User talk:JesseLackman

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Your comments on my talk page
It's confusing to newbies and even oldbies to see where discussions are occurring. I find that continuity is simpler if comments are answered on the same page. Please see my comments to your comments on my talk page. --nemonoman (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

--I wrote a very long response that appears to have been swallowed whole. I don't see it either. Basically I described in some detail my relatively short history of working on this article, and my plans to address some of the points you raised while allowing time for comments and potential referencing.

Personal information and opinions do not belong in that article or in Wikipedia unless and until the Wikipedia editing guidelines are changed. I do not feel like getting into the mud with the various CCers currently bickering with reasonable editors and each other. Read the long discussion to see how members argued among themselves, and the resulting rat's nest. Some hard work was done to bring that article reasonably up to code. The wrecking crew has returned, however.

That article like any article needs to be based on verifiable facts from verifiable sources even if members find those offensive. To see what happens to articles when they go off the rails, take a look at Aurangzeb. I've been down this road before with persons who ended up threatening my life for my efforts. I don't need this. My life is too short, and the CC article has very little that would compensate for the amount of effort it would take me to keep it up to standard. Y'all have fun. --nemonoman (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: bickering: see the archived discussions. --nemonoman (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

POV in Reference Titles
Your peer review comments have concerned me. I see the validity of your comments, and I don't see a good way to handle the matter. I've brought issue the CC talkpage, and the NPOV noticeboard here. I think your further reflections should be entered there, rather than writing here, as I expect the larger community would be interested in them, and they may not look here. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to archives
In general it is considered poor form to change archived discussions. For the most part people don't put the archives on their watchlists. I'd change a few myself except...

There's no harm in letting the occasional mistyped or misspoken phrase remain for all eternity. Keeps us humble...--Nemonoman (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts
I thought I'd share a few thoughts, for good or ill, before heading to bed. I'm not trying to win you over to anything or trying to start yet another discussion (for which I have neither time or inclination). I'm committed to clarity (which means no weasel words or vague platitudes) as well as accuracy, no PoV-pushing, and WP's insistence on supporting statements accurately from sources. We're going to differ and occasionally slip, and that's OK.

I understand the concern that statements have been selectively chosen to produce a biased article. I did come into the article aware that editing would probably be seen as doing that, and regardless of any degree of success, it is something which I've attempted to avoid. I spent many hours looking over the prior versions and discussions before even attempting any serious edit, hoping to avoid the traps which had gotten the article to its state as of that time. And I admit it is somewhat galling being accused of some things I had tried to work around.

Moreover, the bulk of the article did not originate from me, but was rearranged and redacted from what was already there. As the article was completely unreferenced (except for a link to George Walker's letter to the Selective Service), I located citations for existing statements. During that process, I added bits of noteworthy material which cropped up repeatedly in the sources. I dropped material (both pro and con) which was clearly PoV, needlessly controversial (child abuse, women's fashions, etc.), repeated and/or self-contradictory and for which I could find no source. Later, I asked the text to be reviewed for PoV, which is how nemonoman came into the picture and who has since been diligently removing anything which struck him as promoting a pro or anti viewpoint. When facts have been challenged, I've done further searches to see if there were sources to backup the original citations.

I can also understand the concern which has been raised that many of the sources themselves reference each other. That is true to an extent, and usual in resources on other topics as well. Where that occurs doesn't mean that the authors of those sources dispensed with checking or did not consult other references or do their own research. If anything, I've been simply amazed at how much has been out there all along regarding this group after hearing that there was little published before the Secret Sect (interesting though that is). There is much I've left untouched and will never get through.

You may find my own and others' edits offensive or still PoV. I will only observe that people, whether they be member, former member, enemy or friend all have their own viewpoints, and it is frequent and natural that both sides of a divide both see/presume neutrality as being directed to their disadvantage. I'm not the person to claim that my editing has been completely neutral, only that there has been an attempt to keep it so.

Not a justification, just how I see it.

During this process, I have come to some conclusions, which may or may not interest you just as another perspective. Some came from sources, some from reading sites (including TMB), and much confirmed from the conversations here:

1) One does not have to join a group to observe, and it is not criticism to make observations. The face in the mirror seldom matches anyone's self-image. Moreover, there is nothing wrong in those observers who've written about the group finding things with which they disagree. The long habit, from the earliest records I've read, of church members unnecessarily labeling people who disagree with them as "critics," "enemies," "persecutors," "lost," "opponents" or simply damned, comes across as dogmatic rigidity and prejudice. I'm unpleasantly surprised to see it still rearing its ugly head, even here.

2) Nor does parsing of various usages and denying observations on technicalities do anything but seem to confirm some of the worst things written about this group, and yes, even about some who oppose it—a sad thing on both counts. I don't see either side as guiltless in this, or benefitting from it—though we've only had a couple of brief appearances by acknowledged former members during the time I've been involved. In some cases statements have been vigorously made in the talk discussions which leave a distinctly false impression to people like me on the outside who know even a little about the group.

3) The bitter demonization of former members in this group (and vice versa) is remarkable when compared with other groups with which I'm familiar that also have bodies of former members. On the church's side, where members discuss at all, I get the impression that I'm being asked to believe that former members know absolutely nothing about what goes on and are out on a scorched-earth campaign. On the side of the former members, you sometimes get the impression that the church is a bunch of baby-sacrificing demon worshipers. Certainly, neither impression is correct.

Former members, of course, do know as much about the group as do members, just as in any other group. Some of them do indeed state that they feel misled, particularly about the history, but on a few other points as well. But when so many within the group continue to make deceptive-sounding, dismissive, or outright damning remarks in response to them, that doesn't make the problem go away, it only fuels things and looks bad to those watching.

