Talk:The Way International/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Commentary

User:216.79.147.192 feels that the "heretical and bizarre" should be changed to "unique".

User:205.233.28.39 added to the section on organization of The Way: "Leaves and Twigs are outdated and not uesd anymore. Members are called Believers or Disciples and the church meetings are called simply Fellowship."

Annomous would like the site to say more about the "splinter groups"

Annomous, I've reverted your changes to the text dump above. There's no point in editing it directly; the reason it's there is so that if there's anything useful in it, that information can be edited into the article itself. If there's something that isn't going to make a good contribution to the article (like the opinion that the beliefs Wierwille taught were "heretical and bizarre", which may be what some people believe but shouldn't be stated as fact) then we simply won't edit it into the article. It doesn't make any sense to edit the raw material on the talk page, though.
On the subject of the splinter groups, I have no knowledge of those groups. If you do, you could try editing the information into the article yourself, or if you'd like, you could bring up the information here on the talk page; I and other editors would be happy to help edit that information into the article in a way that satisfies NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Annomous While Dr. Wierwille was still alive, The Way had seen some substanial gowth. It had over 100,000 member in all 50 states and 40 foreign countries. After his death, his succesor L. Craig Martindale released a document (I forgot what it was called) which was very much like an edicet, as if he were a pope. Alot of the leaders, in the New York Limb especially, disputed the athority of this document and decided to split from The Way. These splinter groups still belive in most, if not all of the original teaching of The Way although they reject the curent leadership. There are many such groups. These groups have led to the decline of The Way, a of 1995 its numbers had droped to 20,000. Today it is estimated that there are only about 10,000 if that. I am part of one such group and would like to have our splinter groups to be represented on wikipedia just like The Way is.

Well, you should be aware that the way The Way is represented on Wikipedia right now isn't the way it should be (which is why that beige box with the stop sign in it appears above the article at the current time.) It violates the Wikipedian principle of NPOV; that principle's pretty large and complex but a good way to understand/approximate it is that things should ideally be written so that all sides can agree them to be true. So, for instance:
Not NPOV: The beliefs of The Way, International are heretical.
NPOV: Some critics of The Way, International view their beliefs as heretical.
Not NPOV: The Way is a unique venture in the study and practical application of the Bible.
NPOV: The Way describes itself as "a unique venture in the study and practical application of the Bible.
Since a lot of the article is clearly written from an autobiographical perspective and has merely been changed from first person to third person, it isn't NPOV right now. This is also the reason that the text dump from List of purported cults wasn't just added straight in to the article; that text wasn't fully NPOV either (though it was closer, since more of it was phrased in terms of "accusations of X" rather than just "X".)
However, with that being said, there's no reason why the splinter groups shouldn't be covered in the same NPOV fashion. I'm putting in a small section stub on the splinter groups, based on a little research; often just starting an article or section attracts the attention of some other editor who sees a way they can improve yet further. Of course, that editor could be you. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey! This article is just taken word for word from the official website of "The Way"!

Oooh. Good job spotting that. I've removed the copyvio portions, which were POV anyway. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Liar! You go to the website AND NOT ONE SINGLE PHRASE OR SENTENCE comes from "theway.org". This was a neutral account from someone who holds no animosity or ill-will towards The Way International. Stanley Goodspeed 00:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not address your fellow editors as liars. The prior post was written May 5, 2005. At that time the article looked like this [1], and clearly contained information directly copied from here: [2]. -Willmcw 00:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It won't happen again. I read the post at 4 in the morning. Stanley Goodspeed 09:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the POV dispute, while I have not been involved with THE WAY for nearly 25 years, other than the reference to "Failure to follow this law can result in a violation of the reciprocal "law of prosperity" which can affect one's personal wealth and health (Watchman telephone interview with Way spokesman, Bill Green, October 11, 1996; Christian Research Journal, Fall 1988, p. 11). " - which I do not remember as a teaching - and only vague memories of the Resurrections of the Just and Unjust, the section appears to me to be a very factual representation of the beliefs of THE WAY at the time of my involvement, although it does seem to be focused largely on the most obvious contrasts between the beliefs of the THE WAY and those of more traditional Christianity. (3/30/2006)

