Talk:Assemblies of Yahweh

WEMUS is Back! With Biased Views & Revisionist History

Sad to say Wemus has resurfaced. Perhaps one of the many socks puppets that want to make Wikkipedia into an advertisement board of sorts. We need to clean up this article and the other articles that have been affected with the agenda in question. If we can create some kind of new baseline we can have a stable article to go back to if or when another sock appears. It's devilishly difficult trying to cherry pick through what to keep once a new sock appears. If we can restore the article now we may be able to maintain it. It is unfortunate that cult followers are trying to use this article for advertisements for their cult literature. It is very evident that what they are attempting to get a following from people who come here for unbiased facts, which you would expect from an encyclopedia. Their biased opinions, revisionist history and attempts at cover-up of the real facts is quite disturbing. In the originally article it stated that they were "controlling" and their actions here just goes to prove that. They have used this page as their personal play ground. This article at one time was accurate and they have made it into a cult advertisement. They continually try to distort the facts and remove the historical facts in it as well and replace the facts with their opinions. They have made this article into a link farm for their many websites, making this article into nothing more than link spam. Some of these "socks" have been banned, but they just pop up again under a new name. It is time that the administration of this encyclopedia do something about this far fetched fringe group and put a stop to vandalism here. This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox for advertising. The behavior of WEMUS Davidamos and others is really deplorable. The takeover of Wikipedia by fringe groups is not good. We need facts in here not opinions of fringe cults and their followers.

My name in a Headline-Totally Cool.

Any-who, We, except for the Anonymous who hacks it up, are making progress on this article. (An article which is about the Assemblies of Yahweh, and what they do, not the slanted ravings from the above author.) If the accuser who writes above would get off his Kuester and begin to work with Wikipedia instead of against this unbiased page would move forward. I tell you what, (bit o' advice) when you want to make a statement, chuck it out into the discussion and if it is proven by vetting with traceable, relevant facts, then it of course can be included. That's what Wiki-thusiasts do. Like the good book says, "for lack of wood the fire goes out".WEMUS (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anon is Back!

Sad to say, the anonymous has resurfaced. I reverted the Obadiah page to remove past graduates names. If this road is allowed to be followed, all of the dozens of graduates histories must be included, a path which has no place in a neutral article. Pertinent information only please. WEMUS (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits 10/7/2008

The Assemblies of Yahweh does not teach that only America will be receiving judgment and only by economic upheaval. It is taught that the whole world will come under judgment by many means as outlined in the Scriptures.

As to the "traditional" Jewish dating of "Rosh Hashana", this does not come under the meaning of worldly holidays here. Also it is not a general item as is ment for this section.Fctedt (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sacred Name Movement

I added a topic for discussion in the Sacred Name Movement article which concerns the Assemlbies of Yahweh article. Comments would be appreciated.WEMUS (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The August 2006 issue of The Sacred Name Broadcaster includes an article avowing that the Assemblies of Yahweh are in fact the mainstream of the SNM and other groups are just on the fringe (tzitzit, maybe?). So why is my edit to that effect reversed?

I am looking at an August 2006 issue of the Sacred Name Broadcaster now. There is no such article. There is in fact an article stating that the AOY is not like the nominal SNM (see Hot, Cold or Lukewarm in said issue). Fctedt (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the Sacred Name Movement. Why not read the Assemblies of Yahweh statement of doctrine? Davidamos (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW - The Assemblies of Yahweh did not stem from the sacred name movement... why not ask for the "Back to the Roots" series, by Elder Jacob O Meyer? You can go directly to the site and ask for one there. If I can be of some assistance, give me a call :) . Davidamos (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

BTW you apparently weren't around in the 60's when Jacob O. Meyer started his group as many were, he IS and WAS a part of the Sacred Name Movement. Trying to deny it just shows how untruthful this group really is! It's time to end the deception and stop trying to rewrite history according to your distorted version. It is time to stick to the facts, not the made up false history that you are trying to present. Oh, by the way this information is available elsewhere, presented by those who know. And stop trying to edit my comments, it won't be tolerated.

---

I'm not sure who you are talking to, sorry. But, I can safely say the Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the SNM. Davidamos (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

How do you answer someone who will not listen to plain statements? I am also familiar with the Assemblies of Yahweh since the 60's and remember those "Namers" attending a service once in a while and bringing their diverse doctrines to Elder Meyer. When presented with Scripture, they wandered away again. Amid all this the Assemblies of Yahweh continued to grow and has been blessed to spread Yahweh's Way around the world.

