himself refuted, so I'd welcome taking a look at any such source. If that is not the reason you find the article "unbalanced" then how does a factoid about John Long's convictions have any impact on the article's balance—or is it something else? &bull; Astynax talk 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that John Long was the founder.  John Long didn't consider himself the founder.  No one else I know is suggesting that John Long was the founder, and I am not about to go looking for a reference that says this, because I don't think there would be one.  The point I raised is that it was actually John Long who had the revelation to go in faith from their Matt 10 study, and he did this despite Irvine wanting him to join the Faith Mission. Another point is that it was John Long who arranged the first mission.  What is interesting here is that you concluded from these points that I was suggesting that John Long was the founder, and you will now see how vital this information is to getting an accurate picture of what really happened.  Yes, John Long was very instrumental to the events of that period, but the article doesn't reflect just how big of a part he played. So big a part it was that, when I mentioned just two points of his part, you thought I was suggesting that he was the founder.  Wouldn't the readers of this article want to know of this huge part of this period?... YES.  Isn't the article unbalanced if this viewpoint is neglected?... YES.  Doesn't Wikipedia have a tag for articles that are unbalanced?... YES. Let's put it up there until we can balance this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0oToddo0 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no reliable source puts John Long in the position of playing "a huge part". As has been stated before on these pages, the only source for Long's thoughts and activities is Long's own diary, redacted a couple of decades later. That is precisely why editors are not allowed to use primarly sources: because it only gives one party's viewpoint during the brief encounters between Long and Irvine. It does not tell us what was going through William Irvine's head, whether Irvine may have already been thinking and acting along those lines, when Irvine got "the revelation", whether Irvine used the passage to open Long's eyes to the idea, etc. All of that requires synthesis of several sources and editors here are not allowed to do that. We rely only on what secondary and tertiary sources have stated. &bull; Astynax talk 18:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop assuming I am going to use John Long's diary as a source. I have never said this. You continue to argue about things I have never  said.  Start replying to the things I am saying and we might be able to make a little bit of ground on this. Also, if you are that worried about it, I won't even say that John Long "had a big part", but I will just tell the facts as they are told in sources that are already cited in the article. You need to stop being so afraid of the truth here, but I am happy to compromise and let the reader come to their own conclusion about whether he did or didn't play a big part.  Either way this article is still badly unbalanced and you need to leave the tag in place until this unbalance is fixed.  It seems from your reverting of my other small edits while making demands of me that you aren't making of others o yourself, that you are going to play games the whole way along here, so according to Wikipedia's guidelines, I will tag the article so that  other editors can get involved.  Don't hinder this process of improving this article with your continual and unwarranted removal of the tag. 0oToddo0 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Astynax, Do you have anything further that you want to discuss on the proposed addition of the points I mentioned above? Just to reclarify some of your concerns above... Yes, I will cite reliable sources, and No, I will not be changing the founder detail.  All I will be doing is adding information relative to the period of 1897-1901.  Are you OK with that?  Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Certainly, if you have new information, and can add it without inserting your own synthesis, it is valid to bring that up here. Your claim as to John Long being the "first to go out in faith and without a formal wage" is not supported even by John Long himself. You seem to ignore that he did join the Faith Mission, even though not as a "pilgrim", and kept up his membership in that organization his entire time as a Two by Two worker and for many years afterward. He also kept his position as a Methodist colporteur for over a year following the 1897 Bible study with Irvine, which he identifies as initiating his own thinking regarding the matter of "going out on faith lines" (which was, coincidentally, already a Faith Mission term for its ministry's method). Long did not, before or after his term as a Two by Two member, espouse anything similar to Two by Two doctrine or practice (other than to do a great deal of traveling among churches in the Pentecostal movement), and he was expelled because he rejected some Two by Two claims. There isn't any solid evidence that Long played any role in developing the doctrines or methods of Two by Two'ism, other than his success in making converts. Only apologists for the church (of which only The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship is in print and already cited) have hinted at more of a role. So, yes, if I've missed something in the sources that you have citations for: what do you propose adding, and what are these references which you have yet to provide? That is asked sincerely, as I've done a huge amount of reading in providing citations for the statements currently in the article without coming across anything that would provide firm backing for a bigger role for J. Long, let alone anything so grand as to affect the article's balance. &bull; Astynax talk 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, what do you exactly mean when you say that consensus is against adding the unbalanced tag? It is certainly not with my agreement that it shouldn't be added that is for sure.  How do you come to the conclusion that it shouldn't be added to an unbalanced article that does not portray all the views?  Please explain if you don't mind.  0oToddo0 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was clear enough that you already know what I mean. Moreover, there is a consensus against re-adding the unbalanced tag (and you inappropriately placed at least one other tag) that dictates the article is not seen by a majority of editors already established at this article as being in a state that would warrant those tags.  Winkelvi (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Astynax, regardless of what John Long thought, or did, or wrote in his diary, that is his personal experience, and we can't use personal experience, or John Long's diary on Wikipedia. You told me that yourself.  Just as you reprimanded me on suspicion that I was using John Long's diary as a source of information, I now need to reprimand you on suspicion of doing the same thing.  I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but can you see why I believe that you aren't here to cooperate and be reasonable with discussions about this article?  You have a stringent set of rules about what can and can't be done, yet you fail to comply with your own expectations of everyone else.  If you are going to argue this based on John Long, and anything he supported or didn't support, then you need to let everyone else use him as a reference.  I don't want you getting upset, and I mean this in the kindest way, but your attitude here is hindering any rational discussion because you keep changing the rules.  Anyway, I guess I can take your reply to mean that if I have reliable information, I am free to add it to the article without you going into edit war mode.  0oToddo0 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor did I say anything about adding anything to the article upon Mr. Long's diary. This is the talk page, and I simply pointed out that the diary does not support your contention that he was a moving force in the early days of the movement (quite the contrary, he directly ascribes that role to Irvine), and noted that his story as told in other references also does not lend credence to a contention that he played any sort of major role in the church's founding, something which is ascribed to Mr. Irvine. I requested your source for this extraordinary claim, which you did not provide in your edits and tagging, so that we all can take a look at it. &bull; Astynax talk 07:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One place you could read is Cherie Kropp's book. Just to help you out, here are some extracts from it... . In John Long's own words, he and Wm Irvine were "the two instruments used of God at the origin of that movement." and John Long was responsible for obtaining the site for Irvine’s first independent mission held in Nenagh, Ireland. and another JOHN LONG became the FIRST one to go preach solely on Faith Lines according to Matthew Ten--NOT Irvine or Cooney! From the time they held the Matthew Ten Bible Study in July, 1898...  