Thanks for that endorsement of our article. Feel free to participate and fix the part that you think needs fixing. Click on the "help" link or ask anywhere if you need help. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: Can the NPOV banner be taken off of the Beliefs section? Reading through that section, it seems to have attained the NPOV - specifying that it is their beliefs and not judging whether those beliefs are true or false. Mike Straw 10:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey where are the links to the splinter groups? and grease spot cafe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.60.2 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 June 2006


Yea, this article needs to be cleaned up. It is clearly POV from The Way International. The article needs to outline the problems with the organization that some people have. Right now it is basically a glowing report of the group. Also, it uses "our." Makes it sound like wikipedia is sponsered by TWI. [allranger, April 8th]


-An article on a religious organization clearly written by the organization cannot be NPOV. In particular, allegations about cultic behavior by TWI need to be at least mentioned. Haikupoet 03:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:47, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Way International
The Way International, a pseudo-Christian group, was founded by Victor Paul Wierwille in 1942 in New Knoxville, Ohio. Wierwille founded what would become The Way after receiving what he claimed was a message from God.
Wierwille began teaching heretical and bizarre beliefs, such as the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the denial of Trinitarian doctrine, the idea that modern Jews are actually an impostor tribe from Siberia amd not God's chosen people written about in the Bible, the Holocaust of 1930s-1940s Europe is a myth, much of the Gospel doesn't have any real meaning today, and others. In 1953, Wierwille began teaching "Power For Abundant Living" (PFAL) classes, which evolved into a 36-hour taped introductory course to The Way. He defined The Way as "a Biblical research and teaching ministry." Critics have called it a cult.
The organization of The Way is unique; it resembles the structure of a tree. Individuals are Leaves, local home fellowships are Twigs, state advisers are Limb Coordinators, the headquarters is the Root.
Rumors of survival training and the buildup of a military stronghold circulated in the 1970s and 1980s. Students attending advanced classes were required to learn how to shoot a gun. They were advised to bring a Bible, Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People and "a rifle or shotgun (handgun also if desired,)" according to several publications.
In 1982 Wierwille passed leadership to L. Craig Martindale.
The group was beset by infighting and tax troubles after Wierwille died in 1985, and membership fell from an estimated 100,000 to 20,000.
Insiders have reported instances of weapons stockpiling, kidnapping, wife-swapping and other sexual misconduct, and financial scandal, with varying degrees of documentation in personal testimony, and in the press.

Way Paparazzi

I may seek to include a section on Way paparazzi ... a list of cult pharisees and ex-members who have made it their life's calling to find, publish, and fabricate every negative thing they can find about The Way International. Right now that list would include John Lynn, John Juedes, and Karl Kahler. Gideonmjames 15:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • See, that's your opinion that this is what they do. You have nothing documenting this is what they do.
  • You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Neither is allowed to just rewrite the content of the entry to reflect our opinion. Kindly read the standards information you should have reviewed when you signed up as a wikipedia editor before making any more edits. Pete Snowball 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Snowball, I didn't re-write anything ... I added an important section. If some think a "cult allegations" section is important then the "Way paparazzi" section is even MORE important. There's at least 4 or 5 people out there who have basically dedicated their lives to harassing and bringing down the Way ministry. Wikipedia readers are entitled to know about these individuals and their bias.

You didn't re-write anything in the article YET. You have "rewritten" history in this discussion by claiming that the dissent of others lacks merit. (Lynn, Juedes...) And that there are allegations of TWI being a cult is not only a matter of public record, it is the thing TWI is MOST known for out of ANYTHING-therefore it must be addressed. Otherwise, it's like an article about OJ Simpson that goes on for paragraphs about a football player and actor, but skips accusations of him committing 2 murders. As to the idea that Lynn, Juedes and others have "dedicated their lives to harassing and bringing down" TWI, they've hardly put in the time on this that you're portraying. At best, they've put in the equivalent of an industrious weekend several years back. What they HAVE said is open to discussion, by the way, but trying to head things off by saying "Never trust anything Lynn and Juedes say" is NOT acceptable for Wikipedia, and is not acceptable for debates either. All you've said about Lynn and Juedes is what advances your case, and have completely skipped DOCUMENTING your claims. There's now a nice big notice on this discussion board about DOCUMENTING your claims. It was there when you posted on it now. You might want to read it, and at least find out what that's supposed to mean. There's thousands of Wikipedia editors who can help you out with this, if you actually want to know. So far, all you've "informed" Wikipedia about is your OWN bias, and that YOU'RE basically dedicated to redo the TWI entry into something that says only what YOU want. Pete Snowball 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Photo

