Talk:Two by Twos/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removal of Dispute Tag at 4.30pm EST, 20 January

This dispute tag was created by 00todd00.
This editor continues to add the dispute tag, but does not specify what is being disputed.
On at least 6 occasions and I and editor Astynax have requested what items are being disputed.
The editor continues to place the dispute tag without providing any guidance.

Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a dispute and you can remove the dispute tag.

By my count, 00todd00 has placed this tag at least 16 times in the past 11 days.

I have suggested to 00todd00 that if he feels his concerns are not being addressed correctly that he consider Wikipedia dispute resolution requests.
Without any attempt to help me or other editors understand what is being disputed, or what steps to rectify, I now consider the use of this tag to be disruptive behavior.
I will continue to remove this dispute tag, which I have come to regard as vandalism by 00todd00 unless a list of disputed items accompany it as per wiki guidelines.

Because I am identifying the repeated use of this tag as vandalism, I believe that reverting this tag in excess of 3 times in 24 hours is justified per the WP:3RR guidelines which provide for reverts of vandalism. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Since 00todd00 has made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, I have placed a 3RR warning on his talk page. I hate to get official here. I think people can find ways to work together. I hope 00todd00 will look to participate in consensus. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, you will notice that I have barely even modified the article. I have simply attached a dispute tag at the top of the article as per Wiki dispute guidelines, purely because there are those who insist on removing it. I have every intention of discussing changes to the article before I begin to make any changes. There is a dispute regarding various details and Astynax can vouch for that because he has participated in the dispute, and for that reason it is appropriate that a dispute tag is in place. Again I have every intention of having civil and mature discussion about this but your behaviour in taking every avenue possible to hinder the discussion makes it slightly difficult.

The need for the dispute tag is real because I know for myself, and the editor who posted in the "Irvine not the founder" section before me also found out for himself that, unless there is a tag alerting to a dispute, no one bothers to discuss anything. So many people seem so afraid of a disputed tag, but what really is the problem? The reality is that there are many disputed points of this article and it is very apropriate that the tag is there, especially as that is the only way to prompt the discussion. For that reason, I will continue to put the tag in place if it is removed, and if you are so obstructive that you would remove it to prevent the discussion going any further, than I hope that those who police the 3RR have the common sense to see that you have even gone as far as hoping that another editor doesn’t respond to those points that were clearly laid out as you have been asking for.

I am sorry for any grief caused by the disputed tag, but it is there as a tool for this reason and it is the only way to prompt ongoing discussion. In all kindness... 0oToddo0 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless and until you make a list of items you want changed and how you want them changed, then the dispute tag has no business being there and I and others will remove it. Continually doing this without providing any sort of help for your fellow editors is disruptive. It has crossed the into vandalism and I will treat it as such if you repeat it.

Making the same change to an article 3 times in 24 hours means that you have violated the three revert rule. That's what it means. --Nemonoman (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I also don't really understand the points you're disputing, 0oToddo0, and make a personal call to list them clearly in the way Nemonoman requested. Please don't keep reverting the removal of the dispute tag mindlessly. It's disrupting and since you're violating the WP:3RR rule some Administrator will probably temporarily block you. Donama (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Dispute Tag at 7.20am EST, 21 January

This dispute tag was created by 00todd00.
This editor continues to add the dispute tag, but does not specify what is being disputed.
Note: 5 times in less than 24 hours.--Nemonoman (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Dispute Tag at 8.40am EST, 21 January

This dispute tag was created by 00todd00.
This editor continues to add the dispute tag, but does not specify what is being disputed.
Note: 6 times in less than 24 hours.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Answering the same 3 questions again

On 15 January, and again today, 00todd00 has asked: 1. Did William Irvine’s revelation regarding Matt 10 happen in 1897 at the beginning (or prior to the beginning)? 2. Do you (or any sources) believe that the revelation that they got from Matt 10 included that they should only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils... without shoes on?!? 3. Are we in dispute?

I answered these questions then, and repeat the answers below: 1. According to the cited sources, yes. 2. Astynax can answer however he sees fit. I hope he doesn't answer. It's clear the sources say that Irvine was inspired by Matthew 10. 3. A dispute, yes, but not a dispute that the article doesn't reflect the cited sources. You have a different interpretation of the truth, based on your interpretation and synthesis of information not currently cited in the article. So either place addtiional facts and sources in the article, and let us all deal with them as appropriately as we can, or lay off the dispute tagging.

And about my response (2): why do hope Astynax doesn't answer? I hope this because what Astynax or any editor happens to believe or not believe is not relevant to the content of the article. Discussing personal believes is precisely what this discussion is NOT to do. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, I am quite aware that you answered these questions, but you would know that because I responded to your answers in the section where the dispute is. Not really much point in you answering twice. You could continue by responding to the comments I made about your answers, especially that you didn't really read the question. By the way, I was not asking for Astyax's belief for the purpose of adding it to the article. I only wanted to see what we (and anyone else partisipating in the dispute) agreed on so that we could make some progress in the discussion. You however, have only seemed to hinder progress, now by repeating answers to the questions. I will place a disputed tag on the article so you have a link to the section that is disputed, and where I have responded to you, so you won't get confused. Best regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to sit back for awhile and let you enjoy the consequences of your vandalism. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please put new discussions into new sections!

The Irvine not the founder discussion has gone all over the map and is now FOUR TIMES AS LONG as the article itself, and about 300 times as long as actual passages in question. This is not helpful. Yes in a general sense, the discussion topic is Irvine, but in a general sense much of the article is about Irvine. That section has become an incoherent grab bag of comments, many of them

How will any "uninvolved editor" -- that wonderful creature that so many editors invoke -- figure out what's what? By reading through page after page of mixed up, unrelated discussions.

If that discussion continues to get longer and longer, how any part of it ever be archived. Some aspects of that discussion are now resolved and therefore not current. So how to happily move those resolved sections to an archive?