I am sure you know very well that this article is very unbalanced, but you are holding tightly to your point of view.  Not a very good thing when you are displaying such ownership of this article, and also very much against Wikipedia policy.  I still don't know why it isn't appropriate to place an unbalanced tag on such an unbalanced article, but I guess that is just you making up your own rules to suit yourself.  Anyway, let me know what you think of the above point of view.  Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Even dismissing those memories, his 1907 statement can be read as hinting at, but not directly saying, that Long played a role in the establishment of the early movement. He only states that he was an "instrument of God", without specifying what his function was as an instrument (for garnering converts, helping as a companion, arranged for an abandoned Methodist church hall in which Irvine could hold a mission, or ???). We don't know whether, the next year, William Irvine had already been thinking along the "sell all" lines at the time of the Matthew X study, or if the study was an effort by "the Evangelist" (as Long called him) to get John Long to agree with Irvine's already-formed view of the passage, or whether they both came to the same conclusion at that time. Sources don't even tell us for certain when Irvine first went out "on faith lines" (we know for certain that Long did not immediately). Because diaries are one person's memories, they are only a source for what that person experienced and/or recollected, rather than a full picture. All of which is said as an illustration as to why Wikipedia editors cannot use primary sources such as diaries without qualification (such as flagged, brief quotes that do not stray into WP:UNDUE), and why editors cannot synthesize anything from them for inclusion in articles. &bull; Astynax talk 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That quote may not be anywhere on the net, but it is definately in Cherie Kropp's book, because that is where I got it from. Just because you don't have access to it, doesn't mean it isn't real.  You really have some serious issues trying to discuss things here don't you.  Just because you couldn't find it on the net, you discounted it and refused to discuss it.  Astynax, tell me honestly what we can do here that we can have a mature and sensible discussion without you trying to find every little loophole or lame reason to avoid this discussion?  I am really struggling with your obstructive behaviour here.  Please, I don't want to get you blocked.  I want to discuss this... maturely, and without the little games.  Is that too much to ask?
 * Also, you may question John Long's memory, but consider that there are plenty of the referenced books, who authors wrote things from memory, of their personal experience from many years before. You need to be a lot more consistant in your arguments, and not just when something suits your point of view.
 * Now, to get you back to the info I am proposing to add to the article, I am just going to add that it was John Long and William Irvine who both studied Matt 10, but it was John Long who had the revelation to go in faith, before William Irvine did, if in fact he even did. Stop assuming that I am using this as evidence to prove anything to do with the founding.  I am just relaying what the source says, and that's all.  Let's stick to facts and not pick and choose what facts we included based one what supports your point of view.  Include all the facts and it will become a balanced article.  Right now it is far from balanced, and your strong attachment to you point of view is hindering you from discussing this rationally, and hindering this from becoming a good article.  You need to take a step back and make a choice to support the truth rather than continue your raging fight to try to keep the article in a state that only portrays your prefered view.  Here's to some more productive and on topic discussions... cheers 0oToddo0 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * The quote is not on her site, and her final book has yet to be published (I checked). You are welcome to report my behavior if you think I am violating Wiki policies and guidelines. Again, if you are going to continue to aim accusations against the article, provide valid references. &bull; Astynax talk 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * John Long's role in the early days has understandably been underemphasized in most of the sites including this article. Basically, he was much more the 'idea man' than Irvine.  Irvine was unquestionably the early leader and spokesman for the group, especially after he engineered Long's exit from the group around 1907.  Because he and Edward Cooney were the primary voices after say, 1900, historical analysts have focussed on their involvement.Slofstra (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you get around using John Long's journal since it and the letter of Goodhand Pattison are the only extensive accounts of the years before 1900. Correct this if it is wrong.Slofstra (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't get around it. We are not allowed to use primary sources such as diaries, blogs, etc. as a matter of policy, as you may recall. This is because such raw data requires evaluation and synthesis of multiple primary sources, something that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to make in writing articles. Policy allows us to report what secondary and tertiary reliable sources—that have already synthesized the various sources—say. The only exception to the policy would be as a backup citation for what a person said in a very limited way (e.g., "In 1952, Mr. X claimed such and such."). Long's or Pattison's viewpoint is just that: their own limited view of what happened that no historian would report as the full story. In addition, Long never claimed to be the brains or a prime mover behind the scene at all (quite the contrary). As far as I was able to determine from the British and Irish newspapers and journals that I looked at when citing the article, and which go back some 7 years prior to Long's expulsion, he went nearly unmentioned other than to note his public expulsion from the group in 1907. The article does state that he had no role, but we also may not synthesize a role that isn't clearly assigned to him in cited secondary and tertiary reliable sources. &bull; Astynax talk 08:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree in terms of using reliable sources in putting the article together. I agree that Long's journal is a primary source.  The problem is that the journal appeared only in very recent years, and is really the only detailed account extant of those early years before 1900. If Long's journal contradicts some of what is given by the more reliable sources, would you consider changing the article?  Because, let's face it, most of the reliable sources have not performed any actual research on the Two-by-Twos and rely on hearsay accounts.  My other concern with the resources you have used is that they were "in a hurry" to show there was a founder.  There is a large ideological subtext and battle on this issue of a founder, and probably a lot more heat than light from both sides of the fence. All I'm suggesting is an earnest appraisal of John Long's role on the discussion page, what it was, and not so much what it was not.  There is no question in my own mind that the entire 'faith lines' idea came from Long, and the Irvine was the laggard in going out along faith lines.  However, Long clearly never had ambitions as you quite rightly point out.Slofstra (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Asyntax. We don't get around it and the journal is a primary source, therefore, it can't be used as a source. It doesn't matter that it's the only detailed account or that it appeared only in very recent years.  It's primary, so it's not usable as a reference.  Winkelvi (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on. It can't be used as a source, that is correct. But can it be used as a reference, for discussion, or to refute points made on other sources?  I don't know, I am asking.  There must be a precedent on this issue.Slofstra (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * The role you are crafting for Long and his relationship with Irvine is pure OR. I'm tempted to label it fantasy, as there is nothing behind it other than a misreading of the sources, let alone the cited references. Irvine was already operating on independent lines a year before the Matt X study with Long. Long DID join Faith Mission, though not as one of their pilgrim preachers. Long does NOT back up that he went out on "faith lines" prior to Irvine. As I have said the last time the subject was batted about, the sources can just as well be read to show Irvine as leading John Long and others to his own way of thinking regarding his new ministry/movement, and that seems to be the reason reliable sources date the movement to 1897 and not to the 1898 Matt X study. We do not use diaries and similar primary sources precisely because they tell only one side of a story at best, and because such sources require careful synthesis to form a valid picture of what transpired. Editors may not synthesize, period, and that seems to be what you are advocating, as indeed you have been doing for years. &bull; Astynax talk 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What other primary sources exist prior to 1900? I know only of Long's journal and Pattison's letter.  