Talk:Two by Twos/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Just when there was a glimmer of hope...

This kind of obviously emotive personal opinion/interpretation appears asserted as if it were universal truth;

"Ordinary meetings among lay believers are held in houses, but periodically the itinerants visit each district, and there they borrow a hall (often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister) for a preaching meeting for the public at large." —Wilson, Bryan R. (1993). "The Persistence of Sects". DISKUS. Archived from the original on 14 December 2009. Retrieved 14 December 2009.

".Ordinary meetings among lay believers are held in houses, but periodically the itinerants visit each district, and there they borrow a hall (often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister) for a preaching meeting for the public at large"

Link to edit ->[1]

If anyone can tell me how emotive opinion/interpretation like that follows WP:ASF (as already pointed out in Verifiability and Truth [2] above) I will hear it gratefully.

JesseLackman (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement is a direct quote from the source, not an opinion or interpretation. • Astynax ^talk 10:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reread WP:ASF. If the statement is a stand alone universal fact where/what are the sources? You have accused me of poisoning the well regarding sources, this article is becoming a poisoned well because of such "sources". Why does that of all the information you could choose need to be in the article - twice?? I see the CRI entry is a source now, how is what's quoted from CRI chosen? Advocacy?? Surely objective readers will go to the source, read the whole thing, and wonder. JesseLackman (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(offtopic comment)

(offtopic comment)

I have removed two IP comments which were in no way relevant to improving the article as per WP:NOTAFORUM. I very strongly urge editors utilizing IPs to adhere to the guidelines and confine their commentary to things which which actually improve the article, and neither of the comments removed can be considered to have done so. Should such off-topic commentary and disruptive editing continue, I should indicate that I have been considering requesting semi-ptotection of the talk page, so that only registered users can add to it, for some time now. The comments removed only make me even more convinced that such may well be required.

The comments are extremely relevant to V and NPOV of the article, but critical, which is why they were removed no doubt. The tone was somewhat impertinent I admit. Anyone curious enough can check the history to see whether they should be removed or not, but certainly didn't break anything in WP:NOTAFORUM.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they make it quite clear that the IPs have a blatant Conflict of interests as per WP:COI, but that was already known. And anything which does not contribute to the improvement of the article is a violation of those terms. Simply rehashing old arguments is not and never has been useful. And the above IP clearly has no concept of WP:AGF, either. I regret to say that such comments as the above do nothing to help his own arguments. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is no assumption of bad faith on my part. I think you are using these policies to cloak your own sensitivity to criticism. There is a long record of misunderstanding of wiki policies in the development of this article. The record shows it.RSuser (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

At my request, Astynax filed a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard#Is "Diskus" RS? and the response to date is that Diskus is a reliable source. As such, material from it can be included provided that material is not itself clearly, according to reliable sources, a minority or fringe opinion or clearly and obviously prejudicial. The comment about the church hall of an unsuspecting minister is apparently from a source which meets RS criteria, and thus can be included. Personally, I cannot see how it can be said that such a statement is necessarily obviously emotive or interpretation. It is something which I think could have been very easily verified by the author of the article, either from discussion with the people arranging the meetings or with the ministers whose halls were used. Considering it is an article in an academic journal written by an academic, I think we have to accept its statement until and unless reliable sources which either impugn the source or assert alternate statements are produced. Having said that, there is no reason that I can see why the same clause should be retreated twice in the same article. The way in which it was repeated, word for word repetition of several sentences, leads me to think it likely to have been an honest error, and there is no reason to not AGF on it if it gets corrected. I've done the same sort of thing myself, moving content around and forgetting that I didn't remove it from the first location. If someone wishes to contest the inclusion of such material at all, then it is I think incumbent on them to produce some reliably sourced material which indicates that the material is in error. I urge all editors to adhere to those guidelines regarding sourcing and content. As stated, I have found the bulk of the comments from IPs on this page counterproductive. I am therefore seriously considering requesting that the talk page be protected from IP edits, and have in fact been considering that for some time. I sincerely hope that further edits are not such as to tilt my opinion firmly and finally toward making such a request to protect the page from IP edits. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One question; what's the source for that "Diskus" quote? JesseLackman (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The permalink is [3], which is a supbage of [4], which belongs to the University of Marburg, which is described in our article as the "first and oldest Protestant university". I don't see a specific denomination indicated on that page, but I have to think that it qualifies as reliable. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The article by Wilson is clearly a paper developed from primary sources, in this case, the Secret Sect. The author has little or no first hand knowledge of the group; it's pretty easy to tell. For example, the article covers 10-15 groups to support the general thesis of "the Persistence of Sects". Certainly the source of the information is fairly dated, but difficult to date. His primary source published in 1982. In any case, I will need to acquire a few of the key resources for my own to be effective, and will check back here in a few months.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IF it is the case that the only place such a statement could be gotten is a source that has not otherwise been held as reliable, then we would have to at least consider whether that makes that brings the source in question closer to RS standards, because sources used in RS's tend to be considered at least somewhat reliable, or, alternately, add a qualification to the effect of "(the author) says, "..." I'm going to have to check to see what Bit-Hallahmi, Chryssides, Lewis, and Melton cite as sources, those being the only sources I myself really have, and that might help indicate what do to, although it might not. Being used by another RS would definitely help; not being used would probably leave it in the at best dubious position it now has. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there are a couple of typo's or grammar slips so I cannot understand the above. Tried a few times.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"It is something which I think could have been very easily verified by the author of the article, either from discussion with the people arranging the meetings or with the ministers whose halls were used."

If that author would have verified the statement with reality (meaning discussion with a few friends and workers NOT just a cross quote to The Secret Sect) he would have learned that gospel meetings are very, very, rarely, if ever, held in the church halls of unsuspecting ministers. The wiki CC article is the first I've ever heard of it.