The proper method to make discussions manageable, experience has shown in other articles, is to START NEW SECTIONS as the discussion evolves. If the question is: I can't access the relevant sources, MAKE THAT A NEW SECTION. Then that question can be (eventually) resolved. If the question is "Why I have added a dispute tag", MAKE THAT A NEW SECTION. ]

If a new section gets started and relevant information from another discussion bears repeating, please COPY the relevant passage to the new discussion. Moving a new discussion into an existing discussion defeats the whole purpose of creating new sections...and the purpose is: to make communication easier.

I am literally begging here, my colleagues: PLEASE make new sections. Please, please. You'd be amazed how it will improve communications. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, regarding your request to put “new discussions into new sections”... what you did was copied some of my last reply in the Irvine not the founder” section and put it in a section called “Continuing the Irvine not the founder discussion”. If you ask me, that is not a new discussion, and you can also barely call it a new section seeing it is just continuing on from the same conversation. If you wanted to reply to what I said, and continue the conversation, what is wrong with continuing the conversation where the conversation is taking place, and where other readers can see the whole lot of what I have said instead of just pulling the bits out that you want them to see.

You mention about archiving that discussion, and yes, I can imagine that you are very keen to be able to archive it to hide some of the things that have been bought up there, and things which, to this point, have not been able to be explained. It would be for the same reason that caused you to use all the other tricks such as discouraging other editors to respond, and you even went as far as identifying the dispute tag as “vandalism”, which it clearly wasn’t, as you would have seen if you followed the link you placed, to the “vandalism” page. Even your apparent fear of the dispute tag made me think that you were so afraid that someone might wonder what the dispute was about and read the real information about this. Really, what is the big deal with a dispute tag? If it is under dispute, it is. It’s no big deal. All it does is assist other people to consider the alternatives and weigh in on the dispute if they have something to contribute. It doesn’t really hurt anybody, does it?

Anyway, as far as some of the things having been resolved from this discussion, I read from the start and see someone who is still waiting for a response to something that they were disputing, and I understand what they are saying and their concerns have not been attended to. Maybe I will try to help them out by asking the question again in that section. They obviously don’t know my little trick of adding a dispute tag when there is no response.

So, for now I am not about to make a new section. For example, I am not about to make a section called “I can't access the relevant sources”, because, even though I mentioned it, that isn’t an issue. I don’t mind that I can’t access the sources. I was just giving that as a reason for my asking for someone to quote the relevant sources. I am also not about to contribute to a section called “continuing the Irvine not the founder discussion”, because I might as well continue the “Irvine not the founder” discussion, seeing that is where all the discussion really is. It is a bit poor to use archiving as a reason to make a new section, because if you want to archive part of the conversation, you can still do that. Yes I know it makes it hard because you are chopping out half a section, but why it that any different to chopping a discussion in half by starting a new section. Anyway, I guess archiving isn’t really your motive is it? I don’t mean to sound offensive here, but you can understand what it looks like can’t you? The reasons you give for doing things is not really adding up here, and because you already have a history of trying to disrupt this discussion, I am truly having trouble believing that you are acting in good faith. But, regardless of that, the discussion is moving along well, so we’ll work out what the different sources are saying and try to get the article to reflect the truth as closely as possible, and that is the best we can do. Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, I’m glad you removed that last section you wrote, because there is really no reason to be getting upset. I don’t mean to make this look like an attack on you that you are doing everything with an evil heart, but surely you can see what it looks like when you go insisting that a new section be started, when the section you started obviously wasn’t really a new section because of the title, and it was also dealing with the things relative to the section (because it was just a continuation), and you were also responding to things I said in that section.

There was a time when you were insisting that I list out all the things I was disputing in the one section, and now you are insisting that I make a new section for every little slightly off the side comment that might be made. Again, can’t you see why I might think you are just trying to be difficult? I can’t even comply to your every whim if you keep changing what you expect. Even still, I don’t want to make a fight out of this or stir up your emotion, though I have long ago accepted that being part of the church of God brings out the accusers, but it would make the conversation easier if you weren’t continually looking for some technical fault with the conversation, such as that I didn’t start a new section when I happened to make a remark about not having access to some of the sources.

In all respect, 0oToddo0 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm outty. If I find a way to enjoy or at least tolerate this nonsense, I'll be back. Don't hold your breath. And by the way: while the cat's away...--Nemonoman (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

One way you could enjoy this discussion is if you simply join in the discussion, rather than channel your emotions towards the fact that I wasn't interested in starting a new section, only to call it a continuation of the old section and then start copying all the information from one section to the other section as you did, essentially making it the same discussion repeated twice. It seemed like a strange thing to me at the time, and even now I can't think of any good reason for continuing the same discussion in a seperate section.

Anyway, I am happy if you decide to leave this discussion between others and that is a good result as far as just concentrating on the content of the article. And really, if there isn't an actual argument for a Matt 10 revelation being in 1897, and the dicussion ends here, I will go ahead and change the article and see what happens then. Thanks for your time. 0oToddo0 (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion to be held. Either you have references to insert some sort of proposed statement showing that William Irvine's revelation of Matt. 10 did not actually occur until 1898, or you do not. Thus far, you've only trotted out Long's journal, which makes no such claim for Irvine. • Astynax ^talk 09:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of section 'Controversy and complaints'

Removed the following section because at best it was totally unreferenced, but at worst it's a bunch of opinions that could never properly be supported by verifiable sources in an encyclopaedic manner. The section title is also in contravention of Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines. Some of this sounds like it could be true, as of all features of the church, probably in certain regions and not others, but I don't think that should have a bearing on its inclusion in the article. Let's get back to trying to get this article to Good Article status. Donama (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Entering the church from the outside (not having been brought up by church members) can introduce a number of problems. Strong emphasis is put on removing oneself from the practices and ways of ones family and friends; the workers and friends are equally enthusiastic about this. Some compare and have experienced what can be described as controlling and divisive language and behavior from the workers which develops as one remains at the church. Guilt-tactics and putting pressure upon young, inexperienced members to conform to church rules are common practices. It is easily observable that the workers are in most cases unopposed by the friends on all matters, and workers in almost all cases are free to do as they choose. It is seen as a fault of the person if they had the desire to question the actions of a particular worker, or the ways of the church; this coming from the belief that the workers are totally guided by the Holy Spirit. This firm belief allows those who desire it to keep certain traditions in place, examples being the wearing of long skirts by women and the strong preference against women wearing trousers. Other dividing traditions include women being discouraged from wearing their hair shorter than shoulder height and not partaking in a religious Christmas acknowledgment.