So, how do you address this assertion that the Assemblies of Yahweh is part of the Sacred Name Movement? Since Wikipedia is able to be quoted in Wikipedia, reference the SNM article:

First Witness

“ The roots of the SNB come from Holt MI. "Groups with no established ties to the Assembly of Yahweh, Holt Michigan: ...Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel PA." ”

Second Witness

“ One way to identify mainstream Sacred Namers is whether or not they support the annual Unity Conference, or whether they have friends across organizational boundaries. In many ways the movement is a network of contacts and long-standing friendships. ”

The Assemblies of Yahweh has a Unity conference each year, The Feast of Tabernacles and does not attend the SNM's "Unity" conference. Amos 3:3.

The statement at the head of the Assemblies of Yahweh article must stand as written.WEMUS (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole question of whether the Assemblies of Yahweh is, or is not, part of the Sacred Name Movement is complicated by the way people inside and outside of the AoY conceive the SNM. How formally is a "movement" defined? For insiders, it appears to be a question of alliances, links, and fellowships with certain specific groups and people. For outsiders, being part of the SNM is marked by using Hebrew forms for Sacred Names. These two views, each using different criteria, seem to have led to editing and reverting on this point. Since Wikipedia is written to inform outsiders, I have a gentle proposal. Would it be acceptable to all sides if the article contained a sentence that said something like, "Though the Assemblies of Yahweh does stress the use of Hebrew forms of sacred names, and does celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles and other Levitical commands, (traits that are shared by many in the broader sacred name movement), it is not formally linked to any organizational Sacred Name Movement"? Would something like this be helpful and acceptable?? Pete unseth (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with that suggestion Pete. It wouldn’t be helpful at all. The Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the Sacred Name Movement and that statement is plainly put in the article. Apparently, in the SNM, a battle over doctrines exist, which is why the Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of that movement. In Citer (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

History

They are those who keep claiming the Assemblies of Yahweh should use their own web page to present information about them. Perhaps they don't recognise the purpose of a encyclopedia:

“ Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race.—Diderot ”

The very reason why doctrines are presented on any religious page on this encyclopedia, is that anyone reading can see if the doctrines are accurate, and in accordance with the Bible. Now we're getting claims that they are a cult? It's the very reason why the doctrines are on the website, so all can determine for themselves what they are, and what they aren't.

Now, could we please have tolerance of all faiths on this encyclopedia.

REPLY: You have been tolerated way to much. Your endless removal of the factual statements of the original article are deplorable. You continually try to change the real facts and present a distorted view of the historical facts. Aren't you proud of your groups teachings? Like the fact that your organization has for years proclaimed that "Jesus Christ", "God", and the "Lord" are pagan deities? You continually try to remove this fact from the article. Perhaps your doctrines have been proven to be "kook religion" by Biblical scholars and you don't like it? It appears that you are running for cover! And as for Assemblies of Yahweh status as a cult, you maybe should check this list of cults out as found on google:

“ The Watchman Expositor: Index of Cults and Religions (CLICK HERE)

This is by no means a complete list of cults and religions. ..... Assemblies of Yahweh, Jacob Meyer, Bethel, PA: Publishes The Sacred Name Broadcaster ... www.watchman.org/cat95.htm - 382k Google

”

Perhaps you should check with groups like Yahweh's Philadelphia Truth Assembly and people like Don Mansager and perhaps Jacob O. Meyer's very own sister, Mildred Deck and his brother, Carl Meyer, and several of his children, like his daughter Rachel, who left the Assemblies of Yahweh... get your facts straight before you come in here and start whining.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.64.161 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Actually, when I communicated within the last year to the President of YPTC, Don's grandchild, Mildred and Rachel they seemed to be very cordial speaking in reference to the Assemblies of Yahweh and Elder Jacob O. Meyer. Go figure! Maybe it's just me though. WEMUS (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Rebecca VanderMeulen (WEMUS) has never been a member of the Assemblies of Yahweh and is therefore no expert on the subject. Meyer has said that she is distant relitive. This only shows a propensity for biased reporting, not only here but in the Reading Eagle as well. Case closed!

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.65.95 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one, can certainly say I am proud of the teachings of the Assemblies of Yahweh. Firstly however, I think you may have got a few things wrong. You claimed that "Jesus Christ", "God", and the "Lord" are pagan deities, in the view of the Assemblies of Yahweh. The Assemblies of Yahweh does not use these terms because they are pagan surrogates. Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever, for using the Latinised form, a Greek Substitute (Jesus) for the authentic Semitic Name of the Messiah, our saviour (Yahshua). The Assemblies of Yahweh stand for truth, therefore they rid from their lives (and language) the things which are polluted.

