Talk:Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

blog.nccg.info

I'm wondering why links to http://blog.nccg.info do not work on Wikipedia. When I click on them, I get a 403 error. Any ideas? http://www.nccg.info works just fine. Drumpler 00:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Test

Not even the alternate URL works. What I'll probably do is make a redirect on another page later which will link to the relevant pages. Drumpler 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It works now. Drumpler 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew question

I'm curious to know if anyone in this group actually understands Hebrew. If the idea of the name of the group is "the family of the 'Heart of Zion'" then the Hebrew for this is mishpachat lev-tsiyon. The word for family is formed from the three letter Hebrew root Sh-P-Ch, with the noun-forming prefix M and a suffix H, which is a consonant used to mark the feminine vowel ending "a".

In Hebrew, when they want to say X belongs to Y, they modify the word X. If it is a feminine word with the normal "a" vowel ending, like TVR-H torah (where the H represents this vowel), the word receives a T suffix, to mark that it belongs to what follows. For example, Hebrew does not say *torah Yahweh, it says torat Yahweh. A mare harnessed to Solomon's chariot would be susat hammelech (the mare of the king), not *susah hammelech.

I have a strong suspicion that the leader of this group knows how to use a Hebrew dictionary, but does not know how phrases and sentences are made in Hebrew. This suggests he cannot read Hebrew. That is a very major problem if God's word is supposed to be written in Hebrew (and the close dialect of Aramaic). If he cannot read God's word in the original, what authority does he have as a teacher? Alastair Haines 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Yahweh" "revealed" this name to them in late 2005. "He's" "revealed" many such things to them, including that the "Holy Spirit" is female and that "Satanists" attack them on a regular basis, although they're distancing themselves from the latter (it'd seem). "He" also "revealed" to them I had a spiritual illness, that it was passing to another investigator, and when I almost believed this, it almost killed me as it was really psuedomonus (?) and E. Coli that passed into my brain where my shunt use to be. Dangerous what people can do with just a little bit of knowledge. Drumpler 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across this and thought I would add some information which I have experienced directly from the leader of this group. He has told me that Yahweh speaks to him and has revealed many things to him, including the seven spirits of the Holy Spirit (at least that is the message I got from him) and that he believes it will 'come to pass' that he himself will receive seven wives. When I was involved with this leader, I was seen as becoming number 6! During lengthy discussions, I was led to believe that I was born from this leader, that I came from him. (go figure!) There was a sad time in my life that I beleived that garbage and can now talk about it without feeling worried in anyway. What I think this leader was saying is that God sends him the woman and that this leader beleives that yahweh has told him to marry these woman. A certain person he consults with tells the leader that she also rreceives this knowledge and therefore it must be fullfilled. To be honest with you and this is pure speculation on my part, maybe this woman who apparently receives direct messages from God actually fancy's these woman herself! lol (seriously, its worth contemplating!! When ever I questioned the Holy Spirit being female and about the seven wives, I was told not to be disobedient and not to mock God.Icegems1 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! God reveals things directly to the leader, I see. The whole point of the protestant reformation was that God gave the Bible so ordinary women and men could hear his words directly. It is not so hard to understand that we should trust other people more than the words in the Bible. When I teach the Bible, I always feel it is me that is under scrutiny. If people cannot see how whatever I might say comes from the text of the Bible, then I have failed. I succeed when people are so confident they understand the Bible for themselves that they teach others to read it too.
The hardest part of reading the Bible is that it reminds us of things about ourselves that we'd rather forget. The whole point of the Bible is that God forgives us these things, so we don't have to keep feeling guilty, we can get on with changing.
This article is very well written in my opinion. It is certainly neutral in tone. There are many verifiable facts. It is informative about a notable movement. Cheers. Alastair Haines 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look back in the archives, the arthicle was largely written by the leader himself. I think some of the claims are exaggerated but I more or less gave up because it was an uphill battle. Oh well. I think that what needs to be in there is still in there. Drumpler 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He also won't let it be placed in the "destructive cults" category, even though Mary Alice Crapo, an expert exit counselor, has deemed it as such. Drumpler 07:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I can confirm, from my own perspective, that the whole seven wives and seven Holy