Blanking of sourced statements

0oToddo0: please refrain from blanking and changing the meaning of sourced statements. Not only does this disrupt citations for remaining information, you are not offering new sources in support of your changes. • Astynax ^talk 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, as I mentioned in the comments at the time of editing, it is irrelevant whether the statements are sourced or not. If you put a statement in the article that says “Toyota is the largest car manufacturer”, and even if you had good sources and the information was true, I would still remove it, from a point of irrelevance, and nothing to do with being sourced or not. Similarly, if a statement in the “Early growth” section has nothing to do with growth, I will remove it, sourced or not... true or not.

Regarding the removal of the “Pearson family” and the “Coolacrease” info, this sentence is worded that this was an exception to the preceding statement, yet the removed statement even acknowledges that this is controversial, and the references do not say that the Pearson’s actually did this.

This is yet another typical example of biased editors trying every creative and misleading method of deceit, to defame this church even to word such a statement as if it is accepted as truth, and hope that the reader doesn’t/can’t follow the reference to find out what is really said. Too many times I also have not been able to access the source, but when I ask what the source actually says, I draw a blank as if people are afraid to admit that the source doesn’t actually say what is written. That should tell you something about the creative way people interpret a source to support a point of view, just like has happened here. And just like editors here are trying to use false information to defame, I would not be a bit surprised if the Pearson’s were falsely accused, like many other Christians I have heard about, including a notable one called Jesus.

Anyway, that aside, I will remove the statement again, and if you think this is worth disputing I will add the dispute tag to the article, and we’ll do it properly, but if you don’t want to dispute it, take the tag away and don’t dispute it. If you really think there should be some mention that the Pearson’s have been accused of something, make it known that the truth isn’t really known, especially seeing that is what the source says.

I have a lot of work to do on this article, fixing up things such as I have mentioned above, but if you are going to hang around and press undo for every little change then maybe instead you could participate in the disputes, rather than keep on telling me to go ahead and change the article only for you to then hit "undo". If you think it is better that we acknowledge the dispute by tagging the article and sorting out here on the talk page I am ok with that, because there are far more than 5 things of note, to fill Nemonoman's request of 5 things before a dispute becomes a "dispute".

Let me know how you would rather work through this, because I am happy to do it either way.

Kind regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No Todd, the first statement is not irrelevant to the topic. Until Irvine's ouster in 1914, the group was very much in the public eye and not the secretive organization it later became. Since you didn't get the connection, I've made the statement clearer. I'll gladly add a referenced statement later on as to how it became a "secret society" if the connection needs to be more explicit. As to the Coolacrease incident, the Pearson family was unquestionably involved. The controversy is to do with exactly what ways they initiated and participated in the episode. This event is highly notable, both then and now, and the article does not take either side in the current debates over the incident. Again, blanking sourced information based soley on your say-so and PoV is tendentious and destructive, rather than making "improvements" you claim. • Astynax ^talk 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In any event, removal or serious rephrasing of quoted material without prior consensus is generally considered a form of vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM, and, honestly, there is no reason not to report it as such should it occur again. There are other ways to resolve disputes, and I suggest parties employ them in the future. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Christadelphians?