The "careful synthesis" that you describe was based on what primary sources? There are notable inconsistencies between Parker's account in the Secret Sect and Long's journal, because Parker did not have Long's journal as a source.  When you say "the sources" what are you referring to?  Here is what Long said about Irvine in the late 1890s, "Concerning the principals of the Doctrine of Christ, he was sound. He believed in the fall of man, in the Atonement, in the Trinity, in the Divinity of our Lord, in the immortality of the soul, in the resurrection of the body, the inspiration of the Bible, in Heaven for the saved, and in Hell for the lost. He believed in a personal Devil, the enemy of God and man. He believed and taught Repentance and that every person can be saved and know it, and that the conditions of Salvation were 'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' Romans 10:9. He taught that every saved soul is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ; and that the life of Jesus, is the pattern for everyone to imitate and follow; and that the life of forsaking all for Christ's sake was the best to live. The fruits of that teaching resulted in farmers, shop keepers, domestic servants, school teachers, police, soldiers, and persons of every occupation forsaking all that they had to follow Jesus; and to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God."  At that time he did not have a new heterodox doctrine as is claimed.  That evolved later.Slofstra (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Other primary sources include letters, files, interviews with eyewitnesses, itineraries, recollections, etc. It takes legwork to assemble documentation from a variety of primary and secondary sources before making assessments and reaching conclusions. I am aware of Long's statement and do not doubt that he thought it true at the time. However, people tend to look through their own, often rosey-colored, lenses. Parker and Parker, using a variety of sources noted (p. 11) that during the 1903 convention: "The process of desocialisation was complete because not only did they break family and social ties but Irvine insisted that success would also depend upon complete rejection of all Christian doctrine and traditional forms of worship". A huge amount of subsequent evidence suggests that Long got it wrong: The contemporary press accounts that do not show an orthodox Irvine (or his movement), Long's own expulsion for not toeing the doctrinal line that condemned all other churchmen to hell, the group's rejection of the trinity and other doctrines, Irvine's view of his own messianic role, etc. Those things did not spring out of thin air. As does any diary, Long's journal tells us more about John Long than anything or anyone else. It makes for nice discussion points, but it is incomplete and cannot be used to synthesize statements for Wiki articles. &bull; Astynax talk 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1897 is too early a date, at least as far as Irvine's involvement. In December 1898 quite a number were preaching along 'faith lines' including Long, but Irvine was not one of them.  He was still working for the Faith Mission.  In 1900, Pattison notes how Irvine was "beset on all sides" and he finally resigned from the Faith Mission and threw his lot in with the others.  Bright Words also has a reference to Govan visiting his overseer Irvine in the south of Ireland, and praising his work there.  Check your dates.  Check your facts.  No one knows the exact date that Irvine began preaching independently of the Faith Mission.  I'm not even sure what "independently" would mean; how do you define that point?  We do know that in 1901 he resigned the Faith Mission.  Please remember also that the Awakening was a time when there were many independent preachers in Ireland and Scotland; Faith Mission was one of many such preaching movements.  Just because someone began preaching doesn't mean they were joining or starting a separate movement.Slofstra (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is the date overwhelmingly flagged by references. &bull; Astynax talk 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When did Long join the Faith Mission, and what is your source? Curious, as I haven't run across that.  I do know that Long went with Irvine to the FM convention, I think in 1898, but I have to check.Slofstra (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is right there on the TTT site, based upon Faith Mission records. &bull; Astynax talk 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * My statement was not to do with use of material from the TTT site, but rather about your misleading claim to have access to an unpublished work by Cherie Kropp that is not available for verification: i.e., "That quote may not be anywhere on the net, but it is definately in Cherie Kropp's book, because that is where I got it from. Just because you don't have access to it, doesn't mean it isn't real." You may not base any statement in an article on such phantom sources. &bull; Astynax talk 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarification, are we talking about this book? http://www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/  If so, it's not a phantom.Slofstra (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware of the link, have read it and referenced it for some less controversial passages. However, the quote 0oToddo0 gave is not from that site, a misdirection further compounded by his claim to some other "real" publication by Kropp from which the quote was drawn. That IS a phantom source. &bull; Astynax talk 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Astynax, regardless of your little games here, this is NOT a phantom source. The day that I posted those quotes above, I found her book on the internet.  Despite the fact that she may not have it on her website, it is still her book, in full, with her name on it.  You obviously didn't try very hard.  Once again, you avoid discussing the truth, and make this a discussion about something other than the content of the article.  How about you do what Wikipedia expects and assume good faith, because I know that you know very well that what I have quoted comes directly from Cherie Kropp's book.  It would be far more useful if you stopped playing these games because it isn't conducive to sensible and productive discussions about the article.  Because you have already unwittingly indicated that you can see that this information is huge as far as the importance to the article, it appears to me, and no doubt others, that you are simply doing whatever it takes to avoid acknowledgement that this information should be included.  Please for at least a short time, assume good faith, and discuss the points I have raised above.  Thanks 0oToddo0 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to get too deep into this, but I did search Todd's quote "the two instruments used of God at the origin of that movement /site:www.tellingthetruth.info" and came into that area of Kropp's site. However, that page appears to be under construction. For my own part, I believe Irvine was clearly the early leader of the movement. I've never particularly liked the word 'founder' because of how the movement came to be, and because Irvine had no identifiable differentiated theology. I also don't subscribe to the stump theory, advanced by some preachers in the movement, although some vague rendition of that will never be put entirely to rest. But please read my comments on the role of the Faith Mission. I believe the movement is best understood as an aspect of the Awakening, that in the course of events decided not to participate with any of the established churches of the time.Slofstra (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Searching on all 3 of the bolded quotations 0oToddo0 claims are from "Cherie Kropp's book" would show that at least one of them is nowhere on the www.tellingthetruth.info site. I searched the same day 0oToddo0 claims to have lifted the quotes, and the quote regarding Long being the first to go out on faith lines was not there. It still is not. Even had Long made such claims, how Long thought he was being "used" or what "go out on faith lines" meant to him are subjective or vague, which is (again) why raw primary sources are not bases for statements in articles and why we forego editor synthesis of such sources. &bull; Astynax talk 18:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I must have dug a bit deeper than you. Regardless, I see you that you refuse to assume good faith, despite that you know very well that this comes directly from Cherie Kropp's book.  You also refuse to accept the use of John Long's Diary, despite the fact that it is about the only detailed and firsthand account of the events of that time.  