I don't need to check the lists of cults out on google. As far as I understand, all three major religions have been referred to as cults throughout history.

BTW - There seems to be some criticism against the Assemblies of Yahweh because people have left. Relatives and so on. What can anyone say? Those who left voluntarily did so by their own will, those few who were forced to leave, did so because they were not following the Scriptures as they should of been, as a member of the Assemblies fo Yahweh. Unlike most groups in the world, the Assemblies of Yahweh does have a standard by which they live. This is sometimes used against the Assemblies of Yahweh, and yet, if they were to reject this moral standard, the Bible, they would only become like any other religion. Consequently, this is why some people have left. Obviously the intention of the Assemblies of Yahweh isn't to have people leave, but if people do not want to live up to the biblical standard, they will undoubtedly be convicted, and leave and those who arn't convicted will be forced to...Davidamos (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Footnotes

I'm new. Is it possible and acceptable that I add footnotes to this page, it would really help. Davidamos 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC).

There was one note already present, whcih I've made visible. More can be added according to Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Tikiwont 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also check WP:CITE for the reference formats. --Tikiwont 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

HalleluYah. Thanks for that. Could you tell me also how to upload pictures? It would be greatly appreciated. Davidamos 13:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would start at Wikipedia:Uploading images and try to avoid getting in Copyvio trouble. --Tikiwont 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

okay. Thanks a lot. Davidamos 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

There sure is a lot of disinformation on Wikipedia isn't there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.142.89 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to address the COI, POV, and organizational issues of the article by adding referenced content then by all means, go ahead. --NeilN 16:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While much of the information in this article is interesting, a great deal of it is phrased in a biased manner. Could there be a way of rewording the removed material (now in "history") and perhaps reformatting it into "AOY rules," "AOY criticism," etc.? --TurabianNights 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please stick to the facts and do not add religious tracts here. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX --NeilN 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of info to this article. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! --WEMUS —Preceding comment was added at 14:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an anom that is editing this article and placing false information into it (Ref: some unnamed website). When I edit it back, he undoes. Is there a way to address it with an anom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WEMUS (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This anom has now backed up all the edits done by me, Acroterion and NeilN. All the work we did is now reverted. What can we do? WEMUS 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. The Assemblies of Yahweh questions the term "God" for use as the name associated with the heavenly father. Would it be out of line to change the word God in the article to something that is more general, such as heavenly Father or Creator, or some other term that someone would come up with? We could add a sentence that says they disavow the term God? May explain the Assemblies of Yahweh's belief better? WEMUS 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is about the AOY rather than by he AOY, my feeling is to use the more general and succinct term. By the way, I think I'll put up a request for comment on the article to get more eyes on it. If I request page protection it will end up fully protected, and no matter what, it will be the wrong version [1]. Acroterion _(talk) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion makes sense.I reread the article on the Name Yahweh and they state it just about exactly like you did. (I hope that the RFC page yeilds results. The way it was completely reverted doesn't give a lot of hope that the anom will respond though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WEMUS (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind the RfC is to involve a wider portion of the community to gain a consensus. Protection just freezes it somewhere until the warring party(ies) give up and go away, which usually isn't productive. Acroterion _(talk) 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. The Assemblies of Yahweh site has a lot of substantiation behind what is quoted in this article. Is it correct protocol and NPOV to put reference-links back to the subject of the article's site? Thanks! WEMUS 12:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC

The RFC below used the main article title as the section name, but the section is actually "RfC". The template has been corrected. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia if used correctly will be an area that educates individuals on a subject. My issue with the article in its present state is that there is little information about what or who the Assemblies of Yahweh is. I hope it can be remedied. WEMUS 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

the page is a lot better now, but could still do with some more information on it's good reputation. Also, would it be acceptable to change the term "god" to Yahweh? sorry forgot my signature Davidamos 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See our discussion immediately above about terminology. Thanks for the input, and remember to keep a neutral point of view. Acroterion _(talk) 11:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I've changed one minor part in the document which ws inaccurate. It commmented on a former member and different religions, as if thye was still part of the Assemblies of Yahweh. ""Yahweh's Philadelphia Truth". Another is Jacob C. Meyer who is pastor of an Assembly in Frystown, Pennsylvania." "Frystown Assembly"" Davidamos 11:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Observations