In an Alberta newspaper article, J. Gordon Melton is referred to as identifying this as a Christadelphian group. Given Melton's reputation, I have to think this is significant enough to be at least mentioned, but am not sure how to do so. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be OK to quote a sentence from the newspaper article if there is something which sums up what he said. Somewhere I have come across a couple of articles which summarized Melton. I recall one saying, Melton considers the Two-by-Twos to be little more than an old-line Christadelphian sect (not an exact quote, but something along that line). I don't know where Melton sees connections or influences, as it is fairly clear from public records that the original CC members came from mainline Protestant denominations, but Melton's pronouncement is certainly notable enough to be mentioned. I can see where there are strong similarities to Christadelphian and a few other groups (e.g., some Exclusive Plymouth Brethren), so there may be a common restorationist undercurrent. • Astynax ^talk 02:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The context was a divorce court case where the court had no knowledge of the group whatsoever. The Christadelphians would be a point of reference for Melton's testimony as a group likely already known to the court. The basis on which this comparison was offered is speculative. Nonetheless, a flattering comparison. Slofstra (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by almost unanimous consensus Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian Conventions → Two by Twos — The name to be moved to is already a redirect to the current page, and it seems to be the one more commonly used by independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note (here) that this article was previously named Two by Twos and was renamed because that appellation is mainly used perjoratively by former members. Donama (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support for the reason stated. • Astynax ^talk 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for all the reasons we moved away from that title in the earlier iterations of the article. And there is no evidence I know of that this has been used by the church as a registered name, unlike Christian Conventions. Donama (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted the users involved in the previous name change and discussion to try and get broader input into this. Donama (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~. For the names of people and organizations, we can and should favor official names where they are in wide use. I find it hard to believe that many reliable sources use a nickname with regularity. Powers ^T 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Changing to Support after discussion below. Clearly I misunderstood the situation. Powers ^T 12:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In how many coutries, though, is "Christian Conventions" an official name? As the article itself says in the very beginning "Christian Conventions is one of several registered names". When there is no standard official name, as seems to be the case here, then using the name used in independent reliable sources, like the name used in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, (Two by Twos) seems the most reasonable alternative. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment to LtPowers: all reliable references use a nickname for the church because the church has no official name. I don't know whether that changes your mind, but just wanted to point out that can't count against a rename. Donama (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment "Christian Conventions" is very seldom used in the references which I have. British and Irish sources use "Cooneyites", "Two by Twos", or "the Testimony" (most to least in order of frequency). One Canadian source uses the officially registered Canadian name (Assemblies of Christians), but otherwise "Two by Twos" has been used in other Canadian sources (I recall one saying that the name originated there). Australian and NZ references use "Two by Twos", although a few older references use "Cooneyites". U.S. sources use "Two by Twos", although at least one is entitled "Church Without A Name, The 'Go Preachers', No Name Church, Two By Twos, The Nameless House Sect, Cooneyites" (Nichols, Larry. 2006. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. p. 88.). In contrast, I know of no use of "Christian Conventions" in references or press, except as a notation. I know the Two-by-Two designation has been claimed to be derogatory, although I cannot think how. It seems merely descriptive, and it seems many members still find any name offensive, and do not accept that the group has taken a name even for official registration purposes. • Astynax ^talk 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Christian Conventions is not the most common name used in references. This is a result of the fact they refuse to acknowledge an official name so references use whatever is most popular/understandable at the time. However I still think it is a better idea to use a name that's been one of the various one registered (in Western Australia and the USA from memory) with the governing bodies of a country. Partly, I'm against a change because now that the current name has been in place since April 2006 a kind of wiki-precedent has been established. Any researchers or curious individuals in the last four years who have dealt with this church and looked it up on Wikipedia will be familiar with the current article title. By changing it now how do we know what damage we'd be causing? Donama (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A redirect will still be in place. I don't see any potential for serious damage. Powers ^T 12:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the body is rarely referred to at all. Having said that, the Melton Encyclopedia above refers to it by the name Two by Twos and the Library of Congress subject here is also listed as "Two by Twos". On that basis, I have to think that, at least outside of the body, Two by Twos is the most popular name among the broader world. And, yes, there will continue to be redirects for any number of names which have been used for the group, both internally and externally. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper reports I've come across (thus far) more usually refer to the group as "Two-by-Twos" with very few mentions of "Christian Conventions". The recent article[1] mentioned by Jesse Lackman (in preceding section) is a case in point, with "Two-by-Twos" specified and no mention of "Christian Conventions". So people looking for information after reading a news report or a mention in another reference would more likely be searching on "Two-by-Twos". Perhaps, and whether or not we move the article back to "Two-by-Twos", a hatnote would be appropriate so that searchers are not too taken aback by landing on an article with a very dissimilar title. • Astynax ^talk 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this discussion is closed but I'd like to comment on this statement;

"I know the Two-by-Two designation has been claimed to be derogatory, although I cannot think how. It seems merely descriptive, and it seems many members still find any name offensive,"

The fact name "Two by Two" has been used so much by apostates clearly engaged in counter advocacy is why friends and workers don't like it. They feel the counter advocacy is not being objective and/or fair, and will tend to throw the baby (the name"two by two") out with the bathwater (apostate testimony by counter advocates).

JesseLackman (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion isn't over, and I appreciate the fact that those who ascribe to the beliefs and those sympathetic of same may dislike the use of the name. I doubt any of the neutral sources would use the name, however, if there were a better, more consistently agreed-upon name out there. Were there some sort of official name for the global group which oversees the movement, like there are for Messianic Judaism, which use that name, then I personally am all but certain that that official name would be used. Having said that, without any sort of consistently used, generally recognized name available, we are, more or less, obliged to use the name which is most regularly recognized. I can and do understand the reservations, but I'm not sure that they are sufficient to override WP:NAME, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As even members of the group itself, excepting the leadership in an official capacity, do not use the term "Christian Conventions", I agree that we must go with what references use. As I've noted, only a few of the references used in the article employ "Christian Conventions" at all, and then only to note that official names have been taken. I don't think it ever occurs as the title of an article or book. For the more generally available references, here are what the authors use:

"Two-by-Two's, The" Beit-Hallahmi
"Two by Twos" Chryssides
"The Two-by-Twos" Lewis
"The Two-by-Two's" Melton
"Cooneyites" Wilson

Sanders (p. 166.) mentions that members disown the name "Cooneyite" and notes that "it is difficult to induce them to disclose their affiliation." and Chryssides (p. 330.) considers "Cooneyite" to be pejorative. Chryssides explains the name Two by Twos: "so called on account of its sending out of preachers in twos, in accordance with the practice described in Mark 6:7." I'm sure any self-respecting apostates would be capable of coming up with a more disparaging name than a term which points to a Biblical practice—some of the names I've heard members use informally within the group (e.g., "Bunheads") are more offensive. Until the the group takes a single official name (at least for English-speaking areas) and/or the references change to using "Christian Conventions", we need to go with what the references call the group. Right now, that is either "Cooneyites" or "Two by Twos". • Astynax ^talk 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

*Support Agreeing with this conversation. If "they don't like it" is a reason not to call them two-by-twos, we may note that they are also uncomfortable with the word "Christians," even though it is in their KJV Bibles, which they swear by. To match JesseLackman's statement: "...will tend to throw the baby (the name "Christians") out with the bathwater (in this case, a bunch of "other" people who read the Bible and confess that Christ is Lord, and happen to refer to themselves as "Christians.")." When I was with the group (all my life) here in Western Canada, we almost always referred to ourselves as "the truth," "the friends," "friendlies," or "professing people." When I was a kid, it was usually "the way." I'm dogmatically averse to granting them the title "Truth" -- i know i'm not being objective about that, but some things are difficult to deal with objectively when they would prefer a blank title and NO article on wikipedia at all. Surely the "truth" article on wikipedia can have much more substance than a ministry that claims to be the only way to Christ, yet burdens men and women with a gospel of slavery instead of liberty. Totoro33 (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel some obligation to comment again as it looks like I'm the only one with a registered 'oppose' vote. First, I can fully appreciate the main reason the move was suggested. Wikipedia is defined by reliable sources, not so much facts as they actually are. So, in that sense, the name used by the majority of sources (and I accept it's Two by Two though I haven't checked at all), is what the name of this article ought to be. Still, I keep coming back to the fact, the actuality, that even though this church doesn't use an official name, the registered name (which they don't use or acknowledge) is most commonly Christian Conventions or some permutation of that. So, to my mind, this should be the one we consider first to name this article. Perhaps I'm being pedantic? Anyway, I accept that the name change will go ahead based on the weight of others opinions, regardless of mine. Donama (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