That kind of quote in the article is why Menton's comment about "critics, primarily former members" should be in the article somewhere, what else will give a CC article reader any clue about how disconnected from reality a comment like that one is is??

JesseLackman (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. Unforunately, neither you nor I, unless we get published elsewhere, are reliable sources. This is the problem this article has had for a substantive time, which some people currently affiliated with the group disagreeing with others, including both former members and generally reliable sources, about what they say. I regret to say, even AGFing you, that I am not entirely convinced that unsourced statements from someone affiliated with a group, and with an apparent conflict of interest, are supposed to "trump" statements from sources. In fact, I would think policy would lean toward the sources rather than the editors making statements based on their own statements about what they have or have not seen, because unfortunately we cannot verify that what they say is accurate. However, what you call "reality" is something which apparently can't be verified by any reliable sources, and can really only be contested by people who might be seen as having a clear conflict of interests, by, perhaps, being affiliated with the group in question.

I know you will probably say that I am being judgmental in saying that, and I have to admit that I am. Unfortunately, people have been known to lie around here, and that is why we cannot give our own, unverified, assertions regarding such matters as much weight as we would like to. So, yes, I still hold by my earlier statement. Maybe he did ask some people he knew. Maybe it was based on some research. Can you be absolutely sure your own observations are universal, and, more importantly, can you expect us to take your word that it isn't accurate, without any sort of sourcing beyond the statements of yourself and people who might be meatpuppets or otherwise collaborating to keep material from the article for no good reason? I'm not saying you are, by the way, but I think you can see how I can't say you aren't. I can't say that about any of the non RS sources, either. The only reason I ever did was because it was apparent people who seemed to have a serious mutual antipathy agreed that some of them were accurate that I ever even considered accepting them as acceptable sources, because they seemed to be saying things which were basically uncontested. We don't need an optician as a source to say "grass is green", either.

By the way, if you look at Talk:Atlantis, you would see that I am in the same boat. Based on my own synthesis of fairly clearly connected reliable research, there is not a doubt in my mind that the original speakers of the proto-Indo European language had to leave the Baltic coast, and start their migration and spreading of their language and culture, when the ice age ended and the waters rose. Having said that, I don't know if there is a reliable source which has agreed, and I don't think most reputable academics are going to come near the word "Atlantis" if they can reasonably avoid it, so I'm not sure that there is any reliable source who might even consider discussing the matter anytime soon. John Carter (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I know what I write on these pages cannot be considered a RS. But it is bothersome to read a quote like the above and know the author could not have made the slightest attempt to verify with reality that would be very easy to find. It's bothersome because the average reader of the article will not know it's not true. Reader' loss I suppose, not mine. *Shrug* JesseLackman (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

JesseLackman, I accept that your view may differ in respects from what is in the article. I even understand the urge to make it fit more with your ideals and experience. However, I know you are aware from your participation in forums elsewhere that what you personally see also differs greatly from other current members and former members who have much different views of and interaction with the group. Their "reality" of experience is also valid. Relying on sources, not experiences, protects the article from both sides. Allowing personal experience into the article text won't make the article more accurate, but merely PoV. It would also open the door to adding other things which some people purport to know (sexual misconduct, mass excommunications, and other issues swirling around during the last years, as you know from your participation in other forums). Wikipedia's policy of relying on sources, rather than personal experience, may seem frustrating to you, but I imagine you'd be even more frustrated and enraged were unreferenced material allowed to be inserted from people with different "realities" or even axes to grind based upon their experiences.

As for Melton's comment about unsuspecting ministers, I've come across that elsewhere while looking up references for this article. Several denominations have produced pamphlets "warning" their ministers about them over the years. It seems to have been very common during the first several decades of the movement (Parker does indeed mention this), and I've come across recent mentions as well. To me, it seems unlikely that Melton put that statement out based only on an opinion. • Astynax ^talk 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to Jesse, it is at least as bothersome to me and other readers that we are consistently faced with individuals who assert things based on their own experiences which cannot be verified. Unfortunately, this article and its talk pages have been rife with people saying things can or cannot be true based on their own personal experience, which is clearly and unavoidably limited. Your own statement that he could not have checked with others is itself a conclusion us outsiders cannot necessarily accept on face value. Unless you have been in constant contact with each convention on the planet, you can't say that it hasn't been a common practice, and may not still continue to a lesser extent. In some places, particularly less populated areas before World War II, church meeting halls were, basically, all that were available for such meetings, convention centers and the like not yet existing or having any sort of demand. The likelihood of the local Catholic Church, for instance, voluntarily renting its hall to a group which doesn't even acknowledge their baptism as valid, baptism being pretty much the one thing major Chrisian sects to agree on, is really not good. In fact, I think it likely it would not happened. Unless you are in your eighties or so, however, and from the northern plainsof the US, northern Canada, or some similar underpopulated area, however, you would not be in a position to have any first hand or even necessarily reliable second hand knowledge of events there. And I hope you can understand how it is at least as bothersome to us outsiders to have to see such repeated comments, which cannot be even remotely considered ones which will benefit the article because they by definition cannot be sourced, because alleged personal experiences of editors does not qualify as a reliable source. For what it might be worth, my parents were from Sisseton, South Dakota, a small town in the middle of the res that was still the biggest town in that part of the state, and I remember a family reunion on my father's side in the early 1970s which took place in the local Roman Catholic church hall because that was the only building in the area big enough to hold it. Were they not practicing Catholics, the fees would have been tripled and they might not have gotten the hall at all if there were a Catholic asking for it at the same time. So, yes, on the basis of my own personal experience (I was born in the 1960s and I attended the meeting myself) I can say just as firmly that I have every reason to believe that the statement in question would be more likely to be true than otherwise, at least for smaller population areas. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That' Wilson's comment isn't it? Based on Secret Sect? Based on what? Something 50-100 years ago? It simply isn't right to paint the picture that worker's gospel meetings are "often held in the church halls of unsuspecting ministers". This could be easily verified if any effort were made besides simply quoting previous sources. Of the gospel meetings referred to in the more recent newspaper accounts mentioned in these talk pages and on VOT (etal)NONE were held in the halls of unsuspecting ministers. To pretend otherwise is a farce, plain and simple. If that's the objective, fine.