4) Many former members would be well-served to be more forthcoming in acknowledging the group's beliefs are no more extreme than many other groups which do not have this degree of internecine strife. They may no longer agree on various points, but it does not need to come out looking like a hateful attack. The church has every right to uphold whatever doctrines it pleases, including the the founder issue, and former members need to frame their disagreements in a way which respects that.

The church owning up to the church's history and doctrines clearly, completely and authoritatively would do much to dispell the unflattering perceptions which have grown up around it over the last century, and disarm those who have made such a fuss that these haven't been acknowledged in a forthright or consistent way. I saw on the TMB that both members and non-members did not think that will ever happen. I don't understand that, nor do I care to, but I do wonder if the cost (of being perceived as vague, deceptive, secretive and cult-like or allowing others to "define" it) is really worth it to the group, much less demanded by the Bible?

None of this has much to do with the Wiki article, but something that I hope both members and former members will eventually get around to considering.

I get the feeling from the discussions here that I'm revisiting those long exchanges in the Impartial Reporter between members and those questioning them (pages and pages of back-and-forth on things like baptism, homeless ministry, etc.). Perhaps in another 100 years, people will look back on Wikipedia's archived talk pages and see what is preserved here much as I did when reading those. &bull; Astynax talk 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesse, I wasn't suggesting any sort of apology. I share doubts that such would do much to soothe feelings or take the wind out of the sails of former and current members who have objections. Apologizing also would do nothing to solve the larger, root problem painfully obvious to me in the discussions here and elsewhere.


 * Instead, I was merely suggesting that the group take ownership of its history and beliefs by making an authoritative and public explanation of them. Other non-creedal groups (such as several of the Christadelphian churches) have done so, without at all abandoning their commitment that the Bible is their core and only doctrine (nearly every other church also says this in some way, so that sort of statement really doesn't score points with anyone).


 * An authoritative "consensus" addressing how the group views various matters is both useful in producing unity, as well as giving all members a starting point as to giving an answer as to what/why, and for their own study.


 * Example (the following does not define my own view, or even an attempt to define your view, just how a group might present something like this):
 * Regarding God and Christ: According to the Bible, there is but one God, the Father, a single, undivided and almighty entity. While the Bible does not present Jesus as God, it does clearly tell us that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father, the Christ, and one with the Father in Spirit just as the Church is to be one with the Father and Son in Spirit. Jesus provided both a sacrifice for sin to the faithful who believe, and an example life and ministry which represent the only Way believers are required to follow. (listing verses in support of each statement, just as we reference statements on Wikipedia)
 * Regarding the Church: We believe that our fellowship represents the sole earthly expression of the true Way as set forth by Jesus Christ. We are the light of the world. We believe that any way which departs from the clear instructions of Jesus is flawed and departs from the Truth.
 * Regarding the Origin of the Church: We claim our origin in Jesus's commands to those He sent forth to preach in the New Testament, and believe that the true church has continued ever since. We deny any human founder other than Christ, and further consider any other institution or other way set up by men as having departed from the truth as it is in Jesus.
 * Regarding Sin:
 * Regarding Salvation:
 * Regarding the Ministry:
 * ... you get the idea


 * Such documents can, and often do, include text to make it explicitly clear that they are not being given as a substitute for the Bible as the only doctrine, but rather an overall explanation of how the church as a body views certain matters.


 * I know that this is something no one member can or should decide to do on behalf of the whole. As I said, one or two newbie members are not enough to authoritatively define any church's position to the world. The same may even be said of long-time members who haven't listened closely enough to acquire a full understanding, or even individual members or ministers who do understand. But your church would be well-served to undertake something along these lines as a body. If it can come together to publish a hymnal, it can easily produce something like this (and a few pages added to the hymnal might be the ideal place to present it). However it may be done, the church would take ownership of beliefs and present the reasons behind them, instead of forfeiting that chore to those outside. And until something like this is publicly available, then others will legitimately continue to provide that information instead, just as is done for those other groups who refuse to explain their views.


 * I recall the "Jesus Movement" of the 1960's where many new movements (some of them outwardly oh-so-nice, but nothing short of traps where people died) would refuse to give any information if asked about their group's position or beliefs. Questions were answered: "Come to our meeting and see." Of course, there was an ulterior motive in that—they were being deceptive about their beliefs. I'm not lumping your group with those, but the same impression rubs many people in just that way. That sort of non-answer also seems to fall short of the biblical command to be "ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you."


 * As far as I can recall, nothing in the Bible forbids putting answers out in public or defining how the church's beliefs are rooted in scripture. That has been done from earliest days, even during the lifetime of the first apostles. The early church didn't come across as some "Secret Sect," rather it was well noted by contemporaries and Paul even testifies before Herod against such a suggestion ("for this thing was not done in a corner"). If your ministers haven't discussed this, they should. And if they have discussed this and done nothing, then it needs to go back into the suggestion box and be revisited.


 * I may be talking to a wall here, and it affects me in no way. Just noting that the church clearly presenting its own viewpoint publicly has a lot of potential for making more informed and civil conversations between the members and former members I know, and for giving a more solid take on the church body's positions for editors here and researchers elsewhere. I've put in way more than a couple of cents, and it really is none of my business, just an observation. Were I a member, I would want that clarity out there, with people coming into contact with my group having no question or doubt as to what were its views. &bull; Astynax talk 21:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for Good Article Reviewers
Per Good article nominations you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, nor can you review an article if you are the nominator.

I believe that you do not qualify to be the Good Article Reviewer. Please reconsider this. I will feel compelled to raise it as an issue if you continue. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)