i know what you mean Donama. i'm not qualified to assert established methods for encyclopedias handling this sort of thing... but considering practicality, people researching this topic will be either those within (who know the term "two by two" whether they respect it or not, and, as confessed often here, are unlikely to know the term "Christian Conventions") and those without, who, as we have said, most commonly call them "two by twos." I never found this article -- my friend from the Reformed church happened upon it and said, "this sounds like your old group, is this your old group?" I was pretty surprised to read it. I think we (they) assume these kind of public articles don't even exist -- we only heard about a few websites that the "enemies of truth" put on the internet, and we were well advised to stay away from them like we might stay away from satan himself. Even if I had stumbled upon the article, I may have glanced at the title and skipped it anyway. There just isn't anything in that title to "catch" people who know anything about this, unless they know a particular obscure secret of one of the registered names some workers typed up and faxed somewhere. Take care. Totoro33 (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the name change as it probably would capture internet searches that might otherwise end up on counter advocacy sites. Hopefully the readers of this article will check the discussion pages, the various reviews and NPOV and SPS discussions and see that quite a few reviewing editors recognise some of the sources for what they are and in that way are more objective and honest than the sources themselves.

JesseLackman (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cherry picking sources to support editor POV.

If any wonder who edits this article check here; [2]

The first sentence of the "Early growth" section contains a great example of what looks like cherry picking sources to support editor POV; "Unlike later secretiveness,[32][33]" Here's some recent news media publications that make one wonder how secretive friends and workers really are;

Article; "The church with no name" [3]

Video -> [4]

Also here is a link to a collection Gospel meeting advertisements that show that Gospel meetings are not held in "a hall (often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister)" as this reference states; [5]

Link; "Gospel Meeting & Bible Talks Archives" Link -> [6]

There was a previous discussion on that topic with no resolution; [7] Even though it's published it was clearly not verified with real life by the author.

JesseLackman (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and restore the balance in the 'Early Growth' section then. But you'll need proper references. I was unable to load the phillyburbs article, perhaps a dead link or possibly it doesn't work outside the country it's from. Donama (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does include that members

say that they do not keep "historical records" or "church buildings";
say that the group has "no official name" because "Jesus and his followers did not adopt a moniker";
say that the group is simply "a non-denominational Bible-led fellowship with a global following";
refer to their church as "The Truth" and members are also called "the friends";
say that the "exact number of members is unknown" since the group doesn't keep track;
"deny being part of a cult";
"say the fellowship is not secretive";
say that "It's open to the public. But we don't like a lot of publicity" (quoting worker Albert Knaggs);
say that "the faith began with Jesus."
say that it is difficult to explain the religion, quoting Debbie Francis (daughter of the convention grounds owner), "You can't grasp it until you're in it";
say that ministers: "travel in pairs", have no homes, stay in the homes of members.

Like previous articles which include interviews with members, it is a fine source for what members say. I personally see nothing which contradict's the article. It is another source showing that members deny their history and having official names. The article already includes referenced statements regarding their denial of those 2 points. The denial of charges of secrecy could certainly be included, but not to the exclusion of the referenced statement (which has been there for over 7 months, and secretiveness is prominently mentioned in other sources as well). I do not see a page number, doi, etc. which makes me wonder whether this a printed story (we cannot cite blogs)?

At least some of those adverts could be described as "halls", and neither the few posted examples in a chatroom nor Lackman's unsupported slur that he did not verify his facts contradicts the statement from one of the most prominent sociologists of religion of the 20th century. • Astynax ^talk 03:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The main point is the fact a television news crew is welcomed on a convention grounds calls the charge of "later secretiveness" as a bedrock truth into question.

Re Bryan R. Wilson's comment; "(often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister)" even though published and quoted in the CC article it is unsupported by easily obtainable real life data. The source I linked contains that easily obtainable real life data - 150+ published ads for Gospel meetings none of which took place in "the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister". Yes gospel meetings take place in borrowed and rented halls but NOT "often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister". Brian probably got that from "The Secret Sect" (since that's the source listed) and shows the danger in quoting published sources without verifying with real life. Considering Bryan's study concerning the reliability of apostate testimony it would be very interesting to know what he would have thought about the CC article, specifically, it's sources and subsequently it's objectivity. Bryan has passed on but I'm going to try and contact those who are carrying on his work, maybe one of them will review the quote "(often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister)" and the CC article from the reliability of apostate testimony viewpoint.

Both of these examples naturally call into question the objectivity of the article editors. It is what it is. If there was any inclination to shorten the article like's been advised by uninvolved editors in the GA reviews [8] removing this kind of SPS and POV based content would be a good idea.

JesseLackman (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesse, what you are suggesting is a violation of Wikipedia policy on WP:V, WP:OR, etc. Your (or my) personal experience, PoV and synthesis are not to come into play in the article, but rather we report what published sources say. No one questions that this group welcomes outsiders to specific events. That does not make them open or non-secretive. The article says as much when it notes that "not much is known of this sect of Christianity" and this from a news source from the area in which this convention has been held for "the last 50 years". One is welcomed to visit the CIA's headquarters, and can even go to their useful website and contact their staff at any time, but that does not mean that the CIA is in any sense open or not secretive. By those standards, the CIA would appear to be a far less secretive group than the CC's. Nor does merely allowing people into certain events come into play with the "secretiveness" noted by the sources, which deal with obfuscation in the areas of history, doctrine, organization and finances, etc. If the article requires further citations and/or footnoted quotes to support the use of the word "secretiveness", it should be no problem to find and insert more from reliable sources.