You choose rather to trust the authors who have blindly believed William Irvine when he claimed to have started this group, yet these are the very authors, who when asked, can't really tell you what it was exactly that William Irvine did that makes him the founder.  They know that it wasn't him who arranged the first mission.  They know it wasn't him who first got the conviction to go out in faith after their reading of Matt 10, which by the way was in 1898, not 1897 as the article would lead a reader to believe.  If you can tell me what it was that William Irvine did that makes him the founder of the group, please add it to the article, otherwise start being real about what happened, and stop trying to suppress this information that you know very well is true, and that you know is far more accurate than the vague and misleading content that is currently in the article.  I have often wondered why you spend much of your efforts on this talk page finding reasons why we can't use this information, rather than find a way how we can use it.  What are your thoughts on adding parts of John Long's diary, making it clear that it is only a diary and a primary source?  Surely that would be acceptable, and surely it is owed to readers to hear another side of the story and not this unbalanced and single viewpoint of William Irvine's.  Many of the "reliable" sources used have subtly hidden or deliberately avoided through creative authoring, this very information, that by your own unwitting admission, tends to indicate that John Long played a bigger role in the founding than William Irvine did, but surely, trusting in good faith that you are a honest person, you would rather spend your time and effort trying to make this article more accurate than trying to suppress the truth. 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Special Meetings
0oToddo0 changed the "Special Meeting" section to "Special Meetings" and indicated that there are two meetings that day, not one single meeting. This edit accurately reflects what the event is called and how it happens. Astynax undid the revision and said, "please supply only sourced information." My concern is that the information that was there in the first place was not sourced. If we're going to tolerate unsourced information, then I'd prefer accurate rather than inaccurate unsourced information! ;) Obviously, the solution is for somebody to find a reference. I just don't know where to look. But I've been to a LOT of these meetings across Canada, and they're always called "Special Meetings," and they always consist of two 2-hour meetings with a lunch break between.Totoro33 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, every single statement in this article has been challenged and sourced. This could be a regional variation, or it might be a typo. The list of references footnoted at the bottom of the article may have something to support a plural. If you do not do so before me, I will try and re-check the source used to see if a plural is used elsewhere. Wikipedia requires that we go with what third-party references state, not with personal experience, research or synthesis. &bull; Astynax talk 20:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that funny. Well, it wouldn't be funny for Wikipedia to see someone undoing accurate and clearer information only because it didn't show a source. You may not need me to tell you this because it is blatantly obvious, but Astynax has a strong point of view and is just out to make it as difficult as possible for anyone who would like to make the article reflect the truth. This sometimes means that he has to have two sets of rules... One for himself, and one for those who he thinks might be opposing his point of view. I added something to this article quite a while back, and cited a source for it, but it got removed and I was told that it wasn't a reliable source... Not long after, that exact same source was used, and is still there today without a word being said about it. I'm sure that Wikipedia wouldn't be impressed with the likes of Astynax playing political games on their site when they are trying to establish a reputable place for accurate information.
 * All over Australia these meetings are called special meetings also, and have two meetings that run for two hours, rather than lasting a day like the article tends to indicate. 0oToddo0 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal experience or original research. This is no game, just Wikipedia policy. &bull; Astynax talk 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Astynax, this is certainly a game for you. Why else would you let all sorts of uncited info go through when it supports your point of view but come demanding citations when I try to write acurate info.  Yes, Wikipedia has policy, but for the purpose of achieving good articles, not for you to use as a tool for leaving uncited bad info there because the good info lacks citations also.  How about you stop making things so difficult for the people who don't support your point of view, and we can work towards making this a quality article. 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick 'net search turns up both singular and plural uses of "Special Meeting" (see here) for but one of many instances). As I said before, it may be a regional difference, and you have provided no reference that would support restricting the spelling to only the plural, or to support the time schedule that you have insisted upon in your repeated reverts. Nit-picking a controversy over this point without any foundation other than your own experiences is pointless. &bull; Astynax talk 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in a net search as evidence, nor am I interested in that bloke's personal experience, or know if I can trust his attention to detail in his writing. There are two editors here confirming the same term used to describe the meetings, and the same format to the meetings but you still dispute it without providing any reliable sources.  Maybe you and I are never going to sort this out ourselves, so  I guess the right thing to do here is place a dispute tag in that section to firstly alert other editors to a need of help, and also to alert readers to the fact that they could get a distorted picture of the truth by reading that section. 0oToddo0 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, in violation of Wikipedia policy you are insisting on inserting your personal experience into the article. No matter how many editors have had personal experience corresponding with your claim, personal experience, original research and synthesis are never to be inserted into articles. You need a source (preferably multiple sources, as your contention is not supported by the sources used in the article) that say that they are always called "Special Meetings" (plural) and always follow your timetable before slapping labels on articles. &bull; Astynax talk 03:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is personal experience with this group, whether positive or negative, considered a "conflict of interest"? Winkelvi (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Policy states that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." As an example, an actor could write about a studio for which he had worked, but promotional editing and PoV-pushing are not acceptable. See WP:COI for the guide. &bull; Astynax talk 05:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we are in dispute over this, so unless you leave the tag there to alert other editors to the problem, it is going to be just you and me here going nowhere. Secondly, Wikipedia policy says that it is better that there is no information rather than incorrect information, so if you so badly want me to comply with Wikipedia policy, then I will start deleting this info you insist on putting on there, because it is incorrect. You should know about this very well seeing that you are a stickler for Wikipedia policy, but I see that you only apply the rules to everyone else, and don't bother following them yourself. 0oToddo0 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you have not provided anything other than your own experience and/or viewpoint in support of labeling the page with tags for disputed and unbalanced content. Wikipedia does not recognize editors' research and viewpoint (including mine) over published sources, and as I indicated, there are online sources that do indeed use "Special Meeting" in the singular (so obviously, there are people out there, in addition to the source, that use that singular spelling). Perhaps you would care to share the Wikipedia policy that says personal experiences and viewpoints are ever to prevail over statements sourced in references? You know this issue well enough from your prior arguments on these pages, so I'm surprised you have again jumped in with the same tactics. &bull; Astynax talk 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Todd, only you can have control over what you choose to do (right or wrong) anywhere. You are choosing to do the wrong thing here.  I would hope you would want to comply with policy.  So far all you've shown is that you want to get your way and do as you will with the article.  Pretty much any change someone else makes, you revert.  Articles are supposed to be the effort of more than one.  