• The Outreach section needs to be trimmed and summarized as it's now looking to be a listing.
• The Criticism section has been neutered by removing the associated explanation. I think the wording should be put back --NeilN 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Dissenting Opinion-We are forced to stick, by Wikipedia standards, to facts/sources so we don't end up with a soapbox article. If the Critisism section can list, as you have asserted, associated explainations, than by the same standard, full explanations can be placed in the doctrine section as to their beliefs. WEMUS 16:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty misleading. The doctrine section has a full introductory paragraph and the accepted beliefs have full sentences, not one or two word points. --NeilN 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How about citation, with a few words of explanation, instead of just a link? Also, I am willing to concede on the Outreach section and try to narrow it down to mainly ways of outreach instead of listing. All this is dependant of course on this anom getting bored. WEMUS 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've reverted back to your last version. --NeilN 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected, since the main problem appears to be a single IP editor. Acroterion _(talk) 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Sir (Or Ma'am) for working in the best interest of this article. WEMUS 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

can I just say the page is much better. I appreicate everyones work. I deleted a small bullet point claiming that the Assemblies of Yahweh had been accused of Pharisical attitudes. This is clearly wrong. The Assemblies of Yahweh enforce the need to be spiritual people through keeping of the commandments. Thank you. I'm willing to discuss further. Davidamos 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

hi, would it be possible to stop users from changing this page to the really bad versions? WEMUS page is good, yet someone kkeeps trying to change it! Davidamos (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

adbot has changed the page back to an older and worse version, that is inaccurate and that most concluded, was false. Would the moderaters please ban or at least, prevent adbot from making such changes? Davidamos (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag

I have placed the notability tag on this article. There's nothing in the article that indicates significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some sources, mainly from past history but some are quite critical. Royal Lineage (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

reverted to previous edit

Reverted (11/17/2008) to previous edit by Jayjg to keep more streamlined.

Inspiration and Greek New Testament

The current statement of beliefs states that the AoY reject inspiration of the Greek New Testament. It would be helpful to me if the belief was stated in the positive, in a more informative way, stating that AoY believes that the NT was inspired in Hebrew, Aramiac, or Syriac; or that it was not inspired at all. As it is, it wells what they do not believe, but does not tell what they do believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think concern has already been raised about introducing too much information of wikipedia about the Assemblies of Yahweh. The Assemblies of Yahweh do not believe the New Testament was originally written in Greek, nor do they believe in any such thing as an Inspired translation, since all translations are the work of "fallible man". They believe in the Inspired Scriptures, but not in a inspired translation.In Citer (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerned

I'm pretty concerned on congratulating someone for removing almost all the article's references, as well as the {{reflist}} tag and the interwiki that is still valid, even if it's out of grose negligence, I don't think such a person should be rewarded as an article's "watch dog". --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a newer user than me! I don't really understand where you are coming from. Fctedt (talk · contribs) has been around for almost two years it seems and has done a really good job in maintaining the article. When he pointed out his problem with my edits, I checked his own history and realised, no one had even so much as thanked him for all his effort in preventing the vandalism against this article. Whether you like it or not, I would say that's worth a barnstar. I have awarded a barnstar to another user also. If you are concerned about awarding a barnstar, then why don't you take over as a patroller? In Citer (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm just a reader and I prefer staying that way. I don't see where you're comming from either, with this rough tone against me, actually. I would however think you should be a little more temperate and try to explain nice to me, in stead of lashing to my throat.

My main and only problem is that someone that makes an article so little in content, makes it so it's pretty easy now for anyone to take it on a successful AfD (as the tag proves it) and removes technical information (the tag reflist) and an interwiki that is viable (the one twoards the hu wikipedia), not to mention reducing it from over 20 sources to 3 that he makes sure, either out of incompetence or malice, so they appear either, is a very concerning point for me. That fact that such a user is considered a protector of an article, while leaving it without sources, makes me concerned as an editor.