Spirits thing (he later entertained the idea of 14 to me) is correct. There are things that definitely belong in this article, such as the "Sacred Menorah" chart. I have some of these materials and am in a more neutral position to include them. A good place to start, though, is here which explains a possible Kabbalistic connection. The article, though on my site, was not written by me. The charts being criticized were made originally by Christopher C. Warren himself and are protected under U.S. Fair Use laws. Drumpler 10:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If CC Warren wrote most of the text, he did so in the right NPOV tone. There are difficulties with verifying the facts as they will be essentially self-published, though I suspect several will be documented by others over time. Another difficulty is statements of doctrinal position may well change. Warren, it seems, determines these unilaterally, and so can be the only authoritative source of information.
You are doing the right things regarding copyright. Good for you. Anything you can legally copy for private use, I would recommend you do keep a copy of. There may well be people who want to study this movement for the sake of history and you are an ideal person to assist. Or, it may be that you yourself will end up producing something for publication in time. Alastair Haines 14:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you in terms of "tone", its just the small subtleties that got to me, the things I know are false and yet he's clever at hiding it (and changing it -- this article, I'm afraid, may forever be in flux). There were many things I know to be "true", but for the sake of Wikipedia, I went so far as to only verify. Sad thing is, he controls what he writes and then lies about his identity. Look in the old archive. He tried to make himself seem to be a disinterested party, and then posted personal information about myself, even going so far as what I had up as my away message on my Yahoo account (I had him unblocked and wanted to see if he'd respond to it, so that's why I wrote what I did in the first place)!
Another thing is, the "facts" aren't really verified either, since they are lacking proper notation. When I added today's entries, I was sure to add heavy notation, so he couldn't use it to character assassinate me again. When I first got heavily involved with Wikipedia, this was the first article I worked on and I wasn't exactly in a good state of mind as I was still in recovery. Plus, I didn't know the difference between "truth" and "verifiability".
Regarding verifiability, the U.S. Representative, Bud Rice, just recently resigned.[1] The article makes a statement that U.S. headquarters is in the United States of America, when really, it was just him and myself. When I left, it was just him. Now that he's resigned, its no one. Should I delete or alter that statement to reflect this change in position or should I just delete it period since it isn't properly documented? I know that statement to be pure crock.
I already have a back-up of each sermon unless the sources change around again. I have back-up copies of other things also. I will restore them if it becomes a problem, as I think I am protected under the U.S. Fair Use laws regarding that also. Drumpler 14:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the US HQ, I think both your ideas have merit. Do what you think best, you can change again later. I'd go with modifying things to reflect the current situation, but keep a record of the history. If the text is challenged, how do you know Bud has resigned? If you have a personal communication from Bud regarding that, that is a primary source! Your difficulty is that you yourself are an eye-witness and primary source for several things. If you have things documented on your own web-site, that gives Wiki-readers a better chance to evaluate you as a credible source. Writing things straight into the article would be the problem. When I read about certain current events and people at Wiki, I check sources and some blogs I believe, others I don't. In this case, I think other readers would value the opportunity to assess your site for themselves. Alastair Haines 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to go compiling several things on my site for purposes of documentation. I have a few things on there, but I'm afraid that it might be argued to be "contentious" because I was angry when I wrote a lot of them and it really showed. Every once in a while, though, how I really feel slips out. ;) What makes a source unreliable, though, really? Drumpler 15:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, news reports and documentaries are often interested in people's emotional reaction to things, it is not only part of the facts, it is part of what makes it meaningful. Your emotions can even be part of the documentation. Perhaps it would even be worth writing a short article, "My feelings -- looking back" or something like that. Rather than letting your feelings "poke out" while documenting facts, give a little time to documenting your feelings. I don't mean "spill your guts", I mean try to write clearly, comprehensively and accurately about what feelings you have had and the sequence of those feelings. Much of this is likely to be quite individual, but a fair bit of it will be shared by others. Both are helpful things. It's just an idea. At least I know that I am interested. Alastair Haines 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Garden

Likewise, if one avails themselves to the sermons on his webpage at http://www.nccg.org/sermons/ and http://groups.msn.com/SermonsfromMishpachahLev-tsiyon/, they will learn, especially in the earlier sermons, of a "place" called "The Garden". This seems to have been intentionally excluded from the article since it is one of their more controversial beliefs where a woman receives revelation from "Yah'shua" by "touching" her husband's heart in this "spiritual place". Drumpler 10:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just included a section under "Beliefs" about "The Garden". I considered it from both a skeptic and believer's angel, quoting both agreeing and disagreeing sources. I likewise included information about Crapo in the controversy section. Drumpler 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Polygyny and Echad Sexuality

I have added some information regarding the group's beliefs concerning polygyny and clarified the information regarding bisexuals, homosexuals and lesbianism. Drumpler 12:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise added statements regarding the group's old practice of echad sexuality. Drumpler 13:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

And already, the vandalism begins.[2]

I traced the IP to the Netherlands, although its possible they are proxying. I'm very sure, though, due to the nature of the vandalism, that the person is a sympathiser.

If it gets out of hand, I'll request a limited block. I'm going to revert, though. There's really nothing in the article that can't be verified. Likewise, the addition wasn't written in NPOV.

Hey, if you want to knock Crapo, write an article about her. But be sure to follow Wikipedia's guidelines regarding living people. Hell, you can even write one about me if you feel so inclined. Drumpler 14:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd likewise like to add, if some sympathiser reallly wants to chime in their two cents, link to NCCG / MLT criticisms in a NPOV. Not the way you handled it. Drumpler 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Breach of Agreement by Drumpler

I wish it stated for the record - and this can be verified from the archives - that Drumpler is in breach of his original agreement for the final draft of this entry and is responsible for any edit war that may now ensue. His word is not worth a dime. (213.66.20.254 15:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

If you're going to edit war, go right ahead. :) Its pretty funny, though, how well timed it was and when it was. ;) Can you really contest the facts? Make up more cultic garbage? I don't care. Go ahead. Drumpler 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh and BTW . . . on Wikipedia, there is no final draft. Drumpler 15:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about any agreement that has been made. For the record, I'm willing to stand beside Derek in any discussion there may be. Stay calm Derek, but you will probably want to spell really the normal way and remove b**t in your chat above. Alastair Haines 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. :) Drumpler 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And an agreement was made, some time back ago, but that was only because I was under duress and I did so for my own mental and emotional health. If you note the archives above, every little thing I wrote was nitpicked and Landau and Lil'Dummy/uaasun tagteamed so I felt I HAD to quit. I think they're just upset that I included what I did, as it is verifiable, every bit of it. Drumpler 15:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, note this: [3]
I'll admit, what I wrote when I made the revert was probably provoking (sorry!), but the person put up a page from a secret nccg.org archive, clueing me off as to who they really were. I don't mind criticism, but "Jamsine" was never involved and Landau7 did the same thing. Landau7 is Chris Warren (he released a "testimony" from my mother and a half-true story about my landlord, from the same site). This person is probably likewise Chris Warren. There log states they only started contributing today (proving he's either in the NL or proxying).
I think what they're trying to do is get my emotions involved and I'm at a much better psychological state than I was. So what I'm going to do is just walk away and do something else today. Drumpler 15:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of NCCG/MLT Vandalism

Sermon Links Killed
I am going to go soon but I had to check one more time. I think we can be fairly certain of the person involved because now the sermons are dead on the nccg.org site (this within minutes of the anon IP's vandalism and post to this page). Isn't it funny how when I do provide verifiable information, they kill the sources to hide it? I have every one of those sermons also. They will go on my own site tonight and the links will be changed in this article to reflect that. This is just sad and, if a certain person is watching, I hope this verifies to you that you are indeed in a cult. Drumpler 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Alastair, you saw the original sources, correct? Drumpler 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sources Restored

I have restored the links which "anon" IP 213.66.20.254 removed from his own server. I say "his own server" because I believe the user to be Christopher C. Warren, the group's own leader, whom I likewise believe to be Landau7, a former contributor to this article. My reasons for believing this are that all three have access to the group's secret[4] archive, where a "testimony" from my mother, an article about my relationship with my landlord and a conversation with a former "girlfriend" are all discussed[5][6][7] and just after 213.66.20.254's vandalism attempts noted above, the sermons, which were active on the group's own site when I posted them earlier today (6 May 2007), disappeared, which killed my sources. Regardless of their IP (it is possible to proxy), I think some form of abuse needs to be reported regarding this and similar users as I don't think this article will be in a solid state until they are. I likewise think that maybe a block should be thrown up to limit who can post. The account seems to be special interest[8], just like Landau7's[9], because it was active starting today and both more or less focus on MLT articles.

Now, in hosting these sermons on my domain, I am arguing for fair use on the basis that I'm only using a small handful of the sermons, the information cannot be obtained elsewhere, the work is being used for commentary, criticism and newsreporting and that I do not think my usage of them should cause any serious monetary harm as the group isn't selling them and even when they have sold sermons in the past, its been in groups. Likewise, regarding earlier events, I do not think the other place where they can be obtained, the sects' own online group at http://groups.msn.com/SermonsfromMishpachahLev-tsiyon to be stable, as it opens and closes depending upon the whims of the leader and what he does and does not want to share and when and when not he wants to share it[10]. While legally, the group's leader has the right to share what he wants, I find, personally, for a Wikipedia article, this to be unacceptable as it gives him a certain amount of control over the sources and how this article should be written. This is the reason I have chosen to archive, basing my practices on such notable sites as Google and Archive.org which do the same thing without legal reprecussion.

I am making these additions in good faith, trying to maintain the integrity of the article.

I am including four sermons and demonstrating them in four ways (at least on the discussion page). First, the article as it was originally archived and as it was on nccg.org. Second, the archive as it appears on the sermons group above. Third, a screen capture of the article on the aforemention group with a U.S. government-sponsored timer (to demonstrate when I took the screen captures and that they indeed come from NCCG/MLT resources). Fourth, if there's a Google archive, I have included it to show that the articles have not been tampered with in any way by me. If one can find any additional independent archives, they should feel free to include them, either as a fourth or fifth+ item.

The sermons are as following (sermon number. title (date)):
003. Sukkot 2005 - The Sacred Garden of Yahweh (24.09.2005)1234
007. Angels, Patriarchy, Pre-Existence, Torah and Satan (15.10.2005)123
014. Mothers, Matriarchy and Heavenly Mother(03.12.2005)123
017. Introducing Hanukkah - the Garden and Abortion (24.12.2005)123

I am including the first link on all four sermons within inclusion of the article. If more Google links lurk up and they appear to be stable, I shall change to them for inclusion within the article text. They are under The Garden subsection under the Beliefs section Drumpler 02:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, scratch that, I'm going for the second link for each sermon as they are more pleasing to the eye. The first links will serve as a reminder of what was there before. Drumpler 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I struck through some of the links as they are no longer active. Drumpler 07:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Manual Revert

I am manually reverting the links which I removed[11] to what they were before the links went dead because I found out from this page that it is generally good practice to keep the links as they were until another copy can be found. I likewise deleted the copyrighted files off of my own server in order to avoid legal complications. Links 3 and 4 (where applicable) in the sermons listed above have been retained, though, as I do not see how they cause serious copyright complications. They are evidence that I am not lying about my research. Likewise, I have all the original pages on file if a dispute were to come up and I were to be accused of lying. I am also linking to sermons on the sect's public sermon group. If they go dead also, the referenced statements, per Wiki policy, shall remain as they are. Drumpler 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made the proposed edits[12] and as one can see, the articles referenced were as they were before with links I added to the group's sermon group. The reason I had to manually edit was because I didn't want to destroy any contributions made between yesterday and today. Drumpler 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Reliable Sources

From Wikipedia: Reliable sources:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

Per my arguments above, I know this group likes to shift things around, hence the reason I've relied on a lot of screen shot documentation when sourcing this group. It really is sad, as it makes the group seem less reliable when it does these things and goes against Wikipedia's publication process for reliable sources. It is for this reason that if the group keeps deleting and changing its materials to make me look unreliable, I will rely largely on photo documentation and Internet archival services. Likewise, when materials are deleted, it doesn't allow my sourcing to speak for itself, since Wikipedia criterion allows one to maintain dead links until a similar copy of the same article can be found or an article which states the same idea. So if what I suspect is really going on (and I know it is), you are all actually doing yourself a disservice. Drumpler 02:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

I think this article needs clean up, as much of the material is not sourced. I am deleting the Oil City comment, per my recommendation above, because a) I know there's no congregation there and b) the one person who was out there resigned. Finally (the most important one, at that!) c) it isn't sourced. Drumpler 03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Decided to modify the statement instead. Drumpler 03:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Over the next week or so, I'm proposing to go through the article and reference the article. Where I can't reference it, I'll add a [citation needed] and, if after a reasonable amount of time, no sources can be found, will delete unsourced material. This, of course, doesn't apply to dead links that previously pointed to a site, but I think I will need to come up with another referencing method for things of this nature. Drumpler 09:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Landau7 Removing Unfavourable Material

Landau7, the one I suspect to be the group's leader per my arguments above, removed this[13] statement even though it is, actually, 100% correct and verifiable. Mary Alice Crapo did make that statement to the NWT at that time. I have that newspaper article on file and even linked to a portion of the group's own site where they make reference to her making that statement. This is clearly bias, it is not demonstrating NPOV, and just happened after 213.66.20.254's vandalism to the article yesterday and then the subsequent pulling down of reference material on nccg.org.

He is very likely to have removed it as part of his ongoing, although now slower, edit war on this wiki site, where he removes information that portrays his group in Sweden in a negative light. If you note his comment above (which he initially deleted, but I restored, in order to show his bias), he intends on going into an edit war with me.

I'm proposing a block on the Landau7 account and confirmed sock puppets and special interest accounts but do not know the appropriate avenue to report it. Would this be sockpuppeting? I am asking the advice and opinions of others that are involved with this article. Drumpler 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Strike through by Drumpler 07:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also including a link and a screenshot to one of the group's more "private" groups. The page in question, the link page, however, is public. And the screen shot shows the relevant portion which I highlighted before taking the snapshot. This demonstrates how the group actually encourages its members and investigators to edit this article and shows how they know of its existence. Drumpler 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a trace route on the IP that I thought was from the Netherlands and it traced it right back to Sweden[14], TeliaNet, the location of the person who initially wrote this article[15] and likewise the location of the group's known compound[16]. I think it is settled and would recommend a trace route on the Landau7 account. If one reads the archives, they will find that Landau7 dispassionately referred to 81.224.220.232 as an anon-IP and tracing back will show if this is true. The other possibility is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet as the purposes are the same. I have decided on dispute resolution with another editor to see what s/he says and will not file any reports until then. This likewise gives Landau7 an opportunity to explain himself. Drumpler 07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

When I say "initially wrote this article", I don't mean the first poster (which would've been me), but the person who provided the framework for this article as demonstrated here[17]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drumpler (talk • contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism of Landau7's Page

I quite accidentally discovered that my Wiki user page had been vandalized by a Tobias Conradi on May 2, 2007 and then mysteriously reverted by Drumpler on May 6, 2007. To see the vandalism for yourself, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Landau7&diff=128625103&oldid=127769959]. Firstly, I am curious as to why a Wiki administrator should be doing such things in the first place - putting in links to Drumpler's website and adding cryptic remarks - and secondly, why Drumpler himself should then go and revert them. Would someone be so kind as to explain as to what is going on here? (Landau7 13:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, yes. Inspite of how I feel about you, personally, I told the sympathiser that that wasn't the right way to do things and then reverted the page to what it was originally. If called on it, I have all the proper documentation -- I'm just not going to give it to you since you know this person. However, it wasn't Tobias and I'm sure if I didn't revert your page back to what it was originally before, you'd still be griping to me nonetheless.
Consider your own vandalism as archived in the second archive. I'm innocent in this regard. Drumpler 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record: Drumpler does not know who I am and it was I who made those postings on your site. I have apologised to all concerned and it will not happen again. I didn't realise I was spamming,I am new to Wiki.Icegems1 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this seems to have been resolved, I'm moving it to the second archive. Drumpler 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)