JesseLackman (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see proof of that contention, actually. And I wonder how many of the recent meetings are in fact documented in those sources. I'm not disagreeing that at present they might not be held in the halls of other churches, and personally wouldn't mind seeing something added to the effect that "In this statement from (whenever), it was said..." But no one can prove a negative, unfortunately, and the comparatively few meetings listed that I know of probably aren't a sufficient percentage of the potential meetings that I would be comfortable drawing any sort of conclusion and adding that conclusion to the article based on that information. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

JohnCarter mentioned 'personal experience' on the talk page. Personal experience is a valuable BS indicator when reading an article such as this. Having been in the church for 30 years and also travelled widely, the approach I use is to find BS in the article based on my personal experience. It may happen that my personal experience upon consideration was incorrect, but more often than not, I examine the source and find it wanting. I then make the argument NOT BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE but based on the QUALITY OF THE SOURCE and THE TEXT AT HAND. BUT THEN we get writers who say we must use these UNRELIABLE SOURCES because we have no other, and this is the source of frustration. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem we have found with counter-advocacy writers is the continuous promotion of a single incident or situation into a universal. I think Jesse would agree. This quote about renting of halls is a particular case in point. The particular offending phrase is 'often the church hall of an unsuspecting minister'. What is the context? A particular country (we're in hundreds) or countries, a particular time, some denominations and not others? The only source listed for this essay is 'Secret Sect' so perhaps the comment can be chased down to that work so that the context could be established. Within Wilson's context, the sentence appears to be somewhat a stray one. AND why the loaded term 'unsuspecting'. Is something suspicious going on in these meetings? Really, this is the language of insinuation not clear NPOV prose. Use a more neutral and clear term like 'unknowing' or 'not knowing the doctrine'.209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Secret Sect is included on page 577 in the bibliography of Lewis' encyclopedia nad specifically identified as a "Source"on page 559 o the 4th edition of Melton's encyclopedia. You as an individual are of course free to speculate about whatever you may wish; however, we tend to use sources which have been counted and regarded as reliable or at least acceptable, and it seems fairly clear that The Secret Sect, whatever we as individuals might think of it, is regarded as a source which can be treated as reliable. I think your time might be better served in actively seeking out some sourcing yourself, rather than engaging in idle and frankly pointless speculation based on lack of evidence. If you can produce reliably sourced information which answers your question, given the lack of reliably sourced information about this organization in general, I for one would be happy to see it, and I think others would as well. But pure specualtion based on nothing is not really in any way useful in improving the article, and there really isn't any real purpose such comments serve on this page. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've long agreed that 'Secret Sect' is a RS. We don't know that this quote is in 'Secret Sect'. If you read my criticism IN THIS CASE it is not based on the quality of the source, but in the capture of what it says. 209.162.236.197 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the intention of my remarks here. The comment has been lifted from the book, with no surrounding context. As such it is of little or no value without the surrounding context, I feel. When I obtain Secret Sect I will comment further. I am in no position to do that now, but I do think it is reasonable to raise the question since some of us have the book and could establish what the context is. Not me, yet. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding providing my own sources, sorry, but my understanding is that the burden of proof should rest with the editor, not with the reader to prove otherwise. If the source is not reliable the statement should be deleted. If the source is not captured correctly it should be corrected. If you promote a statement from a particular context in time and place to a general context, then you have not captured correctly and it is fair game to just point that out. Show me the standard that says I need to provide countervailing evidence.209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have beat on reliable sources over and over because there is no point in writing or evaluating further without consensus on that issue. If you senior editors decide that you wish to rely on these non-RS then CLEARLY say so, and I will accept that and abandon this ground. If on the other hand, you do not use the RS or use them only under certain conditions, then we HAVE JUST BEGUN as far as I'm concerned. The advice I have seen lately is clearly a marked departure from the de facto practice of the writers of the article. There was NO point in looking at the text of the article while non-RS were widely used. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute taggging

I have joined the parade of editors who have removed the dispute tag created by 00todd00.

I have seen lots of concerns raised by this editor, but I have not seen evidence of an accuracy dispute as stated by the flag.

The article reflects its sources. It is not fiction or original research. The accuracy of the article is not in question, as its sources are verifiable.

The validity of the sources has been and continues to be questioned. So a good tag might be: "non-reliable sources."

Because it is based on verifiable sources, there is so far as I can tell no reason to say there is a dispute that the article is factually inaccurate. Even 00todd00's concerns seem to this outsider to be subtle to say the least.

Here are my thoughts about the matter:

1. The concerns raised by this editor, as by others, have not been backed up with references.
2. If the editor has references, these need to be shown. This article has been pretty liberal in what it accepts as references, and I would personally try to apply that same liberality to sources for the items of concern.
3. If there are alternative sets of referenced facts, they should definitely be included.
4. The inclusion of such alternative referenced facts would not necessarily require the removal of current statements, which are well referenced. But the new facts would improve the Neutrality of the article by articulating some of the controversies found when one studies this group.
5. If the references suggest a preponderance of evidence for the view 00todd00 is articulating, than that view should be given primary focus, and current statements would then be relegated to an alternative view.