Someone added an entire photo gallery of the organization, and added a big photo to the top of the article. Now, personally, I think the photo GALLERY is excessive, and that the link additions turn this into an ADVERTISEMENT, not an article ABOUT the organization. However, if others disagree, I can see leaving it there.

Adding a big photo of the auditorium at the top of the article, however, IN ADDITION to the gallery, dramatically underscores the intention to make this an advertisement. No photo symbolizes the entire organization, but sticking this one at the top is something for a website PAID FOR by TWI. Let them buy their own advertising space. (Again.) Pete Snowball 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • People come to Wikipedia for info on the Way ... they want as much as they can get. Pictures give them an inside view. If there is an article about an individual it is usually accompanied by a picture. What's wrong with a picture that is representative of their headquarters? Stanleygoodspeed777 11:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I already answered this. You still have an entire photo gallery linked, and I didn't touch it. If they want to look at the front entrance to the auditorium-as if that in any way says something of the content taught IN the auditorium-they can look there. As to the rest, I'm not going to just keep repeating myself. Pete Snowball 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See everything I already said. Pete Snowball 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Deckiller moved the photo from "Pictures and Music" to the top, not me. That's where I think it should be, but you were concerned about the page becoming an advertisement so I won't put it there. People want to see pictures of the Vatican when they research the Catholic Church, so what's wrong with a spread on "The Way"? ALL encyclopedias include PICTURES ... they are part of communicating history, fact, and knowledge - which is what an encyclopedia is SUPPOSED to do. Stanleygoodspeed777 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The photos of the Vatican are in the entry on "the Vatican", NOT the Roman Catholic Church. You still have entire gallery of links, which I didn't touch. If people "want to see pictures of TWI", the SMART THING is for them to go to TWI'S WEBSITE. If they don't want to do that, you STILL have the entire gallery of links. Are you saying that there's people who "want to see what TWI looks like", who refuse to go to their website, and refuse to click on their links here, and that's who you're posting for? Pete Snowball 06:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another possibility: make a new article about the auditorium, and load the thing up with all the pictures you want, under the excuse it's what people "want to know about the auditorium." I mean, people who want to know about TWI are MUCH less interested in what it LOOKS like than its practices and doctrines. But if people want to read an article on the AUDITORIUM, by golly, they might want to see what it looks like. Pete Snowball 06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Nonetheless, I won't post the picture until we come to some kind of an agreement. Stanleygoodspeed777 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's been 4 days with no response. I'm going to re-post the pic since it's towards the bottom of the page and since the Roman Catholic Church, Mormon Church, and the Baptist Church pages all have multiple pictures. Stanleygoodspeed777 10:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)



I have no beef with the (one) picture. Ten of Swords 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Commitment

Thought about rewriting it like this:

"The Way International has no official "membership" other that the Board of Directors and in theory, no attendance commitment. The Way however discourages continuing in the meetings or taking their classes if no on-going commitment has been evidenced."

What I mean is that (so it doesn't come across wrong) in my area for instance we didn't run a class even though we had more than the minimum number of people express interest and want to pay etc. The reason being was that they had hardly any exposure to The Way and the local leader didn't want them to have to shell out cash for something if they weren't sure. They weren't and appreciated it.. Yes that is just one example but I used it as a way to express why I thought about rewriting the piece (that was recently added) as above. Lsjzl 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Other than moving the word "however" to the beginning of the sentence, that's exactly how I'd put it. (And I wonder if your local leader got in trouble for doing that..) Actually, I'd also drop the word "the" before "meetings". Pete Snowball 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Changed the line. I used yr suggestions as well Pete. As for the local leaders they didn't get in trouble but I admit that for some this is a change. The local leader in question is Way Corps and took awhile to get to this point. But we're glad she did! Lsjzl 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