The fact that I have to dig up through the history page to find consistent and cited information doesn't fall too well with me either. --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of recent reference box

The reason I removed the recent reference box was that most of the references did not relate to the AOY. I.e.: The article has already established that the AOY is not a Christian organization having Christian doctrines (see opening with AOY Statement of Doctrine reference). Most of the proposed references where for Christian organizations or other such material/organizations also not related to the AOY. I would have done the same to references of there being laws kept in Islam that appear similar or Islamic messianic references etc... or there being offices of "elder" in Mormonism and so forth. They just would not truly apply. I know that people like to compare one thing to another but it should factually apply. Also this AOY article has been hard to keep stable. A lot of people have wanted to assert opinions of what the AOY does or proclaims. The goal has been to keep this article streamlined and only state (briefly) some of the things that the AOY actually does or proclaims. Not what some one thinks or believes they say or do. Removal of this recent reference box was in effort to continue this. First, referencing an item from the AOY article to a Christian reference could be (even if well intentioned) some one's opinion. (As the AOY claims and exhibits itself as not being Christian such references would not factually apply) Second, such references in the past have led to battles of opinions. Third, streamlining is maintained by removal of non sequitur references. I realize that it is hard to reference this article to other sources. Hopefully this will explain my actions somewhat for now. If not, please continue the discussion. Fctedt (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is now Template:The Assemblies of Yahweh, so I think further discussion should go to Template talk:The Assemblies of Yahweh. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Two users are discontent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

They want the AOY article deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.103.241.89 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the major policies here is to assume good faith. The fact that I simply asked for the specific users in question resulted in you believing that I want the article deleted isn't going to help. Attacking everyone who discusses this article is not a good strategy going forward. As to the article, most of my edits are getting the article in line with the Manual of Style. While technically not a consideration, I will say that I know that articles which seems to be "unique" in their formatting (like the strange coloring) tends to look poorly. The article needs citations for its information (preferably neutral outsider views) and if they aren't provided, the burden is on those who want to add information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ricky not helping

A user admin called ricky, a christian, has made some ghastly changes to the article, removing images, paragraphs etc. My talks arent working. Any one else who feels these edits worsenify the articel, please say so. Ricky complains that he doesnt want a edit war but whenever some one changes the article, he changes it back with a really bad excuse. IMO: You are not improving the article. 212.103.241.89 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I applaud you ricky whoever you are. I know nothing about this denomination, nor do i want to, but this article is aweful when various wikipedia policies are taken into account and has all the hallmarks of being heavily edited by folks with a WP:COI problem. It should probably stubbified soon. Have added it to my watchlist and will think about whether i can help improve this article. Thanks for brining this to my attention 212.103 etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"advertisement" tag