If 00todd00 introduces referenced facts, I will personally defend their inclusion. From my experience with this article, I believe that others will also defend their inclusion. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More and better sources are fine. I've just removed the same dispute tag, along with {{fact}} tags for statements which already have sources. If someone doesn't have access to the source, as seems likely in this particular case, I'd be happy to give the supporting quote for any which I've given. • Astynax ^talk 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the article should be flagged. Please read Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christian_Conventions/1#Closing_remarks where senior editor states all the key article resources are self-published and should not be used in an "unqualified narrative voice". (Tip to senior editor - clarity is more important at your level than accuracy. This kind of comment has tended to be misunderstood in the past.)RSuser (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dispute tag is not appropriate for reasons given above. 00todd00 is not questioning the verifiability of the sources; s/he just has a different opinion.

The comments by the GA reviewer are relevant to a GA assessment; they may be less relevant in other contexts.

If you want to flag article sources, consider {{self-published}}, {{unreliable sources}}, or {{primary sources}}.

We have been down this road before, however, with you and your many aliases.--Nemonoman (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have only ever used 2 user names, and I have also posted anonymously at various times. So?RSuser (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

" s/he just has a different opinion." That is the exact problem with the article, it has come down to a battle of published vs non published opinions, surely you can see that nemonoman. You've even developed one of your own - that the friends and workers are deliberately secretive and proud of it. That's opinion not reality, yet you state it as if it were universal objective truth, exactly like so many of the self-published non-reliable sources do. How about *doing* even a little bit of what geometryguy (etal) have suggested doing to make the article a better one? JesseLackman (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, there is no battle. Non-published opinions cannot be used.

I have stated my position that since so little about this group has been published in traditional sources that it is reasonable to fall back on the Wikipedia guidelines for similar, under-researched subjects -- in this case the guidelines for biographies of notable but not well researched living persons. I believe this article is up to Wikipedia article standards, even Good Article Quality, or I would not have nominated it. That it failed GAR is not and indication that it is a poor quality article, just that certain GA criteria are not met. With the paucity of traditional sources on this group, it may be that GA criteria is NEVER met. The article, in my opinion, is about the best article I have seen on the subject, and now I have looked at quite a few sources.

Yes I have an opinion that the group is secretive and proud of it. I have not however added my opinion to the article, even though I find that others share that view. It's an opinion that is not neutral, and it's a synthesis of what I have learned, not a verifiable fact. So I am not adding it to the article: it has no reason to be there.

My opinion of the group's norm (secrecy) is not an opinion of individual members. A group I belong to for example is, as a group, utterly disorganized and proud of it (although I find this arrogant disorganization to be unnecessary and unpleasant) -- this despite the fact that many if not most of the individuals in the group are very organized in their individual lives. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I read the policy on dispute tags, and they are not to be removed if the article contains non-reliable sources.RSuser (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, replying to what you said at 13:15, 12 January 2010, even though promise to defend their inclusion if I introduce referenced facts, you continue to deny that I am using referenced facts, despite that I have continuously explained that the information comes from John Long’s diary. So of course, if I put any information on the article you are not going to defend it because you will yet again say that I haven’t referenced a source. Plus, I have in the past added contradictory information to the article which was promptly removed, and I got told to discuss it on the talk page first. It is funny that now that I have decided to discuss it on the talk page first, I have been told quite a few times to go ahead and make changes to the article. Of course I am not stupid enough to think that it will sit there for more than a few hours before someone hits the “undo” button. And also because you continually overlook the source I have been referencing, you are sure to do it there too. I am used to that though, because I had to remove the references I put on the article once because they cited Cherie Kropp’s book and I was told that she was not a reliable source. But, it is OK for those who can find a point against this fellowship to reference her book I see ;o). Yet, some people almost get offended when this article is reported as being biased, but when this sort of thing goes on, that is one of the most blatant and undeniable biases there is. If Jesse Lackman wants evidence to justify a claim of bias in a “good article review”, tell him to come and see me. I’ll give him some :P

Anyway, for now the dispute tag will stay there (well, probably for 33% of the time), and I will continue to discuss it with those who are patiently (I think) working through the different points I have made, and have yet to make. I will be taking it slow because it seems easier to try to get one point debated at a time. Even then, I have had trouble getting a response to the most basic of questions, but for those who are interested in this article, please join me. Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, I am inclined to think that you are attempting to be difficult in wanting everything done to the letter with this dispute tag, but because it says to “assume good faith” at the top, I will assume that you really are confused about where the dispute is, and what it is about. I am having trouble assuming good faith with Astynax though, when he removes the tag with the reason being “no dispute identified” especially seeing he participated in the dispute multiple times. I don’t know how to put this without it sounding offensive, but don’t you think that is a slightly little tiny bit childish? It appears that people are so insistent on making a big thing about the dispute tag, and finding every little fault with it or reason that they can remove it, to avoid facing the reality of the dispute. I haven’t even been able to get a few questions answered... questions that only require a “Yes” or “No”. Obviously the outcome of this dispute will affect the content of the article, and maybe that is what people here are afraid of... they regard this article more highly than they regard the truth. This is why such underhanded activities go on within this article, such as I pointed out before where I was told to remove things from the article (which I did) because of the “unreliable source”, yet it is ok for others to use that same source (probably on the proviso that they are using it to support a particular point of view, or proclaim something negative about the group). I guess I should start doing some more “assuming good faith”, and maybe they just accidently said that my source was unreliable when they tripped over the cat one day ;). It sounds inconceivable, but how else could it have happened?

I just want to touch on your emphasis of the tag being a “measure of last resort”. I have tried to dispute parts of this article before without using a dispute tag, and my discussion gets ignored. The only way I have been successful in gaining any attention is by putting a tag up (and defacing this treasured article). So, although the dispute tag may be the last resort, that is where I am. I can assure you that the very minute I stop putting up the dispute tag, everyone will be happy and I won’t see another word written about this. Let’s try to do less “dispute tag” disputing, and talk about the first accuracy problem I have raised, so that we can move on to the next one. In all respect 0oToddo0 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be clear 00tood00: I do not know precisely what you are disputing. You tag the entire article, so I assume that you dispute the factuality of the entire article and every part of it.

If you dispute the facts of the article and are determined to tag and say that This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page you owe your fellow editors

1. A list of specific items that you believe are factually inaccurate
2. An identification of that list in the tag (as per instructions) so editors may read and understand your concerns.

As to Last Resort: Please note that you have not, so far as I know, added a single verifiable fact that has been reverted (since your re-emergence this past month, at least). You STARTED this brouhaha with a dispute tag. Your sole criteria for doing so, so far as I can tell, is that you personally find the article inaccurate but you have not yet added a single contradictory (verifiable) fact.

I assume good faith that you believe this article is full of errors.

I find it hard to impossible to understand therefore why you (1) Will not simply lay out the list of items you want changed, and how you want them changed (2) add to or edit the article yourself (realizing that, as the Wiki instructions say right next to the save button: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.)

I ask for this over and over, and I get pages of rambling in response. If it says 1898 here and Matthew 10 is referenced there..." etc.

What the hell do you actually want the article to say? That Long was a founder? or a cofounder? Or that Irvine is a pretender? Or a myth? Surely somewhere there is some sort of verifiable source that has made the point you want the article to state.

Why don't you just find it, put it in the article, and be done? Instead of constantly deleting "property" from a sentence -- with no apparent justification other than your own knowledge of the Truth -- why don't you just enter into the text "The Church has no property<ref>Some source</ref>.

You are much more likely to achieve your goals if you make the outcome you want plain and simple to understand and implement. Ideally by changing the article yourself with verifiable content. If not that, then by laying out in a simple bulleted or numbered list the items that you believe to be so inaccurate as to require your constant tagging of an entire article.

This constant whining that you can't make a change without being reverted is nonsense. Make a change that is verifiable, and I'll defend it. Make a change that is true but not verifiable and I will delete it. And as I said, I'll try to maintain a similar standard of verifiability for facts you add as for facts added by Astynax.

As for dispute tagging, when you follow the methodology for tagging an article, then the tag will stay. I'll put it back myself until the items are addressed. Until then, bye-bye dispute tag.--Nemonoman (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions and comments from uninvolved editors.

Maybe this section could be used to collect and discuss the suggestions and comments from uninvolved editors and how to actually improve the article the way those editors have suggested. For instance the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Christian Conventions/1 contains many criticisms with pretty much all of them being explained away and ultimately ignored. Certainly interesting from an objective point of view to read that reassessment (especially the closing comments), then watch for the suggested changes in the article.

I'll start;

"The article is much too long (3b)."

"Fortt, Daniel, Parker&Parker and Roberts are essentially self-published sources: no editorial oversight, and no reputation for fact checking. As such they should not be used to support disputed or controversial information in the unqualified narrative voice. Such sources can be used with attribution "According to...", but the neutral point of view cannot endorse them (2a/b)."

Since I probably will not be able to edit the article without a revert who will make those changes?

JesseLackman (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesse, I would offer, but I also get reverted. It seems that this article is written to support a point of view rather than the truth (which is why it would be so unstable I guess). Even my work that is citing the most reliable sources has been removed, so I think that is your clue... only those who support the particular point of view will be allowed to make changes. 0oToddo0 (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proper use of Dispute tag

Please see the full information here. Here are some relevant items.

This template identifies a Wikipedia article as having content whose truth or factual nature is in dispute. If the problem is confined to one section, or a few sections in an article that has several, it is better to use{{Disputed-section}}.

Note by me: I think a disputed Section tag might be slightly more suitable than the disputed tag.

Usage of Dispute Tag

First add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements. Then place {{Disputed}} at the top of the disputed article. If the talk page discussion is not in a section named "Disputed", use {{Disputed|talk page section name}} (for a talk page section named "Disputed information", use {{Disputed|Disputed information}} in the article). If there is no talk page, the tag won't refer to it (in which case it's recommended to consider whether the tag should be there, since there is no reason given). Articles using this template as shown above are placed into Category:Accuracy disputes.--Nemonoman (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Dispute_templates: Many editors consider use of any banner template in an article a serious measure of last resort, and would prefer other measures be exhausted before such detractions from the project be used. If one must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading. (emphasis mine)--Nemonoman (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Disputes

• Some church leaders have actively discouraged the keeping of records, even encouraging their destruction.[159] Non-reliable source as per 'geometry guy'.
• and "United Christian Conventions" is used in Australia and other nations.[129] Last evidence of use in cited source - 1928. No evidence that this name in use at the present time. Writer states "is used".
• he is godlike or "divine" but not God himself.[114][115] Non-reliable source, and primary source used.
• Funds are handled through stewardships, trusts, cash transactions and similar means.[156][157][158] Non-reliable sources.

How many would you like in order to support the 'dispute' tag? RSuser (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All items of disupte should be listed here. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When these are corrected I will add more.RSuser (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Per Geometry guy, I have added "According to" to the sentence referenced by note 159. I'm not sure how "controversial" or "disputable" the sentence is outside this talk page, as I've already mentioned coming across printed materials from the group stamped with instructions not to copy and to destroy them. This is also noted on several websites.

2) Your point about "United Christian Conventions" is invalid. As above, your "dispute" relies soley on your say-so, with no alternative source offered to the contrary. The statement is adequately supported both by the source noted, as well as the note at the end of the paragraph from religioustolerance.org.

3) The first source has not been tagged as non-reliable. Geometry guy only noted that his opinion was that it was "essentially SPS" and should be used with some statement such as "According to." The second source is not a primary source, but a valid secondary source. The non-trinitarian view denying Jesus as god isn't difficult to find elsewhere, see again the religioustolerance.org site, or just about anywhere else—even in discussions in which you've taken part elsewhere and statements made by members here.

4) See above regarding sources. Funds (and yes, property) which are contributed are indeed handled just in the way described by the sources, and I don't think it is anything that is particularly hidden from members, so why target it as a dispute?

What you are "disputing" seems to be existing sources (again), and not the statements in the article which may be verified from the sources cited and elsewhere. • Astynax ^talk 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am posting below the "accuracy dispute" guidelines found here Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute:

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

• it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
• it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
• in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
• it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

A related collaboration mechanism is concerned with disputed statements.

If you come across an article with an accuracy warning, please do the following:

• don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time and make sure that content is from verifiable reliable sources and that it is unbiased and contains no original research.
• visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
• correct it right away if you can and also add to the article, as citations, any reliable sources you used to verify the information.
• If you are sure that a statement is factually inaccurate then remove it, or move it to the talk page for further discussion. If you are familiar with subject matter contained in the article but are not sure about the accuracy of a statement, then add "{{Fact}}" at the end of the statement. If you are not familiar with subject matter contained in the article, but wish to ask about the accuracy of a statement, then raise the issue on the article's the talk page. Please read WP:PROVEIT for a more detailed explanation of what to do with false or misleading information.

If you come across an article whose content seems or is inaccurate, please do the following:

• correct it right away if you can and also add to the article, as citations, any reliable sources you used to verify the information.
• if the neutrality of the content is in question, please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.
• if only a few statements seem inaccurate:
  • insert {{dubious|date=Month Year}} after the relevant sentence or paragraph.
  • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.
  • (Or insert {{dubious|section}} replacing 'section' with the appropriate section on the talk page.)

• if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
  • insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
  • paste {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.
  • if you find that the article remains unnoticed, you can draw more attention to it by listing it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.
  • once you've found the correct information, edit the page to correct it, remove the warnings, and put something like the following in your edit summary:

Verified article – removed accuracy dispute

Please note that bit about more than five dubious statements. I'll be looking for five issues if the dispute tag is reinserted. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The concern about who is founder has to do with the role of John Long. Jaenen (Reliable Source) lists Long as one of those who started the movement.RSuser (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that many of the long list of sources for "Founder: Irvine" are not all reliable sources. Certainly Melton never stated that Irvine was founder. Founder and originator may seem like synonyms but theologically they are very different.RSuser (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My point on Christian Conventions in Australia is that the source is dated 1928. No evidence that the name has been used since 1928 although the article indicates that the name is currently in use. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but there's no source to indicate it was used after 1928. (See Secret Sect).RSuser (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The point on 'destruction of records' is proportionality. One unreliable source says that records were destroyed. Not sure what that is supposed to mean in an encyclopedia context. RSuser (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus is 'godlike'? Fortt is non-reliable. The newspaper account is a primary source. It is an account of what one worker said one time. RSuser (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of funds? Daniel is non-reliable. The newspaper account is a primary source and refers to a highly specific context. I'm not sure what you found in Kropp ... the source seems to speak about early days of the movement. It really doesn't matter what actually happens if it hasn't been documented in a reliable source.RSuser (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Response, to your restatement:

• The words "founder" and "originator" are synonyms, not "theologically" different—and you'll find among the other dozen sources listed several which explicitly use the word "founder" to describe Irvine's role (e.g.: Chryssides starts off his section on the "Two-by-Twos": "Founded in Ireland by William Irvine (1863-1947)"). Nor does Jaenen anywhere deny that Irvine is founder of the movement (please enlighten us with a page number if he said someone else did so and I've missed it). Moreover, the sources for that particular statement are all secondary, reliable sources (newspapers are considered secondary sources for historical articles).
• "United Christian Conventions" is also supported by religioustolerance.org. Since Parker and Parker are Australian, it is likely that the name was still in use when the book was written. Unless you have a source that says this is no longer in use, you don't have a dispute or a change on this point, just a "what if angels sat on pins" speculation.
• To repeat, there has been no consensus that Fortt (or Daniel) is non-reliable, despite your banging that drum continually. Read Geometry guy's opinion again. The newspaper (again, a secondary source) quotes a worker who expressed the non-trinitarian view. Are you denying that Jesus is considered "godlike" in the group?
• The mention of the destruction of records is likewise verifiable elsewhere (one site even has a page titled: "We would not want these notes getting into the 'wrong hands'" with ministers quoted on the subject). A short sentence doesn't seem disproportional.
• The statements regarding funding doesn't describe some deep, dark secret does it? And this would be something else which you doubtless know to be true and thus non-controversial, so why the pretense that it is disputable? Regardless, I'll add a backup citation for the statement. The Kropp article is cited to show how convention buildings are funded. If you want to start yet another in your series of your prejudicial RS objections, go ahead. But mischaracterizing consensus and sources just to raise disputes of sourced and verifiable statements in the article seems to be an abuse of this particular thread. • Astynax ^talk 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this the point on 'destruction of records' is proportionality. One unreliable source says that records were destroyed. Not sure what that is supposed to mean in an encyclopedia context I am removing this:

• According to Fortt, some church leaders have actively discouraged the keeping of records, even encouraging their destruction.

I think the question of WP:UNDUE undue weight applies here. The fact that some have discouraged record keeping...What's the context that anybody needs to care about this? Is the IRS coming after them for hidden funds or something? Without a greater context, this fact is provocative and suggestive, but insubstantial. If the information needs inclusion it needs a firmer contextual foundation.

RE: Christian Conventions in Australia is that the source is dated 1928. It's a nit, but a fair point, and one that can be fixed without much controversy. In an effort to reach consensus, I've changed these references to past tense.

RE: Jesus is 'godlike'? I have removed the word, which in light of RSuser's comments can I think be seen as provocative without a more complete explanation. Without a source or sources suggesting a general consensus on the use of the word, I think it is reasonable to remove it. Its removal doesn't substanitally affect the article, and its inclusion gets into the area of Undue Weight. Pax. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Funding -- I have reread that sentence and the whole section. The point being made is that there IS NO CENTRAL ORGANIZED BUSINESS ENTITY, right? The section describes in negatives just how much the business entity doesn't exist: No organization. No incorporation. No headquarters. No accounting.

Why describe this in negatives? I believe that this is defensible for two reasons: (1) because it's hard to describe a nonthing except by describing what it isn't and (2) in the case of a religious movement, they almost universally DO have headquarters and organizations and accounting. So the Lack of those expected items is notable and saying they're missing is I think acceptable. We could probably find a better way, but this will do.

Now when I read the first 2 sentences of that paragraph, I think -- well, then how do they do the basics? Who pays the ministers or how do the halls get rented? So to me the sentence Funds are handled through stewardships, trusts, cash transactions and similar means. is very helpful. What do "stewardships" and "trusts" suggest? It suggests that rather than using a giant legal entity, that things are handled between faithful individuals. "cash transactions" suggests that trusted individuals are managing small pots of money: this isn't the Anglican Church: this is people. I found that information helpful in understanding. It adds to the context of no-organization, and is not given undue weight in my view. It is non-provocative in my view. The sentence is backed by four sources. So I'm not seeing reason to remove or change. IF this is an undue weight thing, or if it is a verifiable error on the part of the sources, I'd like to know. I'm telling you it looks right to me as is...although I'd like to see the section try to express the information without using negatives. Even then, the funds-handling info would be reasonable to include in present form, however.

About the Founder thing: We have beaten the carcass of that horse so long the bones have turned to jelly. On that point at least you will need to accept that there is a clear consensus, and it is different from how you want. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Dispute Tag at 9 am EST, 18 January

This has been done so many times, I just want to clarify what THIS one is about.

This dispute tag was created a few hours before by 00todd00, and pointed to the "Irvine not the founder section".

I have read that section and I can see that todd is all worked up about SOMETHING, but for the life of me I can't make out EXACTLY what todd thinks is wrong, or what steps would be needed to bring the article to factual accuracy.

It appears to me that todd's beef is with Irvine/Long/Founding dates. Not with the accuracy of the entire article.

Nor does it appear to me that todd has more than 5 items of concern that suggest a pervasive factual failure as article dispute tagging suggests.

Further, it seems to me that todd's individual concerns have been addressed repeatedly, and that todd has not (1) introduced new items into that discussion to explain his continuing concern; has not (2) made improvements to the article, unless adding the dispute tag can be called an improvement; has not (3) accepted an editorial consensus or found a way to develop a different consensus.

So this continual tagging of the entire article as factually inaccurate appears more and more to me to be an intentional attempt to disrupt and frustrate the work of dedicated editors to improve the article. It looks more and more to me like the tantrum of a brat.

Message to 00todd00

This is the carrot: If you believe a fact is nonverifiable and factually inaccurate tag it individually thusly: {{dubious}} Then place a SPECIFIC CONCERN for that tag on the talk page.

If you think a SECTION of the article, or the entire article is nonverifiable and factually inaccurate tag, then use the dispute tag BUT PLEASE create a SIMPLE LIST of concerns. As RSuser did: Here's what's wrong, and why it's wrong.

(Based on history, I am sure that RSuser will not be satisfied by HOW his concerns were addressed, but he must take SOME LITTLE PLEASURE in seeing that his items WERE addressed, in order, and changes made. That could happen to you as well, 00todd00!)

It may be that you and the dispute gang wish to push your concerns up a notch. May I suggest then that you additionally raise your specifics here: WP:DDR.

This is the stick: If you continue to simply tag the article as disputed without making some effort to resolve the dispute, I will create an incident report citing this as disruptive behavior, and ask for sanctions against you. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman, At the start I was discussing various points that I thought were inaccurate, but the responses I was getting did not touch on all points, so I figured that it was too difficult for people to respond to too many points at once so thought that it better to work though less at at time. With that in mind, what I did was listed some things to try to get some agreement on and, yes... THEY WERE NUMBERED AND IN A LIST. You then pointed to the Wiki dispute section insisting that I follow that, so as per that I also added a the tag to the top (yes, the top) of the article as it instructed and linked it to the section in the article as it also instructed. I have been trying to do the right thing, but here is a little look at what you have been up to... You have kept on saying that I need to number things as if I hadn't already, and you have made a half attempt to respond to the points (so you obviously know they are there), and it seems like you have deliberately misunderstood one of the questions, and believe it or not (well I couldn't anyway), you even made it quite clear that you hoped Astynax didn't answer the question. If that doesn't make it clear that you are making every attempt to block rational and mature discussion about this article, then I don't know what is. You have also taken it upon yourself to start up your own dispute section, and maybe that is because you still don't want anybody seeing or having to honestly respond to the points I have made in the other section. I am not about to copy the discussion that we have already had, over to your dispute section because that will make it a bit messy so I will continue to link the dispute tag to the "Irvine not the founder" section because of the conversation that is already there, and if you aren't getting any results with your dispute, feel free to place your own dispute tag linking to it.

I am sure that RSuser is happy that he got responded to as well, and I was slightly happy that I finally got my listed and numbered questions answered too, but I wasn't all that happy that it was such an unconstructive responce to the point of even encouraging another editor to not respond. It made me get a grin when I read above where you said "without making some effort to resolve the dispute", when you have done everything within your power to find every way to make it difficult, by insisting that everything be perfectly following every guideline, (even the things that were already) and then blatantly show your hope that my points raised, don't get responded to. You are lucky that I am not easily offended because that is quite rude really.

You are quite aware of many things that are disputed about this article, and you are also quite aware of the reliable sources used to dispute the article, so let's all stop the childish games and accept that the article is in fact rightly disputed, and calmly discuss this so that we can get the best outcome for the article. Regards, 0oToddo0 (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

0otoddo0: you are raising a dispute(s) based upon your interpretation (synthesis) of what your source says. That's against Wikipedia policy. But I could be wrong that you are offering a synthesis, since I frankly don't understand what statement or statements you are disputing or what statements in Long you believe dispute whatever it is in the article. Whether you or not you believe you have adequately delineated a dispute of fact, I'm telling you that you haven't. Please indulge those of us who aren't getting your point. All neonoman has asked is that you plainly give which statement you believe to be disputed by another source, along with a quote from the source which backs up that a dispute exists. Simple enough.

If you cannot define a dispute, then any dispute tagging rightly should be reverted. • Astynax ^talk 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding source material

In the forlorn hope of finding some sort compromise that could lead to a consensus and end to an seemingly endless debate, I make this proposal:

Suppose we break the REFERENCES section into 2 groups...something like:

• General reference works
• Critical works

Since it appears that it's not the information being cited so much as the fact that work contains material critical of the group that engenders much of the discussion heat.

We might consider adding an asterisk reference itself when a critical work is being cited. That would at least alert the readers that some members of this group find the reference to be critical and therefore doubtful.

Like this^* Or where there are multiple references, some loved, some unloved:^* --Nemonoman (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

* Note: References marked with an asterisk are critical of the group.

That was a good idea when John Carter suggested it over a month ago here -> [5] and is still a good idea now. And when that is being done how about including the quotes John suggested including? This is another thing that an uninvolved editor has suggested that's been ignored. I've been meaning to add that kind of thing to the Suggestions by uninvolved editors section.

JesseLackman (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the Carter reference -- can you quote a few words so I can search the page? Maybe I just copycatted him unconsciously. Anyway, then there's at least a starting consensus. Jesse do you want to have a go at separating the roses and thorns in the reference list? --Nemonoman (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Have a go at separating the roses and thorns", can you imagine how frustrating that suggestion is? *Especially* after just reading the conversation between you and astynax on your talk page? That's exactly what I have been attempting to do in nearly all of my comments and in the GAR! I can see uninvolved editors have read my comments - and seen that objective separating in my writing... I'm not sure I feel like repeating myself - or repeating the comments unvolved editors have already made on this subject in these pages (many recently archived), the RS discussions; [6] [7], and the GA Reassessment [8]. JesseLackman (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the end of this section -> [9]

I wonder, is it normal here at wiki to archive talk sections that still have active objective suggestions in them from uninvolved editors? JesseLackman (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nemonoman: I think an asterisked footnote would be fine for any places where those sources are used to support controversial statements. Constantly having to put "According to" in front of statements, as suggested, will look odd.

JesseLackman: My vent on nemonoman's talk page wasn't anything I haven't said to you directly before, both here and on your own talk page.

John Carter quoted from, and was showing instances where Melton could be used as a source. You leapt to the conclusion that he was suggesting quoting 3 paragraphs verbatim. The block of text you gave had other problems as I noted in that discussion. Carter gave an example sentence showing how the substance he wished to include might be placed near the top of the Doctrines section, and I attempted to work it in (as most of the points were already there). Although it will be a bit repetitive, I've put in his suggested sentence modified slightly and cited Melton as support.

Yes, it is the practice to archive sections which haven't had any recent activity. • Astynax ^talk 05:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The talk page had much material that had been untouched for 4-5 months. In the past few days, the total size of the talk page was approaching an unacceptable 100KB+ length. More of a concern was that new material was being added to sections that had lain fallow for a long time. It is NOT good practice archive active discussions, and by suddenly placing comments in the middle of old sections, the entire old section becomes hard to archive; and the talk page length becomes unacceptable. I personally found it hard to figure out what comments were new and relevant to current situation when they were being placed in what for this article is practically ancient history. I archived anything that had no new comments for a month. You yourself found and referenced material in the archived material, so I think you'll agree it's not that hard to do this. The archive link above has search box to make matters easier. In my summary of the archive changes I invited other editors to undo my archiving if they believed I had mistakenly archived current topics.

Jesse refers to comments on my talk page where I express frustration with the progress on this article. Please feel free to look if you want to see me pissing and moaning and cursing my fate. I'm sure almost every active editor here has felt frustration in the past few days.

I was an uninvolved editor when I entered this arena. In some quarters I am thought to be rather a good one. This article has become a source of frustration and irritation for me, not pleasure. This is quite different than any other article I have worked on except Aurangzeb, which is also a battlefield article where any statement is regarded as politically charged and faces the most violent reception regardless of how well documented.

I should say based on my review of the article history that practically every editor who cares about this article's content has been sucked into frustration.

I have expressed before and express now again my 100% desire that the good folks working on this article try to understand accomodate and compromise to reach a satisfactory consensus. --Nemonoman (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Dispute Tag at 9 am EST, 20 January

Another revert of the dispute tag. I just want to clarify what THIS one is about.

This dispute tag was created by 00todd00, and pointed to the "Irvine not the founder section".

I have asked for a simple list: Facts that are wrong, and changes the editor believes should be made to make them right.

I swear in good faith that I cannot for the life of me understand what 00todd00 wants this section to say. I know he's exercised, but unless the remedy is clear, there's no way to proceed.

To 00todd00: When I tried to figure out what your points were, you told me I got them wrong. So please just list them out how you want them to be. Like this:

• The World was created in 6 days, not 7. God RESTED on seventh day. See Genesis 1
• God created Adam and EVE -- not Adam and STEVE. See Genesis 6
• The article says that Eve ate an apple -- but the source DOESN'T identify the species of fruit. See Genesis 8.

See how RSuser lists his points. Then we'll keep your dispute tag intact until those points are resolved.--Nemonoman (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To 00todd00: One other point. You may have an argument with the article. You may disagree with the article. You may think different than the article. But dispute is Wikipedia "reserved word". It has special meaning when used in Wikipedia. If you use the dispute tag, you are expected to follow the dispute process. Having a beef with the article is NOT the same as a "dispute". --Nemonoman (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)