As for the GA review, if you reread the comments, there was no suggestion by the editors commenting to remove information as you suggest. No suggestion was made to remove any of the sources but rather that they be used carefully and not as extensively as at that time, and no suggestion was made that the article contained PoV. The article as it now stands, is well within Wiki guidelines for length (which only includes the body of the article, not references, pictures, markup, etc.). Work has been done on the article since, with parenthetical comments reduced, alternative or backup sources provided wherever possible.

When (again) complaining about my involvement with this article, please at least use a less artificially constrained history: e.g., here or here — despite allegations, a great deal remains of that which was inserted prior to my editing (albeit it is now organized and referenced), nor have I been the only person editing this article since. • Astynax ^talk 17:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You have edited the article twice as much as anyone else, and more than that in the last year. You have had contact with friends and workers, you're not a completely disinterested stranger. It is what it is. Furthermore, since there's more information out there than can be put in the article how do you decide what to include and ignore? POV has no influence at all? Any reader could wonder if they saw the gospel meeting ads then the "(often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister)" quote in the article. Again it is what it is, the question is why it is what it is. And now the question is on record in the discussion pages. JesseLackman (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How much Astynax has edited the article has no relevance, Jesse. His/her personal contact with members of the church is also irrelevant. Please stop your personal attacks and read WP:PA. All the parts you're mentioning draw from good quality sources. The only problem is that as time moves on things do change and that is something that's much harder to show in the article, but we're bound largely by a dearth of quality references. I ask you again to look for quality references so we can show the gradual movement of attitudes over time (eg. from largely secretive to some limited openness in the past ~20 years as you imply). Donama (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew that was coming. I've read wp:pa, the reality is if what I am doing is personal attack then what about the times I've been treated the exact same way - it would only be fair to mention wp:pa to them too right? But it didn't happen did it? Same with the irrelevancy of connections to the friends and workers. My connection was relevant enough to bring up in the GAR! And an unverified re-quote from The Secret Sect is a better quality source than 150+ published ads for Gospel meetings?

Hopefully someone will research and publish objective, up to date information, maybe Bryan Wilson's friends will when I point them here. They might find the whole thing interesting, especially since so much of what's been published is, or is based based on, what Bryan called "apostate testimony" [9].

JesseLackman (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is worth mentioning WP:PA to anyone engaging in ad hominem attacks. And if you knew it was coming, why did you make an ad hominem attack on Astynax? Nevermind. I don't quite understand the other stuff you've written here but again encourage you to go ahead and place new cited information in the article to counteract inbalance. The citations are all neutral observers have to go on when there's a hint of bias or spin so they're of utmost importance. Donama (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Donoma. Just because you perceive my words to be an ad hominem attack doesn't mean they are. What did I state as fact that isn't fact? There's no hope of this article matching reality until there are sources available that are dedicated to research from an objective first hand viewpoint instead of the endless quotes and requotes of what previous counter advocates have said.

JesseLackman (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. It's a simple statement of fact that astynax is the sole researcher here, and we don't know who he is. Those are just known facts, not personal attacks. Further, there is no example extant of the group doing anything to keep itself secret. It has never dodged a reporter or media coverage and there are many, many articles extant about the group. It does keep a low profile ... it's a home based church with no official name! I have noticed there is more neutral language in the article though. Jesse, maybe soon they'll stop calling the group Unitarian. ~~At least the Trinitarians have stopped burning their opponents at the stake!~~ I take that back; they're burning Qu'rans.Slofstra (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Redux