This article is presented as what the AOY professes to proclaim. Most, if not all (I have not had time to review them all yet but have about 100) do this with out citing third parties as to what the religious organization itself professes to believe. What is presented in this article (AOY) is not an opinion of what the AOY publicly proclaims but is taken and referenced from the AOY's own publicly published statement of doctrine. As stated, this is the practice of articles of this nature (religious organizations) on Wikipdia. I have yet to see a call for the removal of all articles concerning religious organizations because of this practice. This is a commonly accepted practice for articles of this nature. (Except, for some reason, the AOY) Please see some of my other discussions on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ricky81682#Question_on_references_for_AOY_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:In_Citer#Thoughts_on_Assemblies_of_Yahweh_page_Doctrinal_Beliefs_section Other items in the AOY article are public (i.e. WMLK, radio, television and internet broadcast) or otherwise referenced (i.e. published books with library of congress catalogue numbers) Care has been taken to relate only what the AOY publicly proclaims to profess (as in the organization's doctrinal beliefs) or what is other wise publicly published. No discussions are entered into of the right or wrong of the AOY's doctrines. No opinions are given as to what the AOY publicly professes. None of the public activities (i.e. broadcast, publications etc...) presented are any one's opinion that these are done publicly. Because of this the AOY article is one of the more brief articles of a religious organization on Wikipedia. Effort will be made in the very near future (as of 1/2/09) to tighten up any other lose ends. Please discuss any ideas on this page's discussion or my talk page. Fctedt (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've retagged pending consensus found here. Still reads like a COI-riddled advert to me too. I have never edited an article like this before, so it's possible that notability is different in this area, though i doubt it. As it stands now, not a single independent source on this congregation. Will think on this some more.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fct, you seem to be of the mistaken impression that primary sources are prefered; they're actually seen as the least reliable for these sorts of things. Have a read of the following WP:V WP:OR and WP:NOTE. Should be helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am still looking at even more articles on religious organizations. Still am not seeing any third party references as to what the organization's themselves publicly proclaim. Please note also recent comment by an admin. on this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fctedt#Assemblies_of_Yahweh Because of the nature of these type of articles I am not sure what can be done. It might be helpful if I could be directed to a religious organization's article that cites third parties as to what that organization proclaims. I have spent many hours looking and am not getting anywhere. Thank you for your time. Fctedt (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Roman Catholic Church is a good one.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article before as this is one of the largest (if not the largest) main stream religion. If you take a few minutes to look at their references (and there are many) you will see that almost all of them quote their own publishings such as their "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and "Code of Canon Law" (i.e. see notes 28,29,33,40,56,63,75,84,85,91,98,100,105,107,113, 119,121,122,125,126,128,141,142,143,147,148,151,156,157,161,162, 166,168 and others). Note that most of the books quoted are from their own presses, and they have many (see i.e. from their reference list - SCM Press, Ignatius Press, Paulist Press, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, Servant Publications, Scepter Publications, and others). You will note that almost all of the other books quoted are written by Catholic writers on self contained subjects. There are also references to the Vatican website (see note 152 for example among others) Some sections can be construed as opinion and would at least be contested by thousands of third parties. (see paragraphs where notes 17-23 are for one area of example) I have noted that there are no "notability" or "advert" tags on this article. I also do not contest that this article is what the Roman Catholic Church believes. Perhaps there is a better example or I am not understanding something here. Thank you for your time. Fctedt (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fct, I try to look at what you write and this is what i see. "walloftext.walloftext.walloftext." This is probably due to a deficiency of mine. But as a favor, could you make your point simply and briefly? Of course, not all primary sources are thrown out and of course some primary explanation of what a church believes is good, but the question becomes one of verifiability WP:V via reliable sources WP:RS sufficient to establish notability WP:NOTE.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. The Roman Catholic Church article contains hardly any outside sources of reference. Over 90% of it (a quick but not far off estimate) quotes from 1. Their own doctrinal statements or their own websites. 2. Books from their own presses. 3. Catholic writters/representatives writing about their own church. 4. Some areas contain opinion only, not verified by anything. (The numbers here, 1-4, can be referenced as "bullet points" to the same numbered parts of the more detailed above message. In the above message (sec. 1.) the note numers (i.e. 28,29,33,40 etc...) refer to some reference notes in the RCC article given as example. Above in sec. 2. are some of the publishing presses (all Catholic) listed in the RCC article reference list. Sec. 3. Catholic authors other wise published may take more investigation of the RCC reference list but they are there. Sec. 4. refers one to the main body of the RCC article in the area of notes 17-23 (within the main text) as an example of opinion only in their article. The only things not referenced of themselves are mainly statistical material. (Mostly because of their size (even their head quarters the Vatican is considered a country) and the AOY article has no such material in it's article) Sorry for all of the text again but I'm trying to get this nailed down. In summary - I have found no religious organization article (including and perhaps even especially this Roman Catholic Church article) that does not violate in a far grander scale the same charges leveled at the AOY article. I hope you will have the time to more closely examine this example. Fctedt (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be where you and I are having a failure to communicate. I just cast an eye over the Roman Catholic article and I count at minimum 30 reliable secondary sources (the actual number could be much higher; but i'd stake my live on 20 there at present). Yet you write it contains "hardly any outside sources or references." This may be a problem I don't know how to overcome. I look at citations and see dozens of independent ones; you look and see "hardly any."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please point them out to me soon. Even if there where 30 or 40 (out of 410) that still leaves over 90% self referenced material.(For a very large article) As for now I've got to go to bed. Thanks for your time (seriously). Fctedt (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As a favor to you, i've looked over the Roman Catholic Church article citations. All of the following pass muster as per WP:RS - Woodhead; McClintock; the CIA; Aguilar; Barker; Black; Bokenkotter; Bruni; both Chadwicks; Collinson; Deak; Derrett; Duffy; etc... Ok, i give up. It looks like the preponderance of those sources are reliable and independent. Obviously, your faith is smaller and not as old, so it's not surprisign there's much less about it then the Catholic church. At the moment, the Assemblies of Yahweh article has one cite that looks like it might be RS, which is the one from the Reading Eagle.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Outreach Section

Is there any reason to keep this section? There are no sources/citations. While if this church is going to have an entry at all, it should mention the books and magazines it publishes, that should just be a sentence or two under a heading like "publications and broadcast." The rest of the stuff in this section for which there are no sources/citations seems like non-notable stuff that most churches do (i mean, bullet points for the fact that it holds sabbath services and has a website?) Some of this stuff could be summarized elswhere. Taking a stab at this now.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to give it a shot some time very soon and will certainly be taking your suggestions into account. But for now, I've been on this all day and need to eat and sleep. Could I have a day or 2?Fctedt (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One last question(s) for the day. Why are LCN's given for books not a good enough outside reference to list some of the books that are published by an organization? Also could there be some time allowed for discussion and consideration of more than just a few minutes before changes are made? Fctedt (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctrines and beliefs