The Way International Ministries and Global God International

I removed the link to this group under "ex-member" sites. This group never was connected with former TWI members in any way until one of them contacted this group. Their only connection with TWI was their choice of name as "The Way International Ministries". He was looking for all organizations legally using the name "The Way" for use in a lawsuit against TWI. They had never HEARD of TWI until he contacted them. This went to court, and TWIM agreed to change their name because it was a copyright infringement on TWI's copyright of "the Way INTERNATIONAL." (Despite their operations barely being "international" at this time and TWIM's operations being primarily "international", TWI owns the copyright.) So, Global God International's only connection with TWI in any way was in the choice of name, and ended when they changed their name. Their website has the following disclaimer:

"This ministry (Global God International Ministries, formerly known as The Way International Ministries, Inc.) is in no regard associated with "The Way International", New Knoxville, OH, or any other ministry utilizing the term "The Way". We, Global God International Ministries, formerly known as The Way International Minsitries, Inc.,are a separate and independant legal entity, organized under the laws of the State of Illinois with a separate federal identification number and tax-exempt status. Please be advised that our ministry is not to be confused or identified with any other ministry, especially with "The Way International" who refer to themselves as "The Way", of New Knoxville, OH."

Frankly, given how their encounter with TWI fell out, it's hardly surprising they'd want to make it CRYSTAL clear that there was no connection between that group and theirs. Pete Snowball 15:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I wonder if I should editorialize like this? Got the point. Good to have removed it. Lsjzl 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I came across it yesterday and just assumed it was an ex-member. Thank you for correcting my error. Stanleygoodspeed777 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Redundant links

I removed some of the new links to the Way's website. There's only need for ONE link to their website, and there's currently two: the main page and "recent articles". (Some people would say that this is excessive, and they may be right.) I removed several additional links to multimedia presentations and "music videos" to the site. Anyone who wants to take a multimedia tour, see the paid commercial (the Terry Bradshaw thing was a PAID COMMERCIAL and its script was entirely crafted by TWI, which is why his slang suddenly sounded so strange, like mentioning "international countries" and so on) or see a video of "the Chorus Choir" (that's the name TWI gave them) can go ahead and look at their site. This is an article about TWI-not a commercial for them nor a new "outreach tool." We could post HUNDREDS of specific links to TWI-critical sites, but we haven't done THAT, either.

If anyone wants to discuss adding "commercials" to the article, they are free to post about it right here and we'll discuss it.Pete Snowball 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bradshaw ran the MSNBC show for 4 or 5 months and then moved on to his football stuff. Why would MSNBC charge or seek payment from the companies that they highlighted? That charge sounds a little outrageous. Stanleygoodspeed777 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should have put them under "Links", but what's wrong with an inside look into the group?
These seem to me to be good links.Stanleygoodspeed777 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A proper way to "discuss" this is to actually engage in discussion rather than just repost something and then trying to justify its presence. Everybody thinks that links in their favor are "good links." There's a limit to what's relevant to a wikipedia entry, and some would say one link to a site is plenty. There are currently 3 links to their site, and if anyone wants to spend time at their site and watch anything, they can easily find it.

As for the commercial, you are poorly informed on this specific issue. TWI paid $29,000.00 to have that taped in the first place. That commercial was one of many Bradshaw just sat and read his script on. The script is so obviously a TWI-written script to anyone who's familiar with their style of writing. The Broadcast News Channel pulled the spot, and enacted new, more stringent procedures before airing similar spots specifically as a result of this incident. TWI does not own the rights to the airing of this spot-which means they're in violation of copyright to MSNBC and/or Terry Bradshaw for even uploading it to their site. MSNBC pulled the spot and will not reair it as well. The claim in the commercial that they were "picked"- they were "picked" by paying $29,000.00, and none of the non-TWI people actually knew about TWI before the spot was bought. Any church could have paid $29,000 to be "picked", but how many have caused BNC to re-evaluate their system because they regretted a commercial? Pete Snowball 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to point something out, I agree that there probably shouldn't be 10 links to the same Way website. Perhaps in the description of the one link however could be a statement about what can be found at the site. On the other hand Pete, I read the same Greasespot threads as you about the MSNBC spot but, you cannot site those conversations as actual proof that they are in copyright infringment as reasoning behind why we won't link to it. If it is determined to be a valid link or not the only reason those details can be used is if they can be cited. If so, it might be great to have it up on the main page for detractors as well. I do understand you only wrote that here on the talk page... but still. Lsjzl 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning as to why we won't link to it was stated-there was a small stack of links to specific pages all over the site. The sum total of the meaning of the links-going to a commercial, a music video and all the articles onsite-changed the meaning of the link section into an unpaid advertisement for TWI, NOT a wikipedia information link section. Plus. the links were divided into 2 sections, which can appear to have been for the purpose of making it look like there were FEWER links to the same site (by spreading them out.) THAT's why I objected to the links-and I left three, which is 2 more than some unbiased editors would leave. My note about copyright infringement was a comment that I felt was relevant in discussing the commercial generally. TWI does not actually own the rights to it, but seems to feel they can declare "eminent domain" over it. That says something all by itself. I could interject an irrelevant tirade here, but that's beneath us. As to the continual return of the links, please note that reverting things we've discussed and agree are appropriate is not effective. (I'm referring to Stanley.) Lsjzl admits to being a current member, and can see the sense in not stacking or scattering links. Lsjzl has no difficulty engaging in civilized discussion and open dialogue. Stanley, you could learn a lot from Lsjzl. Please also note that proper discussion and attempts to persuade that a change is appropriate belong on this page, NOT in the edit description of the edit. Please keep the description of the edit to an actual description OF the edit, and place discussion of same on this page. You MIGHT convince us of the rightness of your position after we hear it. At the least, you'll demonstrate a willingness to show mutual respect. We can actually respect each other and disagree, and sometimes we will agree. Pete Snowball 13:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Pete. Gotcha on your reasoning. Also, from what I understand it is considered non-wiki to constantly re-edit so for sure the re-linking should stop. Should only be discussed here now, and then once agreed upon be done once and for all. I have learned a lot from discussions with Antaeus as well. Check out his reasoning for placing the cult accusations back in the intro. That part isn't directed at you Pete, just for growth for other editors. Lsjzl 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-trimmed the # of links to TWI's website. I've left 3, which is 2 more than they need. If I have to KEEP removing more, I'll begin leaving it at 2 links, which is still 1 more than necessary. Interesting how that link just snuck in quietly DESPITE our discussions...Pete Snowball 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Dialogue and NPOV

  • Hopefully, we can get the main contributors in on a discussion as to how to issue a neutral point of view. — Deckiller 20:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • To : Deckiller and Philwelch

All I am seeking is a fair-and-balanced presentation of the material the Way International claims to teach and uphold. The tabloid history and rumors of disgruntled ex-members from 20 or 30 years ago are not part of an unbiased encyclopedic entry of what this group claims to represent and should be deleted. Comments appreciated. - StanleyGoodspeed777

  • It's possible-but I wouldn't count on it. Other than our current discussion participant (who still hasn't turned into a pillar of salt for it), the usual policy is to "own the microphone."

Participating in something they don't control-especially open communication-is absolutely the opposite of what they ever do. In fact, they've been known to find current members with messageboards and dictate policy to them-requiring they close their messageboard to all non-members. Our ninja editors so far have just tried editing and calling the edits "true"-which changes nothing about them, and tried sneaking in major edits and labelling them after minor edits done simultaneously-which is intentionally deceptive, and tried to communicate privately rather than publicly, and threw around some insults, and now finally tried to threaten us. The "threaten" business, in fact, is old policy which used to work on people, and still works on the handful still IN the group. That they even tried it here, I believe, is quite a signal about the character of the organization they're "defending." But, hey, if they actually come to the table, I'll palaver with them. Everyone's equal here. I'll extend to them every courtesy and right I claim for myself. Pete Snowball 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Bud, all these "ninja editors" you're referring to are one person, me ... StanleyGoodspeed. And all I've ever done is read several of Victor Wierwille's books and have a strong desire to know more meat and potatoes - more TRUTH - about this organization. What is the most frustrating thing for me is that for the year-and-a-half that I have been checking out the Way International page half of my edits were either changed or deleted WITHIN AN HOUR after I posted them - HIGHLY FRUSTRATING. On top of that, every time I've come to the page recently it has become more and more of a tabloid read about every little thing that apparently only 2 or 3 editors SAY has happened at the organization over the past 40 years. What kind of an encyclopedic entry is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.108.176 (talk • contribs)

__________

Actually, I figured they were all one person, but gave the benefit of the doubt. As to never having any connection to the group and ONLY having read his books, you post the group slang and jargon as deftly-as REFLEXIVELY-as someone who was in for more than a decade-and who either is STILL in, or wishes he was and was kicked out at their whim. So forgive me if I disbelieve your claim of being a neutral stranger who just wandered in. BTW, why does a nonmember of the group have all the contact information for it-with which you've claimed you ALREADY referred them to us to pursue legal action?

  • First, it was an empty threat because, for 30th or 40th time my edit was erased within 30 minutes of my post - HIGHLY frustrating. Second, the only contact I've been able to establish with TWI is 2 phone calls to their headquarters, 1 visit to their grounds, and a meeting with their Tennessee state coordinator.

For someone who wants to "know more" about this organization, your posts have either been to REMOVE INFORMATION (so we know less) or to ADD YOUR OWN OPINION (which has nothing to do with you yourself "learning" anything. And there's a consensus that your posts keep warranting reversion within an hour after you post them-by experienced editors who have no personal interest in the organization. Doesn't that tell you something about your posts? Calling the entry a tabloid read in no way requires anyone to agree with you. If you think something is inappropriate, bring it up and by all means, we'll discuss it. Maybe we'll agree. As for some of your edits, you've done things like label major content changes "punctuation edit". Repeatedly.

That's not true, bud ... I have tried to label every single edit I've done honestly and descriptively. Any punctuation edits I've done will have followed after what I call a TPOV or FB-POV edit.
What about this edit, then? The edit summary is "corrected punctuation". Among the changes made in that edit? "One of them was Jesus Christ is Not God, in which he addressed his belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God but not a persona of the Christian God or a pre-existent being." becomes "One of them was Jesus Christ is Not God, in which he addressed the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God but not God Himself, or a persona of the Christian God, or a pre-existent being." (emphasis added) Even if you given that edit an accurate edit summary, it still would have been an absolutely unallowable edit -- Wikipedia is not in the business of declaring anyone's religious beliefs to be "the truth". -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
O.K. I should have labeled it "corrected punctuation and reworded 4 sentences" ... I'm a Wikipedia amateur, bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanleyGoodspeed777 (talk • contribs)
You've been here since October 9, 2005 at least -- that's the datestamp on the previous discussion that you just removed, including two comments from "Stanley Goodspeed". (I've restored those, of course, since there was no good reason to delete them.) And, as already stated, even if you had given that edit an accurate edit summary, it still would have been an unacceptable edit! You have been here by your own words for about a year and a half. There is no reason it should take anyone even a day and a half to grasp the meaning of WP:NPOV, especially not one who tries to invoke their own made-up variations such as "TPOV", "FB-POV", et cetera. Please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you had no way of knowing that you shouldn't edit a Wikipedia article to describe the beliefs of your religious organization as "the truth", bud. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty close to the time I think I started (might have been July or August of last year) ... so, all right I've posting for about a year. I deleted it because we need to bury the past and move on. Man, TPOV is what I call truthful POV, not truth POV. What a couple of editors have engaged in on this page (not necessarily you, I haven't gone digging through the histroy pages to see who posted what) is tabloid journalism on just about everything negative they can find on the Way and then are trying to call it an encyclopedic entry. The TWI page is not NPOV, bud ... it's a decidedly negative and clearly biased entry AGAINST the group. NOT cool, NOT informative, and that is NOT the quality that Jimmy Wales said Wikipedia should strive for. I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing ... I just want to be allowed to contribute my input on at least 2 or 3 sections in a civil, reasoned, and agreeable manner. Can't you meet me halfway? Stanleygoodspeed777 05:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You're not trying to "bury the past and move on." You're trying to change the subject. The fact is that you're pretending to be a "Wikipedia amateur" who doesn't understand the most basic fundamental principle of Wikipedia when you've been here about a year at least and have no excuse for that level of ignorance. And at the same time you're pretending that you couldn't possibly be expected to follow WP:NPOV in even its simplest incarnation because you're too much of an "amateur", you're also trying to declare yourself enough of an expert on it to declare that everyone else is failing that standard. You claim that you "just want to be allowed to contribute my input on at least 2 or 3 sections in a civil, reasoned, and agreeable manner" but what your actual edits show is that you want to remove anything that reflects poorly on TWI (such as the fact, supported by two sources, that Martindale's term ended amid allegations of sexual misconduct) and, as Pete puts it well, turn the article into an unpaid advertisement for TWI. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar, my man, I appreciate the character assassination and all, but I am NOT an expert. What I've done for about a year now is check the TWI page every week or so, take 4 or 5 minutes to post what I wanted to see, and then left (only to come back and see my contributions kicked in the nuts and drop-kicked out the door). Mr. Martinadale was a friend of my Dad's and he did NOT do what was alleged before his removal from leadership. Hope we can get along. Stanleygoodspeed777 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason your "contributions" have been "kicked in the nuts and drop-kicked out the door" is because they violated rules that are absolutely central to Wikipedia, such as WP:NPOV. You are, as you yourself acknowledge, "NOT an expert" on NPOV -- but then why do you think that you are entitled to pass judgement that "the TWI page is not NPOV"? Why do you think you are allowed to make up substitute rules as long as you give them names like "CPOV" and "TPOV" and "FB-POV"? Five minutes spent reading WP:NPOV would have made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that an edit like this which asserts your own religious belief to be, quote, "the truth", is absolutely against the rules. Please, please, spare us your self-pitying whine about "character assassination". Holding you responsible for your actions and the inconsistencies in them is one of the consequences of being an adult, not "character assassination". As for your Dad knowing Martindale, read Wikipedia:No original research. You wouldn't even be in the right if you were trying to say "I will mark these allegations false, because my father knowing one of the people in question means I have a direct line on the truth." You are blatantly out of line when you assert that you not only know the truth on the matter, but you're allowed to remove discussion of anything that disagrees. (And by the way? I don't know about TWI, but in most denominations that I know of, even a consensual affair between a church leader and a parishioner is "sexual misconduct". Since Martindale admitted such an affair, your claim that all allegations of sexual misconduct are false rings a little hollow.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not honest EITHER. So, you've already done a poor job of conveying the stance of someone interested in TRUTH rather than someone who's determined to decide what all of us should believe IS the truth.

  • Man, I just can't stand what I call "tabloid journalism" ... it's like when I watch the History Channel and they have a special on Abraham Lincoln or Geoge Washington or the Bible ... and then they spend HALF THE PROGRAM reporting all the negatives and shortcomings of their private lives. WHO CARES. What were the words they spoke, the deeds they accomplished, and the mark they left on history ... THAT'S what I want to know - the meat and potatoes, not the month-old leftovers covered in mold.

Despite all that, if you decide to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with the policies of Wikipedia (which is linked all over and you're long overdue to read them), I'm prepared to discuss this article with you in a civil manner, in detail, long term. I ask the same in return.

  • That works for me, Pete. I look forward to communicating with you.

User:StanleyGoodspeed777 7:19, 7 August 2006

Please sign each one of your comments. It makes for a much more worthwhile read. Please understand that there are more people reading this than just the two involved in the discussion. Thanks. Lsjzl 15:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see... "And [b]all I've ever done is read several of Victor Wierwille's books[/b] and have a strong desire to know more meat and potatoes - more TRUTH - about this organization. What is the most frustrating thing for me is that for [b]the year-and-a-half that I have been checking out the Way International[/b]"

"[b]Mr. Martinadale was a friend of my Dad's[/b] and he did NOT do what was alleged before his removal from leadership."

My, my. Seems someone can't keep their stories straight. ONLY read some books? Loy is/was a friend of the family? Wasn't he also supposedly a complete outsider to the group who just happened to visit them and only by coincidence speaks their jargon "like a native?" It's simpler and better-received just to be up-front from the beginning, or just come clean sooner rather than later. It's less work, it can earn respect, and it's not like the present gambit is working or anything... Pete Snowball 13:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Way_International/Archive_1&oldid=1080912730"