Picked up a request for comment on my Talk page. Here it is - **Oppose although I understand the objection to 'Christian Conventions'. It is the name officially registered in the US but since we've learned that different names have been used in different jurisdictions. I prefer 'friends and workers'. It is a unique name not apt to cause confusion, as 'friends' by itself certainly would. Incidentally, in common parlance among the friends, "the friends" is the term I hear used most often. 2 by 2s is NEVER used internally. Obviously, just "friends" will cause confusion with the Quakers. The term "friends and workers" is reasonably neutral and also appropriately descriptive. 2 by 2s really doesn't refer to anything but the mode of preaching. Finally, the name 'friends and workers' is gaining in currency. (Try Googling 'friends and workers' and quite a bit comes up). I believe that there might be some objections that I'm not seeing, so don't worry, I don't feel that strongly about the name regardless of what is decided. I suppose also the pejorative term "two by twos" does alert the astute reader that more bias may follow and locates the article rather squarely within the counter advocacy literature on which it is based.Slofstra (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"2 by 2s really doesn't refer to anything but the mode of preaching" -- yet this mode of preaching, homeless and in twos, is the central dogma of the group -- all other Christian congregations are opposed with the argument that "their ministers don't go the way Jesus sent them." [notwithstanding JW's and Mormon's.] I suggest "friends and workers" simply redirects to this page. Totoro33 (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The central dogma of the group is that we are saved through grace by faith in God's Son Jesus. But in fairness to your comment it would appear that many within the group are unaware that Christians in other churches may be in possession of that faith. Of course, the past treatment and experience of the friends has given them every reason to think that way. Not least this article and various web sites put up by these other "Christians". Two thumbs up for Miyazaki, Totoro.Slofstra (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have created a redirect from Friends and Workers. There is already one from Workers and Friends. Donama (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Slofstra (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Slofstra, I'm not aware of any references here, so this is just my 36 years of experience versus the claim you just stated, which I'm sure you cannot find a published source for: the "friends and workers" barely use the word "grace," and when they do, they do not understand the scriptural sense of it. They are intensely Arminian to the point of ignoring grace. Certainly, "central dogma" does not apply here. The worshiped workers and their "sacrifice" is central. That sounds sensational and biased, but that's a fact -- although I'd need to publish a book for you to officially stick it in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I daresay you won't find a book stating that their central dogma is "we are saved through grace by faith in God's Son Jesus." They resist anything that other Christians are believing, even if it is scriptural -- they delight in being 'different' and 'separate,' even if different from other God-fearing Christians. Totoro33 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find Arminian grace is not all that different from Calvinist, but never mind that. There is legalism within the movement, but I've never found that basic preaching differed substantially from orthodox Christianity, except that because of its reliance on primary documents (the Bible) and lacking any kind of synthesis, the theology resists pigeon holing in any systematic way. Thus it's not Trinitarian, but neither is it anti-Trinitarian. And it may not have as much grace, "saved by Jesus", "born again" preaching as appeals to evangelistic instincts, but it is preaching direct from the Bible. So arguably if the word grace appears there, it does feature in the preaching as well. I personally think there's not as much of grace and more of works and overcoming in the NT than some people would like to admit. As far as books stating things, there are a number of sermons available on-line. The basis of your last point is correct; the movement has been reactionary, but to be 'different' is not at all the same as to "resist anything that other Christians are believing". You need only cast a doubt or two about the finer details of the Trinity doctrine and to suggest that Jesus is the Son of God, but not God himself, and you are already considered heterodox by most churches, without having really moved from the basic simplicity of what the Bible says. In any case, I don't disagree with you that "two by two" preaching is a teaching, but I would not position it as a core teaching. Slofstra (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is one worker hymn of many about grace: 194. verse 2. Lord our body, spirit, soul / We would yield to thy control/ Grace sufficient Thou shalt give/ As in Thee we move and live. / Lord, we plead the Saviour's blood / We would serve thee as we should / Let Thy pitying eye now see All our insufficiency. verse 3. We would bear Thy worthy name/ Stand before Thee without blame/ Cleansed from all iniquity / Clothed in Thy humility / Father in this quiet hour / May we feel Thy quick'ning power / Fill our hearts O heavenly Dove / With Thy pure and changeless love. Slofstra (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the line, "we plead the Saviour's blood" and "Cleansed from all iniquity". Doesn't sound like works-based salvation, does it? Slofstra (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Barely use the word grace?? Out of 412 hymns, around 90 refer to grace. Slofstra (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Their hymnbook cannot be referenced as their "creed" or "confession," of which they have none, and you cannot point these out while ignoring their hymns that obtusely deny scriptural truths. but this discussion digresses beyond the article, i suppose. but if you will, count how many times the workers say "grace," and when they do, check how they intend it or understand it. take care. Totoro33 (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're saying something quite different now than before, that is, f&w "barely use" the word grace. Anyway, I'm used to the retrofitting from the counter-advocacy side. Yes I'd like to drop this also.Slofstra (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias towards mainstream Christianity

From the article - Great stress is laid upon the "example life" of Jesus, as a pattern for the ministry,[106][109] and less emphasis given to Christological roles of Saviour and Redeemer.[16] Compared to what? Is there a baseline for how much emphasis should be given to each? Is the writer's bias showing here? Does this statement actually say anything of what the F&w teach other than deprecating that teaching in relation to old style churches. Slofstra (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what that sentence means, let alone whether it's correct. It's what some published analyst of the church has said. Two, in fact, given there are two citations. So who am I and who are you to argue? Like it or not that's how Wikipedia works -- not any facts, just citable facts from reliable sources. Stops it becoming and opinion-fest and so I agree with the policy. Donama (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Donoma. The problem with what you say is the editors of this wiki article choose what to include from the source material - they obviously cannot include it all. So how does the editor pick what they want to include from the source material? That is how editor bias enters the wiki article. I'm sure James Robinson wrote more than "Great stress is laid upon the "example life" of Jesus, as a pattern for the ministry, and less emphasis "as Saviour and little as Redeemer"." So why pick that?

Seperately, if writers like James Robinson would only go to a convention instead of just requoting previous sources they would see how wrong those previous sources are. What they are quoting and requoting are very often not facts. I was recently at a convention, *lots* was mentioned about grace and Jesus as redeemer - which is what is normal. I think it's pretty weird to worship sources the way it's done here when they obviously haven't done very good first hand research in getting facts. Instead it seems there's been very little first hand research at all but instead a lazy requoting of what been previously quoted and re-quoted. Quoting and requoting for 50-100 years doesn't make what's quoted fact. It is a fact that most sources used for this wiki article quote and requote previous sources instead of actually doing first hand research on the ground. That's a fact that's very easy to see.

JesseLackman (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes them secondary sources and that's a good thing. See WP:SECONDARY. Original research isn't allowed to support most statements on Wikipedia for a good reason. An example of that would be "going to a convention". As to your first point, it's possible undue weight is being placed on certain points at the expense of others. I think you should go ahead to try and correct that, introducing other sources (or new citations from already listed sources) where necessary. See WP:UNDUE. It's hard work to check for this though, so be prepared to spend a lot of time in a library! Donama (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I read that. Primary sources "are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event," and secondary sources "are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources,". In other words sources used for this article should go no farther back than one, maybe two times removed from an actual first person observation. (I really don't understand how a researcher verifying something they're thinking of quoting or requoting would become a primary source. I think that would a very fair and objective thing for a researcher to do.) Anyway that's the problem. The secondary sources don't reference primary sources, they reference other secondary, tertiary etc. sources which is why the article itself is so far removed from reality in many areas. How many generations of requoting do the sources for this article go back before there's a primary source? In the case of the quote "Great stress is is laid upon the "example life" of Jesus, as a pattern for the ministry, and less emphasis "as Saviour and little as Redeemer"." I don't know if there ever was a primary source, a witness to that being the universal truth of the matter. JesseLackman (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Donama; and are we allowed to use transcribed sermons from the workers that are occasionally emailed around? I doubt it, for wikipedia, besides I delete those as quickly as I receive them. If they were permitted, they could certainly be 'cited' to allow the claim of "great stress being laid upon" the example life of Jesus, versus honor, glorification, praise, and ultimate trust in such. Totoro33 (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the last part of the statement to quote the wording used by Robinson. The author was noting the teaching: "that the 'Jesus Way', as they saw it set out on Matthew 10:5–42, was indispensable for salvation, an emphasis which came to tilt the balance in the works-grace debate towards the former. The doctrinal stress was very much on Christ as example, as demonstrated in the self-denying manner of the preachers themselves, less as Saviour and little as Redeemer." • Astynax ^talk 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