I'm going to leave this alone for now, because it seems obvious to me that some of teh editors on this are members of this church. I understand this might be an important issue for them. But, someone, please, get rid of the bullet points about their doctrine and the bullet points on what is rejected as "unbiblical." Try to right, oh, about 200 words focusing on how they differ from better known congregations, or areas where they place greater and lesser emphasis. I'm sure a book could be written on this churches beliefs; but encyclopedia articles are just supposed to have the highlights. Please give it a shot.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought bullet points where highlights. For some time the effort has been to keep things brief. This article, for such a small one, receives constant pressure. I can not imagine the response if it where to increase and begin to have discussion within the article. For now I need to rest and absorb all of this and need a couple of days. Fctedt (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This article may received constant pressure because it's promotional in tone and it's hard to establish notability without reliable secondary sources, of which there are very few. Somewhere up above you asked a question about the books - a list of self-published books of no demonstrated notability just seems like advertising; i left in the one self-published book that seems most important to the church (a book listed simply as "commentaries on galacians" or whatever doesn't leap up to the tops of the notability ranks).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Most recent edits

I have not complained with your major edits being done without discussion. Again you move before anyone can respond. If you are concerned about Wik policies please be concerned with all of them. I tried to work with you here. Hardly any thing was change in your personal edits. Please allow some time to discuss. You are beginning to appear as if you have an agenda. You don't have to attack before listening. Once again I'm trying to work with you here. PLEASE discuss.Fctedt (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an agenda? You are an SPA with an apperent WP:COI whereas I never heard of this church/sect/whatever until a week ago. I invite any uninvolved editor to review the changes i've made and see if they've improved this article or not. Do not attack my motives again. As for cuts, there have been very little -- just a cut down in redundant puffery like bullet points for "conducts ministerial outreach."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not contending the over all edits. Only the rush to make changes without any apparent willingness to discuss, which I am trying to do. I made one minor edit (actually shortening the article further) on something that was not current (stating that I could not at this time find a reliable current third party reference). I did not try to change your re-write. Instantly without any regard to reading the message I sent you it was undone. This is all I am complaining about. I told you I am trying to work with you. I have thanked you for your time. As far as your "SPA" and "WP:COI" charges - I have always tried to maintain, openly on all of my discussions and actions, this article on this organization as one that was simply presenting what they themselves publicly proclaim. No pushing their beliefs, only that this is what they themselves proclaim, put out over the air and publish. As you noted (to another editor you where looking to get back up for a deletion of this article) this article draws a lot of extremes. It has been very hard to maintain with any semblance of sanity. If I or any of a few others have not done a perfect job in maintaining it this way it has been a mistake. I also admit that I may be overly sensitive to "agendas". (Although you may think I have an agenda, I assure I am trying to maintain this article in "good faith") As I have said, I am trying to work with this. I have tried to discuss thoroughly every step of the way. All I ask is the same. I really do not have a problem with the way the article is overall at this time. (except for the minor edit I tried and have put in discussion for a couple of days before any action). Also, please allow some time for some more third party references. I have a real life to tend to also. There are at this time at least a few and it is a very short article. Once again, Thank you for your time and I am trying to work with all of this. Fctedt (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific complaints? Any specific ideas to improve the article? Any specific reliable sources (read WP:RS) that we could use? If your intent here is to create an unvarnished reflection of what this church says and broadcasts, why bother? Their websites and broadcasts serve that function better then we ever could. As for you you are definitionally an WP:SPA and as i said you "appear" to have a conflict of interest WP:COI. If my presumption that you are affailiated in some way with this church is wrong, please correct me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I am not contending with you. (if you send me your address I'll even send you flowers!:) ) I completely accept your input on this. As far as what this organization publicly proclaims or broadcasts I have never inserted any opinion (or "varnishing"). These are matters of public record and that has always been my point. How these proclamations and broadcast have been received or the results of them are an entirely different matter that I have tried very hard to stay away from in my efforts on this article. My only suggestion for now, you can view from my last edit. (except now without removing the statistical info) Any forthcoming changes at least in the near future will be only for more third party references. ANY thing I propose to add or change in the future will be alerted by discussion prior to action. Fctedt (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be more specific about what is at issue. Eventually this will be archived and vague sections are of little help. I'm guessing it's about this dispute over its membership size. If so, let's rename the section heading and see what sources are there on its size. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's all slow down and think gentle thoughts about how to proceed. It has been true that this article has contained some material that is more promotional than informational, but let's move slowly in major cuts. Wikipedia needs an article about this group, but the usual call for outside sources will be hard to fulfill. And let's all check our grammar & spelling. Pete unseth (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed minor edit