MOre than one person is interested at this time in making changes and getting what's there right as well as adding to what's there.  Doing so within guidelines and rules is important.  If you can't follow those guidelines and rules and work with others, you're not going to last long.  You also are showing some ownership behavior.  You've haven't been blocked from editing yet, but I think it's probably on the horizon for you.  Of course, you could change all that by stopping with the uncooperative behavior you've been demonstrating the last few days.  It's about editing articles and being accurate, isn't it?  Why not go for that as well as working well with others?  I know I want to get along with people here.  Don't you? Winkelvi (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Astynax, in case you haven't noticed, we are disputing 2 things in this section. Before I get back to discussing those points, I will get sucked into your little dispute about whether the tag should be there or not, and say this... Because of the fact that we are disputing a couple of points, Wikipedia has a nice little tool in the form of a dispute tag, which serves the purpose of letting readers and other editors know that a dispute rages on, and quite possibly enter into the discussion.  You would know very well, that you and I could be warring here for the next 27 years if we go on in our current method of solving (or more accurately, not solving) this dispute.  So, let’s move on from this unproductive method we are currently employing, especially the arguing over whether the dispute tag should be there, and the repetitive demands to follow Wikipedia's policy down to the last letter, when you aren't yourself.  Let's start actually discussing the content of the dispute, and we might actually get somewhere, because your little political games are starting to get boring, on top of being unproductive.


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


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


 * Astynax, firstly let me point out that, if it was me that was using an internet search as part of my argument, you would be screaming blue murder. Why is it ok for you to mention unreliable sources, yet if I do, I am threatened?  Once again, take note of the different set of rules you apply to different editors.  Please take this as yet another request to stop doing this.  I don't believe it achieves much by getting editors blocked, but if you continue this style of behaviour in our discussion and your continual reverting of the article to a poor state, you may leave me with no choice.  Secondly, I see no reference to a source that shows what the name of the special meetings should be, which means that I am free to go ahead, be bold, and edit it, along with adding a reference, unless you are going to come up with something more real than an internet search.  It is time that you started taking notice of Wikipedia Policy.  Kind regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reread the sentence introducing the section. Again, you may only make edits based upon cited sources, which you have been adamant in refusing to provide during your involvement with this article. &bull; Astynax talk 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As it might become clear from this post, I do not have much experience in Wiki editing, in fact this is my first post, so my apologies in advance for perhaps a clumsy attempt. I read the above debate with interest and felt compelled to make a small contribution. I speak of over 20 years of personal experience so am already breaking one of Wikipedia's rules in not being able to provide verifiable content. Unfortunately as may be known by the contributors very little (written) source material exist within this religious group. The only acceptable documentation in the group would be letters written to each other, convention notes taken in convention meetings and workers, convention and special meeting lists as prepared by the workers (ministers) within the group. It would probably be golden if a letter from a worker (minister) could be cited as a source to confirm the correct terminology of singular v plural. The use of the term "Special Meeting" should be seen in the same context of "Convention" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_by_Twos). It's generally seen as an occasion tied to a specific location, as in the Special Meeting in Port Elizabeth or the Convention in Cape Town. A convention in some places are over four days with two meetings a day lasting two hours each and another meeting in the evening of an hour long. So when speaking of a special meeting it has less to do with the actual "meeting" or two taking place on that day and is rather a reference to the overall occasion, referring to the day's events of the two meetings. In conclusion I would suggest that a singular form of the name would perhaps be the most appropriate as the use of the term is in the context of a proper noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 05:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment 3knocks. :) I think it's a location-specific thing. After 30 years in Canada, I've never heard "Special Meeting," but always "Special Meetings" (plural). :) Totoro33 (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

Changing tone
I'm in the process of changing the "tone" of the article's language. Reading it, it appears more like a pamphlet put out by the church rather than an encyclopedia article. Frankly, I find the tone of it stilted and even a little creepy and cult-like at times. As if the language used has been "approved" by the church itself. Since Wikipedia isn't an advertisement arm of the church but an online encyclopedia, I'm going to continue to work on changing the tone to a more neutral and readable nature. All Wikipedia articles should be readable and I really don't find this one to be that as it has been. Hence, my rewrite of the language and grammar, etc. Comments? Winkelvi (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I reviewed your January 18 changes and consider them generally helpful in making the language more neutral. Thank you. Totoro33 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Improving readability, while still accurately reflecting what sources say, is welcome. Please avoid deleting sources and sourced material without discussion, however. &bull; Astynax talk 19:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, you are probably aware, but there are many people who want to portray this group negatively and as a cult. I suspect that Astynax is a bit nervous of losing the cult-like tone, and would rather that it sounded like the sources, most of which make whatever attempt possible to portray it as a cult.  I have personally talked to some of the authors of cited books, who believe it is a cult.  Interesting enough, a large majority of the referenced books on this article are people who were, but are no longer, part of this group (ie. have a negative view of it), and I doubt that there are any cited resources of people still in this group (ie. with a positive view of it).  I know I can't convince you that this article is unbalanced, but it is, very much so.  Try to neutralize this article if you like, but it will invariably fall back to the cult-like tones eventually.  Good luck 0oToddo0 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has been gone over several times by outside reviewers who have given suggestions (which have been implemented) to eliminate problems with tone. The comment was made by one reviewer from the NPoV board that, if anything, the article seemed to be painting a too-rosy picture (a sentiment Winkelvi seems to be echoing in his comment at the top of this thread). Your statement that "the sources, most of which make whatever attempt possible to portray it as a cult" is a mischaracterization of the 45 books, 49 journals and periodicals, 3 peer-reviewed scholarly papers and 6 websites) used to reference the article. Care has been taken by myself and other editors to keep any "cult" accusations out of the article. So perhaps you need to clearly list exactly what and where you find the article saying that the Two by Twos are a cult so that we can recheck the sources. &bull; Astynax talk 08:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Astynax, I did not say that the article says that the two by twos are a cult. I was just echoing Winkelvi's sentiments of the cult-like tones.  Please calm down, because your excitement is blurring your judgement.  I think you have way too much attachment to this article to engage in any rational discussion, to the point where you make very poor assumptions about what is being said.  You have done this multiple times, and I continually find myself telling you that I didn't mean what you have assumed.  Anyway, I don't see you demanding that Winkelvi list out the places that say that the two by twos are a cult... but you just have something against me don't you?  This would be why there is a different set of editing rules for me, compared to the more relaxed ones that you abide by.  Could you please please please stop doing this?  It is getting slightly boring, and also bordering on harassment.
 * This article may well have been gone over several times by outside reviewers, but it seems that according to Winkelvi, they didn't do a very good job. So I would say that you need to accept that these reviewers didn't get it perfect, and let others edit the article, without having to engage in silly edit wars with you. 0oToddo0 (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have misstated what Winkelvi stated, which was: "Reading it, it appears more like a pamphlet put out by the church rather than an encyclopedia article. Frankly, I find the tone of it stilted and even a little creepy and cult-like at times. As if the language used has been "approved" by the church itself." If you have a problem with the article labeling the Two by Two church "a cult", then you owe us examples of where it does this, and not more accusations. &bull; Astynax talk 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (e-c) If someone has complaints about the conduct of others, or wishes to make aspersions regarding others, the proper place to do that is either on the editor's individual user talk page or on one of the noticeboards, not on the talk pages of articles. I sincerely urge all editors to thoroughly read and adhere to WP:TPG.
 * Having said that, this particular topic has a serious problem which most others don't. The topic is itself notable, but there is little if any really reliable independently sourced material on it. That being the case, there is a bit more emphasis historically on primary sources, which tend to be reliable for at least the group's own beliefs, and paraphrasing such sources can sometimes create OR or SYNTH problems. Regarding the "cult" matter, honestly, that seems to be a rather significant topic of discussion from some independent sources, or at least sources who have left the group, and it probably should be covered to some extent. Determining to what extent will be the problem, but I would tend to think, for the main article on any given topic, it should probably be a relatively small amount of coverage. The recent rephrasing looks good to me as well, If there were other sources which provided significant coverage of the topic, significant enough for us to use anyway, then I expect the number of relevant articles, as well as the content of this one, would increase. But, well, there aren't those sources yet, so we have to rely on those we do have. They might, in some cases, themselves be unbalanced to some degree, but, unfortunately, the only way to really know that, or to be able to invoke our relevant guidelines and policies regarding such, is to have other independent or otherwise very reliable souces say as much, and, well, those other sources don't apparently exist in this case.
 * I have said in the past I would very much welcome more sources on this topic, even from independent interviews of some of the lay clergy or overseers themselves. But I haven't seen them. That being the case, we more or less have to go with what we have and hope that perhaps eventually the Two-by-Twos might become a bit less shy, or paranoid, of independent coverage and cooperate in the development of sources we can use to a greater degree than they have to date displayed.
 * And, regarding Astynax's last point above, I think it is worth noting that Winkelvi indicated that the article in his eyes was perhaps too tilted in favor of the Two-by-Twos. Unless they themselves like being called a cult, that statement is more or less diametrically opposed to an indication that the article lays too much emphasis on the cult allegation. So I more or less have to agree that, rather than making vague general statements, it makes most sense for people to be more specific regarding exactly which changes they would make where. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to get something clear immediately. I am not saying one way or the other what I think of the church being a cult or not being a cult.  My opinion on their cult status has nothing to do with the article.  My comments above were probably poorly worded, but I never meant to say that I think any one person was trying to insert "cult propaganda" into the article.  My interest here is on the article itself.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article.  Much of the article sounds like a pro-church pamphlet and the language being used, in my opinion, does not contribute to a neutral tone.  It also doesn't make for easy reading.  We have to cultivate interest from all walks of life, not just those who have no problem wading through lofty and stilted language.  I don't think the article is "too tilted in favor of the Two-by-Twos".  I don't see the article as imbalanced to the point of where it needs a tag warning readers/editors it might be unbalanced.  There are many vague statements at the end of points in the article that are largely a waste of space and reader time (also in my opinion).  I haven't had time to do anything to the article over the last couple of days, but will probably tackle it a bit today or tonight.  Hope this clears up my positions on the article and the arguments over same.  It would be nice if some work on the article would be done rather than commenting on what the article's editors think about this and that and personal attacks on editors, too. Can we get back to editing and leave this tedious back-and-forth behind?  Winkelvi (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, and I can understand your position a bit better now. FWIW, I remember being one of those who in the past tried desperately to find independent reliable sources on this topic, and found only a rather small number of them, with a great deal of repetition and lack of really clear language. In some cases, I think it might well be the case that most editors here would prefer more exact language, but, in some cases, if the available sources themselves don't use such language, it is probably some sort of violation of OR or SYNTH to make statements which are more direct or precise than those made in the available sources. The only substantial coverage I can remember on this group in an academic book was one chapter in a book on several new religious movements, and that chapter was, surprise surprise, about how this group tries to avoid getting any sort of discussion. Melton is probably the best other independent academic source, and it is possible that his "Religions of the World" reference book might have some more information - I don't know, but I can check. James R. Lewis' The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions also has an article on the group, but I seem to remember checking it earlier, and it didn't have much information or sourcing beyond what was being used in the article at that time. I wish there were more, but in this case the group is notable, although only minimally covered in independent reliable sources, and that makes it a real pain trying to deal with what we say about it here. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also recall your sharing what J.R. Lewis had to say (thank you), and your recollection is accurate. If you have ready access to Religions of the World, it would be interesting to know whether Melton has expanded his treatment of this church. I am aware of another academic paper that is supposed to be coming out in book form in a few months, as well as a revised second edition of the Parker and Parker book that is unquestionably RS. So, it appears there may be more information forthcoming, but nothing substantial seems to have been published since editors last looked at this issue a year or two ago. &bull; Astynax talk 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just had a look at the article after at least a couple years' hiatus. It is getting somewhat better. My main concern with tone is the use of mainstream church theology to define the friends' theology, especially regarding the issue of Trinitarianism. I have no objection to the use of some of these terms as they do have specific meanings, and can be useful. I don't want to say that such terms should not be used. For example, the friends and workers seldom use the word "ministers", but that is what they are in common parlance. So it's perfectly fine to say that the friends call their minister's "workers" as the article does. After that it's arguable which term should be used. My issues are more with the use of the theology of the Trinity to define the church doctrine. It would be more precise to say the church does not support the Trinity doctrine, than to say it is against it. In my 30 years involvement I had never heard preaching against the Trinity doctrine. This is not to say there weren't workers against it, but with the focus on close reading of Scripture, and virtually exclusive use of the Bible, there is no room for extensive analysis yielding a Christology. There just isn't a single Christology, that you could say the friends and workers, as a general rule, are for or against. So why the focus on categorizing the church's Christology? Winkelvi, you also seem to imply that the article should have nothing positive to say, in your view. I find that mildly disconcerting. A description of church beliefs and doctrines should indeed sound more like a church pamphlet, I would argue; it should NOT sound like a mainstream church that is trying to marginalize the competition, which is the tone it currently has. We are describing beliefs after all, not verifiable science here. Let's be as accurate as we can in putting out there what the friends put out there.Slofstra (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to add. The topic should still be dealt with, as those who come into contact with the group, especially exclusive mainstream Christians, deserve to know that the group does not support the Trinity doctrine.  The easiest way to mark this departure is to indicate that they do not make use of any of the major Christian creeds.Slofstra (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * The church was founded in Ireland, but is most prevalent in which country now? If most prevalent in the U.S., then American English spellings and grammar should be followed, isn't that the way of doing things in the English Wikipedia?  Winkelvi (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only source I have at hand that remarks on the distribution (Melton) says: "The attendence [based on Convention numbers] would indicate between 10,000 and 100,000 members in the United States, and possibly twice that number in other countries." Melton's figure goes back a couple of decades, and other authors give widely varying numbers, but his is the most recent to give some sort of idea of the distribution. The question still remains, "What percentage of the membership outside the U.S. reside in non-English-speaking nations?" Last time I looked, there were no sources that give a good sense of how many members use Brit-Eng vs. US-Eng vs. non-Eng. The bot did not completely change the article to support British standards in spelling and grammar, so my inclination is to change it back to US-Eng. It can always be changed back again if there is a compelling reason, and/or if editors are more comfortable in that mode. &bull; Astynax talk 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, we do need to cite a source for any additional names. Feel free to list any here that are not included, and perhaps others can help with locating a reference. &bull; Astynax talk 08:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is highly problematic. The list is going to be a very long one, and then how useful is it? The way, the truth, the friends, the meetings, and professing are all commonly used.  I would suggest that these are used as descriptive words, uncapitalized, in keeping with the no name policy.  Since no one in the church has every published a document, it is impossible to know if these terms are spoken with capitals.  This is a conversation all on its own.Slofstra (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting to add a whole list of names but just to distinguish between 'names' as used by outsiders (which historically in some cases have been derogatory in nature) versus 'names' as used by the group themselves. To Slofstra's point, I can agree with the uncapitalized approach. And that it's a conversation all on its own. :) Not to get into the whole cult discussion here but there could be some interesting thoughts about how meaning is attached to certain words in the english language used in the group which become infused with a slightly different meaning (friends, workers, meetings, etc). 3knocks (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Thanks for pointing out the weasely article, I didn't know about it. My intention here is def not to be weasley but to state the facts as objectively and accurately as possible. Just a reminder, my starting point in this section was about the out-of-place use of 'rejecting' certain principles, in this case using the Trinity doctrine as an example. One could also include in the article that this group 'reject's' the Koran which would obviously be technically true but of course completely non-sensical. An an ex-member if you were to ask me about the Trinity doctrine while i was a member I would be at a complete loss. I wouldn't even understand the question and the term 'Trinity', the language and sermons in the group make no reference to it. In the stricktest sense if we wanted to make the article 100% technically correct, all references to orthodox concepts and terminology not accepted by the group would have to be removed - there would then be no reference to Trinity doctrine at all since as a stated principle it is non-existant within the group. But I do believe it is actually helpful to leave it in the article simply to explain to the reader the divergence from the orthodox. I also need to add that a baptism in this group is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost which is the basis of the Trinity concept. According to the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity) the term Trinity does not appear in the New Testament. This explains why the group does not use specific termonolgy for Trinity. Now, where does this leave us? :)
 * Making the article 100% technically correct in the eyes of the church itself or its former members isn't the goal here. Writing a neutral but factual encyclopedia article is.  An encyclopedia article isn't meant to be an apologetics piece for a religion or church group.  In regard to your comments regarding the Trinity and the church's rejection/denial of it: even though they baptize in the name of the F/S/&HG, they are doing so without believing in the orthodox Christian belief in the Trinity.  I know from former church members that some factions of the church do state openly that they reject the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, so your statement isn't completely true church-wide.  If you look in the article's infobox, you'll see: Classification:	Protestant; Polity: Episcopal.  These things alone give a picture to someone unfamiliar with Christianity and denominational differences that the Two-by-Twos are similar to protestant orthodox Christian groups.  And to many, that means in a blanket sort of way that the Trinity is part of their belief system.  The Trinity is a line in the sand for many Christian denominations.  Most doctrinally teach the Trinity (even though the name "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible).  Only a few do not.  Since this is an article about a Christian group, I think it's important that the distinction and clear picture be made.  It doesn't matter is the church itself would approve of the terminology used in the article and would object to "Trinity" even being inserted in the article.  This isn't an article to endorse or even advertise for the church.  It's not meant to be pleasing to the church.  It's meant to be an encyclopedia article about the church as a portion of a very large group called "Christianity".  It's meant to inform.  Saying they reject the orthodox and widespread Christian doctrine of the Trinity is appropriate and applicable to the article. Winkelvi (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Regarding baptism in the name of F/S/HG, this is not what defines or is a basis for trinitarianism, all forms of which view F, S and HG as being the One God, indivisible and consubstantial. The concept of the Son, the Holy Ghost and the Father all being a single God is what is being denied or rejected, not the mere use of the terms F, S and HG. There are certainly other churches which are also classed as nontrinitarian (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Pentecostals, Mormons, etc.) and who accept the F/S/HG but reject teachings that hold that the 3 are God. The article, based upon reliable sources (and there are certainly more than those cited), merely mentions the fact in a manner that reflects sources; it makes no judgement as to whether nontrinitarianism is a valid or invalid belief, only that it is disavowed by this particular church. Nor do I think we can be certain that the leaders of the group have been silent on the issue, or that sources have not investigated the matter. As has been stated repeatedly in the discussions on this page, Wikipedia reports what sources say, and not personal experience. I personally don't find it surprising that some members would find the concept "foreign" or that the word trinity is seldom or never heard, especially since it is not something believed—many, if not most, nontrinitarian churches would also give little mention of "trinity" or to trinitarian teachings (why would they?). Though it may not be important to this or other groups, it is one of the ways churches are classed and would be relevant to people reading an encyclopedia article. &bull; Astynax talk 08:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not weasely as you indicate. Incorrect statements are generally not weasely.  I should tell you where I'm coming from. I'm a missional Christian, an ex-2x2, but very much a non-Trinitarian.  The entire Trinity thing is besides the point as far as how I read my Bible, and I have read a good deal of Aquinas so I do quite knowingly ignore, but do not reject, the theory.  Is the Trinity theory correct?  Perhaps, but so far no one has come back from the grave to tell us. And frankly, I don't think God cares, so why should I care? I do resent ultra-religious, legalistic Christians who view everything through Trinity glasses, almost as much as I resent legalistic types who think salvation depends on women not cutting their hair. I think it's totally unfair to just put up a conservative evangelical Christian's report card, and that's your wiki article. What gives you the right to decide what a 'True' Christian is? But that's just me. As far as the 2x2s are concerned, as best I can tell, you can believe what you want about the Trinity. Numerous pro-Trinity statements from the platform have been documented by Nathan Barker.  The key issue turns on the divinity of Christ, the three person Godhead is not in question.  I don't believe the Trinity doctrine is resented, what is resented is pretending that you know such things.  I'm sure that anyone who might preach either the pros or cons of the issues which confound the bright theological minds was preached, IOW, the usual academic beside-the-point BS, is going to be resented.  So, to say that the friends reject the Trinity doctrine is NOT correct.  To say they don't support the doctrine is correct.  Sometimes you have to be weaselly.  Slofstra (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a deeply troublesome philosophical issue here, and that is the idea that normative beliefs should define a religion, and all branches of that religion should be described with reference to that normative belief. This is problematic, because the language of the friends does not include a basis for arguing Trinitarianism pro- or con-.  The basic language constructs do not exist in their view.  It would seem that on wikipedia, an academic intelligentsia get to define what Christianity is, and then those people write about the Mormons, the JWs, the Scientologists and the 2x2s.  Members of those marginalized groups have no say whatsoever.  Here we see the machinery of marginalization at work.  The privileged term is Trinitarianism, and other groups are defined not according to what they do believe but in terms of what they are supposed to believe by those who have been granted that power.Slofstra (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You call it "marginalization" because you are non-Trinitarian. However, you must confess that historic orthodox Christianity has embraced Trinity doctrine as Biblical and "Christian". As such, you are presumably opposed to historic orthodox Christianity, and wouldn't want to be associated with it. You make out like the two-by-twos are being separated by other Christians instead of acknowledging that they themselves have separated from mainstream Christianity, and wouldn't want it any other way. When I was a two-by-two, I didn't want to be categorized with Christians in general. We were the "right" people who had the truth. Try softening the statements about their stance on the Trinity, and you'll have two-by-twos on here trying to rip out the edits, and rightly so. Totoro33 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments, reasonable inference, and almost all wrong. I don't want to soapbox too much here.  I dislike 2x2 exclusivism and dislike orthodox Christian Trinitarianism/ exclusivism also.  But those are qualities; there are other qualities I like in both groups.  Mumbo-jumbo like the Trinity stuff is yesterday's religion by any estimation; it's dying out as people finally see through it, at least in the Western world.  The nice thing about the f&w denomination is that they eschewed all that theology mumbo-jumbo from the beginning, and the article should reflect that.  Really, you can think what you like about the Trinity, and you'll never have a problem within this group.  Speaking on it is another issue, but you won't run into trouble because it's the Trinity; you'll run into trouble because it's theology.  If you want to correctly characterize the group, say that they reject theology, not that they reject the Trinity.  And this is well documented; I'm sure Astynax can dig something up.Slofstra (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said and I agree: Official theology in general is rejected within this group.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3knocks (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the Trinity page is interesting but also a very deep and complex topic, something for religious scholars to worry about. Given that this goes back to the 3rd century I would accept that this somehow forms part of orthodox Christianity. Also to both Asyntax and Winkelvi's points, its useful and a 'line in the sand' importance level (and I would add perhaps even more important for followers of other Christian denominations). Given how complex the topic is and given the importance of the classification it would be very unfair to the reader to so easily and lightly make a judgmental call on the categorization. Objectively I think the best that can be said in the article which I would support is that 'it's unknown whether the group supports the concept of the Trinity'. I find this to be objective, factual and useful for a reader. I'm sure Wikipedia is not unfamiliar in dealing with topics where the information is unknown, right? 3knocks (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely it's unknown if you look at the reliable sources. No secondary source has been able to offer primary evidence one way or another, but they do offer judgement calls.  But there are scattered sermon quotes on both sides of the fence on Christology (is Jesus God, or only the son of God?).  In conversation, workers will give you their personal opinion on the subject.  But "reject" is far too strong, IMO.  I think it will make a good discussion thread though, and I am going to begin one.  I admit I've been wrong before, so who knows.Slofstra (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In rereading your comment, 3knocks, you make a very good point. Christians in orthodox churches, by and large, have a very general idea of what is meant by the Trinity.  That is, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and as you indicate, the friends do not reject the Biblical concept of the three person Godhead.  However, the academics and ministry in those churches, have a much more academic and detailed version of what the Trinity represents.  Their academic definition goes completely beyond with the ideas of their general membership.  For example, most church going people don't know that they must accept the 'hypostatic union' to be proper Trinitarians, yet their eyes will glaze over before you get 10 seconds into explaining it.  Meanwhile, the friends are said to 'reject the Trinity' because they do accept the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but quite properly admit they don't know anything about the hypostatic union.  As evidence of how much controversy still exists in mainstream churches around the Trinity concept, have a look at the controversy around the book The Shack.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_shack#Reception  In spite of its heretical view point, the book has been a #1 best seller.  The author claims to be a Trinitarian, and I suggest we need a more relaxed view of what Trinitarian means, and at least a specific view of what it would mean to 'reject' the Trinity.  Slofstra (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)