90 hymns refer to grace; 2 hymns refer to works. Please see hymn above.Slofstra (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that the statement doesn't capture the essence of worker teaching. It just compares worker teaching to some other kind of teaching and says there's more of this and less of that. Kind of like saying Islam doesn't have very much emphasis on Jesus. While that might be true, a statement like that deprecates Islam, and would only be made by a Christian. Same thing here. Mainline Christians measuring f&w teaching against what they think they believe, rather than capturing in summary what is actually being said.Slofstra (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been with the group for 36 years and counting. That matters little on Wikipedia, but apparently it matters to you. ...and who are you? Islam... kind of doesn't place much importance on the King of kings -- that might be encyclopedia information. Your comparison doesn't work.Totoro33 (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcribed sermons would be WP:PRIMARY sources so not applicable on Wikipedia except to very some very direct fact - eg. person is born in 1955. Donama (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For future questions of sources and what's allowed please read the whole guidelines at WP:SOURCE and WP:OR. Cheers. Donama (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoration (Primitivism)

Should there be a precis and link from the article Restorationism_(Christian_primitivism)? Slofstra (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think that we would need some sort of reliable source linking either Cooney or the Two by Twos directly to that subject, and I don't see anything in either article at this point which does link them. This is not saying that I think it is necessarily wrong, because I get the impression that it is a form of Christian restorationism, just that we would need a source explicitly saying that to do so. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a section titled Restorationism with the sources I found. That said, the mentions of some type of restorationism are brief and/or highly ambiguous as to exactly what was "restored". There are many more and more prominent mentions of the claim to direct descent from the 1st century apostolic church, which is diametrically at odds with the idea of restorationism. I agree a link to the term is needed and have added one in that section, but a précis would need to be cited and linked as John Carter said. • Astynax ^talk 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jaenen, Cornelius J. (2003). The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship: A documentary history of the early church and restorationist movements. Ottawa, Ontario: Legas Publishing. ISBN 1-894508-48-3 clearly links the "friends and workers" movement with other Irish Restorationist movements of the late 19th C.Slofstra (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC) a little-used reliable source that unfortunately offers too little criticism of the movement to be of much use to most commentators.Slofstra (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Segregation by Gender

Regarding a contribution, and question posed, by Astynax... segregation by sex during services no longer occurs in north america. if it does still occur anywhere, check new zealand. they were still doing that in the 70s. no sitting with your wife, no sleeping with your wife. Totoro33 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of that, apart from the overnight stays at conventions, where the entire grounds is split down the middle by gender for the purposes of accommodation with the meetings and dining areas straddling the middle, but being unsegregated. I'm reasonably sure the segregation for accommodation goes on here in Australia (based on information from parents), but am not aware of services ever being segregated. Donama (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I had come across sex-segregated worship in references to conventions in the U.S. and British Isles between the 1910s and 1960s, and so I did wonder. My references from NZ and Australia do not cover conventions in any detail, though there may be articles I haven't seen. I do not know whether Parker and Parker mention this in their chapter on Australia, but will re-read. The added line refers to "older" conventions, but if there is a usable source from NZ or elsewhere that shows this is still practiced, then "In older conventions, members were" will need to be changed to "In some conventions, members are". • Astynax ^talk 06:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)31

Christology still way off

The Christology section is still erroneous. Now I see "Great stress is laid upon the "example life" of Jesus, as a pattern for the ministry,[108][109] and less emphasis "as Saviour and little as Redeemer.".[18]". And yet the hymn book has 19 hymns that refer to Jesus as Saviour, and 31 hymns containing the words redeem, redeemed, Redeemer, redeeming or redemption. In fact the friends often sing from a hymn book called the "Redemption Songbook". Slofstra (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I hear you about the hymnbook, but remember they also pack the Bible. If we assume that their doctrine matches the books they carry, we'd have a lot to say that just is not accurate. They don't understand salvation in the Bible, and they don't understand it in any hymns they have either. ("Outsiders" whose hymns appear in the book are noted in lowercase in the 1989 "AUTHORS" hymn study pamphlet for the 1987 edition of "Hymns Old and New"... "workers" and "friends" who wrote hymns are in UPPERCASE, right along with KING DAVID.) i realize it's a matter of my own interpretation that they are a ministry- and man-testimony-centric church, as opposed to Christ-centric; however, i don't think it is right to use the hymnbook (any more than the Bible) as the source/reference for their theology. As it were, many flagrant contradictions can be found with other hymns, leaving the reference ambiguous and confused at best. Take care.Totoro33 (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Right ... they don't understand according to the hymns they sing, or the Bible they read. Instead they understand it according to the way it's written up by ex-members in wikipedia!! (This is a plain and simple fact, John Carter, before you start jumping all over me).Slofstra (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't only for ex-members. My point is plain -- compare: the KJV Bible is not an accurate source of information for the "Jehovah's Witness" doctrine, even though they pack it around. Isaac Watts' hymn (http://www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/w/h/e/whenisur.htm ) is in the two-by-two hymn book (except it is modified where Christ is confessed as God), and they'd have Watts in hell since he never met a worker.Totoro33 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The hymns were by and large written by the workers in the church.Slofstra (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)