A Proposal. A Discussion. I propose to delete some statistical information that was taken from a newspaper article that is now 2 years old. Numbers such as this change at least yearly. It is known that they are different now. I can provide no reliable sources for any updates at this time. The information is minor and takes nothing away from the main thrust of the article. In order to remove this from one of the sentences, the beginning of the sentence will have to be slightly re-worded for grammar without changing the rest of the sentence. A minor spelling correction will be made. The indicator PA will be inserted by the place name Bethel to clarify as Bethel PA. This location is indicated by at least 2 outside source references currently in the article. Nothing else will be changed with the article at this time. I'm not saying the newspaper article referenced is out of date, only statistical numbers that understandably change after a couple of years. The main story is relevant. I will leave ths discussion here for at least 2 days as of this posting before making any changes. If there is a consensus that the change is agreeable feel free to change it to my proposal. (the change will be back to the last fctedt change in the history) Thank you. Fctedt (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That article is the only reliable secondary source your church has -- and the single most relevant fact to a user with no knowledge of this church is an indicator of how big or small it is. Relevance, notability and verifiability should determine the thrust of the article. A user named ricky has specified the article was written in 2006 in the text, which seems reasonable. I don't see any controversy in explaining they're in Bethel "PA." Feel free to do any minor grammar or spelling fixes without seeking consensus (if they really are such). Do NOT remove the only reliable source this article has giving an indicator of this churche's size.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I will hold with this. I did not note that edit by Ricky. I will now only propose the other minor edits from my first proposal. Please read and compare this edit and discuss before reverting. Thank you Fctedt (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I would rather have newer information but I cannot even find information on the church's website. We should have something. We typically follow a cycle of WP:BRD, which encourages people to be bold first and then discuss afterwards if there's an issue. Feel free to edit but if someone else reverts, then discussion makes sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Here is are the edit details. (Of course they can be seen on the compares)- Meyer and Meyers (a miss-spell) to Elder Meyer per all published material and public broadcast. Per rest of current article and per these 4 third party nonreligious records: http://www.worldofradio.com/com0305.html http://www.totse.com/en/media/radio_free_amerika/anarc11.html http://www.textfiles.com/hamradio/anarc11.ham http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:YIs5YRqqfc8J:shortwave.org/news/NEWSLETTER_0606.PDF+elder+jacob+o.+meyer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=66&gl=us (May have to do a page word search to save time) Per having some semblance of decorum in light of these "pers". - "His" group to "the" group per all publishings and broadcast. Also referenced newspaper article always refers to "the" not "his". - "Assemblies" to full name (keeping clear) per practice of all other Wik religious group articles and uniformity with the rest of this particular article. (also added "as of 2006" wording as at beginning of article) Thats it for now. Fctedt (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

proposed references

Would like to start a new section of discussion - "proposed references". Here is a reference for consideration -http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/USA/N_Carolina/DOC/NC_DOC_Religious_Practices_Reference_Manual.pdf Here is the home address of this document http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/USA/N_Carolina/links_NorthCarolinaCorrectionsInfo.htm It could be used as an additional reference for doctrines of the AOY in article. Possibly could add a line or two in the article to use this, but I personally do not want to add any more at this time. Would prefer to incorporate it in to support existent material. Any way, could/should it be used? (do a doc word search of "Yahweh" for ease of finding the material in manual.) Fctedt (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A North Carolina manual on what religions are allowed in prison? It will have to do. What text would you like to write that is supported by this citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to add any text at this time. The manual does describe doctrines and practices of the AOY from a definite third party of an officially recognized entity (NC DOC) . Maybe add it as a second ref with the SOD ref at the first sentence of the doctrine section? Or, could it just be placed as a general ref in the list just to establish some notability? If this, then perhaps there could just be a "notability" ref list also containing some of the 3rd party publications I see from the notability section below. Fctedt (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

The AOY is notable: http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&q=assemblies%20of%20yahweh&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp —Preceding unsigned comment added by In Citer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC) How can two established users like Bali and Ricky constantly claim that the Assemblies of Yahweh isn't notable, when they can be found mentioned on hundred of sites and in books with only a click of a button? Perhaps Ricky can tell? It took me 5 seconds to find these links In Citer (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC).