Talk:Revival Centres International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Flag
Portal
 Revival Centres International is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] Please read this Wikipedia article about Conflict of Interest

[edit] Disputed Article

Contributors: Have not read this article in a long time, but it still suffers from picking bits and pieces of stuff from 20 to 30 years ago; bits and pieces of doctrine; and bits and pieces of policy/practice. There is no overarching overview.

This is the current "Contents"

1 Church Genealogy of Revival Centres International 1.1 Early Beginnings of Revival Centres International 2 Carn Brae 3 Forum Theatre 4 General Meeting Format 5 Spiritual Gatherings and Practices 6 Missions 7 Revival Centres International's Statement of Beliefs 8 The "British Israel" Identification and Racism Statements 9 Second Coming Prophecies 10 Revival Centres International Publications 11 Doctrinal Schisms and Refining Church Identity 11.1 Revision on Bible Numerics 11.1.1 Past Bible Numerics thought 11.1.2 Current Bible Numerics thought 11.2 Revision on the Code of Conduct 11.2.1 The historical intention of the Code of Conduct 12 Certain Concerns were raised by some Former Members in the Whitehorse Gazette 12.1 Reported Concerns Raised 12.2 Reported Concerns Dismissed 13 See also 14 References 15 External links

How do major contributors feel (ie will I start a wiki-war) if we looked at a re-write that went along these lines (put forward to start ideas, not as the final answer - and yes, based on the structure of the Bahai article that natgoo referred to):

1 Doctrine & Beliefs

1.1 Salvation
1.2 Statement of Beliefs

2 Demographics

2.1 Headquarters
2.2 World-wide
2.3 Missions
2.4 etc etc

3 Teachings

3.1 Summary 
3.2 End Times
3.3 Bible Numerics no longer taught
3.4 etc etc

4 History

4.1 Beginnings 
 4.1.1 Melbourne (includes carn brae, whitehorse etc)
 4.1.2 Australia
 4.1.3 Papua New Guinea
 4.1.4 Africa
 4.1.5 etc etc
4.2 Major Events
4.3 Schisms
4.4 etc etc

5 Practice

5.1 Meetings 
5.2 Standards (ie spot for code of conduct stuff)
5.3 Outreaching
5.4 Events
5.5 etc etc

6 Publications

6.1 Voice of Revival 
6.2 News 
6.3 Talks 
6.4 Newsletter

7 See also

8 References

9 External links

Any thoughts?

Informed99 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Informed99

I think that would be a good way to improve the article - as well as having current RCI thought and issues in a clear cut way that would dramatically improve the article. Thoughts topsaint and crunchynut? Floorwalker (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all,

I think that we have basically covered the essential and the contentious issues with the current revision and now would be the right time to move onto the proposed format that Informed99 has suggested based on the Bahai article. I think that the above suggestion of the sectional format is OK, however we have to bear in mind that we have reconsider whether there is suitable amount of information under each heading as well as the fact that Bahai article is a generalised format template to work from and that revival centres will have their own information development in the article.

Although we covered essential/contentious points of revival centres, looking at some of the sectional headings as suggested above, there's going to be a fair bit of new written work yet to do in the reformat. Some of the sub-headings may not be as explorative as we hoped and a general heading maybe suffice until we have better references and enough amount information before it gets sub-headed. It maybe that some information would need a (further citation needed) tag as well.

Anyway thoses are my thoughts in this. Topsaint (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Informed99 - could I encourage you to not continually delete this page, which is not helpful (it has now happened on 7 or 8 occasions). I understand that you may be a member of the church group in question, but suggest that you suggest fixes to any errors you see in the article on this talk page, instead of deleting the article. -- thanks! Seldon-au 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Informed99 here. I am not reverting the changes - although I imagine someone from our Church is. I tried to start a conversation about the changes I was making. No one replied. In fact it was me who made the quotes below from Wikipedia's guidelines when changes I did make were simply reverted (by you I think). Informed99 08:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Have removed the word Aryan and pyramidology, together with changing a date for handover to Simon Longfield. Happy to discuss...Informed99 08:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Informed99 - your user page shows you to be a member of this religious group. I am concerned that many of your edits are "point of view pushing". In particular, your removal of any references to the Revival Fellowship and the Carn Brae Scandal (which was big news in the 1960s). We don't want re-written history on this page!Seldon-au 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of this Church. Hence my reference above to it probably being a member of our church that was reverting the page. I did not remove the reference to Carn Brae, I only removed the word "scandal" (a very subjective reading of events). Rewriting history seems to cut both ways :-) . It is clear you are also pushing a point of view. One way to do that is to selectively present facts (both real and not so real) that create a picture that creates the intended bias. It is the selection, and more importantly, the omission that reveals the bias. Informed99 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being moderate in your recent edits. I hope we can use this page to make up a real and useful history of the Revival Centres without any undue bias in the article or pro- or negative- pov pushing.


An excerpt from Wikipedia's guidles are shown below:

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

The first change I propose is that it is simply loaded language to refer to this church as a "sect".

I will change 'sect' to "Christian Pentecostal denomination" - a simple statement of fact.

Informed99 01:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Next point. The phrase 'based in Australia' is true, but incomplete. While based in Australia, most RCI assemblies are in other countries - particularly in Africa and Papua New Guinea, where there are rapidly growing assemblies. I will add this information to the entry: "The church has around 300 assemblies in 14 countries." - again, a fact.

Informed99 09:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the big attraction to the vandals is the opening line about "Growing on the experience of its founder". This line sounds like something out of a WWII propaganda film. I fully support the RCI doctrine of salvation and want to support a balanced article - but I suggest that this line be simpler and reflect the middle of the road point of view that the article has been focussed on. Revival42 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)revival42


Fair call, I must say I actually didnt realise I put that back as I just restored the text from an eariler version. Feel free to adjust how you see reasonable and if there's anything to raise as a concern I'll let you know. Thanks for helping make this a much more pleasant experience rather than reverting wars. :) Crunchynut 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are obviously a number of different points of view on the subject of the Revival Centres International, yet the article does not in any way reflect this. The overwhelming majority of sources are from the churches' own website and there is no criticism. Two users seem to continually make edits to remove any criticism, fair or not. If you look at the pages of any other religion, they alway encompass criticism and a wide range of sources. Let the readers make up their own minds. There needs to be more independent arbitration of this page. Nomenkultura44 (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As you probably see on the editing history, recently I have added sections of basic information and tried to make a real and useful history of the Revival Centres without any undue bias in the article or pro- or negative- pov pushing. I have added plenty from the group's website because Wikipedia does serve to inform people of the group's activities and how they conduct activities and what occupies their time.To balance it off in any way, I looked and looked via google for hours, reading all sort of details to find some balance and independent reporting as most websites was very unreliable and hearsay by remote observation or close personal disagreements which does not line up to Wikipedia policies. Outside of the two articles already cited for the split over the fornication policy, I added the only reliable source of criticism available that I could see so far from an independent web that collects newspaper articles on churches. I had found that the article reflects very well the concerns of former members as well as the group's response to those criticism. It was plain for me to see that readers could make up their minds on the current issues that faces Revival Centres. It seems to be a balanced newspaper reporting to me. Website like cultweb and pleaseconsider are vanity publications and very outdated as well as being an unreliable source and without an fair response from the group it would tragic to try and sort the any misconceptions among the bias. Old personal details and views have changed as well as certain administration conduct has changed and moved on. Therefore number of POV presented on these websites begins to have more a historical irrelevance and does not seem deal with the current issues that are raised by the article that I added. Also when you consider that Simon Longfield (Lloyd Longfield's son) conducts the church administration that differs from his father for nearly ten years, we should be up to date as much as possible on an very small group, large groups you can't really have the same updated view. Currently this is the closest to an independent observation of the group's activity that literally reports on views without going into excessive details of hearsay. (a bit lax for hearsay is given in the article itself considering there was a fair response from the group was also given) A general criticism of the group activities rather than personal details heresay would be sufficient or else it would be very impossible in keeping to the encyclopedic angle the Wikipedia desires. The main problem here is the lack of balance article reporting simply because this group is a very small group compare to other groups and therefore has a lack of criticism in independent reporting directed at them. Everyone seems to have an extreme agenda against the group as well as the groups' views are being extremely firm in their beliefs and their general and current approach of the last ten years seems to be systematically carried out without much headlining incidentsTopsaint (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult to reference blogs and that a lack of verifyable sources on what looks to be a small organisation does hold things back, but I looked on the web for about 10 minutes and found on AUSTLII a case of a former member taking the church to the Victorian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The case is fairly unremarkable but it does reveal something of the church's beliefs and codes of behaviour. This is a primary source, independendly verifiable and importantly contains sworn testimony from Pastor Longfield. I will continue to look for more details to redress the balance, but I fear that whatever I do, the edits will be undone in an edit war that I have neither the time nor the will to win. Nomenklatura44 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good spotting, Nomenklatura44. That reference you gave was never going to appear on google search. It had very clear details and summary of the code of conduct of the group. So I expanded on your additional piece in the Spiritual gathering and practice by making a subsection on the code of conduct and I hope you don't mind, but I also rearrange the sequence as found on the reference as it seemed an very logical description of understanding to reach their conclusion by the Victorian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. BTW I think that article is now looking fuller and more acceptable and very much covers plenty of this groups activity and routine, in-house and out-house. It would be difficult to create an disrupted edit war on the reference you have found. So as long as we keep to any significant statements from their website for encyclopedic information required by the first Wikipedia pillar and discover any independent reporting like the two newspaper references that we have uncovered which discloses both sides of views. We should be very safe from any contrasting edit war brewing because I think we have moved on from the edit wars as the main criticism and group response has been represented and satisfaction should be restored for both sides. I heard that Longfield himself had mention that the worst to say when there was a newspaper report, is to say "No comment." So any newspaper reporter on the group should know that they would get an adequate response from the old guy to get a balance article. He seems to likes the limelight. Anyway any edit wars would be some silly personal vendetta. Topsaint (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the changes that you and I made have already been undone. It seems the objection is that the codes of conduct no longer exist, but even if that is true (I am unable to verify it and it seems highly unlikely), the addition of the code of conduct could be a matter of historical importance, ie, RCI had a code of conduct from 19XX to 20XX, but no longer does. Like I said, i'm not going to change it back, cause I don't care about this article enough to waste my time getting involved in edit wars. Nomenklatura44 (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Crunchynut & 203, Whitehorse Gazette is an independent local newspaper that is verifiable. The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (RRI) is a nonprofit public resource with a vast archive that contains thousands of individual documents such as the articles about many church groups. This is an official site that mets the Wikipedia standards. The findings of the Tribunal is also official and verifiable. Even as a member of the church in question, you should know that there is no slander given and in fact its refreshing to the reader that the church is holding good moral grounds and principle with frank honestly. Also I have not heard of any withdrawal of the code of conduct has been done and neither have I heard of any major revision/review of the code of conduct. As I understand it is still a strong guideline used by the church oversight despite being a bit dated and there is no major dispute to the contents that it contains. If the same incident occurs again, the oversight action will be the same and the Tribunal would still rule in the Revival Centres' flavour. So what is the problem? There is no cover-up attempted by the group, so why would you? Honestly was very much their greatest asset. Perhaps, you can enlightened me as to the latest. I don't think that any harm is directed at all to this group by these references that are given at all. In fact I think it gave the balance that many people on the outside needs and there are people that desire to have the same church approach. So I await for your response. The worse that you could do is to make a "no comment". And the moment, I am not going to any major changes or reverting until I get some clarification. If I made changes, it means I have some clarification on this. This isn't a "pearls before swines" like the questionable source cultweb. OK?Topsaint (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Topsaint,

I agree that newspapers are reference material, as per wiki guidelines. Rickross.com is a personal site and cannot be considered an official source especially when they label their site as "the study of destructive cults..." which is a biased and suggestive in its focus. So I suggest referencing just the newspaper article itself rather than a link to a personal site that does not meet wiki's requirements.

Its a fact that the "Code of Conduct" is no longer in existence and as already mentioned was done so many years ago. It was also only something that was focused towards the youth group of the church. The ownus is focused on the individual to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" rather than having a comprehensive list of do's and dont's. It was also found that each individual case or individuals circumstance differ each time and cannot be shoe boxed into any one blanket solution.

I think you will find that many peoples opinions are very 'dated' and theres a lot of "hearsay" out there as you have already discovered. I do not wish to remove anything from RCI history as it shows how RCI has developed and been guided through wisdom and understanding of God and his word.

I hope this helps clarify the removals, it was not intended to be a source for an edit war. As you can see through the history there has been a lot of vandalism and sometimes its not immediately apparent what the intention is of the poster.

Thank-you for using this discussion thread to work towards a more common ground. Chruncynut (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


In regards to the code of conduct section I have altered it to past tense as the code is no longer used, and hasn't been for many years. I do feel that a lot of space has been dedicated to it, as it was in circulation for only a few years (ie around 5-6 years) - whereas the article makes it feel as though it had been in for a very long time. I also attempted to make the language describing it more neutral, as the courts had sided with RCI in regards to the code - ie in their view any organisation can make "rules" and dismisal from that organisation from not following the rules is perfectly resonable - like a club which requires members to wear formal wear, or a work place where workers are required to wear the company uniform.
In regards to the diagram, I feel it needs to be tidied up a bit as it currently makes the layout of the article look fairly messy (ie by shrinking it or restructuring it to use space more efficiently). I'm viewing the article on a display of 1280x1024 and it looks squished, on lower resolutions it would look worse. Not saying removal of image, just needs work done on it for readability of article.
I have also tidied up this discussion thread by putting the comments in order for clarity as appears in other discussion thread. Floorwalker (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crunchynut,

Thanks for the feedback, I agree about removing the link and keeping the newspaper article referenced, I didn't see that blub about "destructive cults."

Yes, that code of conduct is made redundant. I basically had to reflect over what was said over the time to remember the pieces of information that was established. With your feedback, I do actually recall there was some review on the code of conduct being done as a result of the 1995 schism and the revised fornication policy. On hindsight, when comparing pre-1995 and post-1995 on how Revival Centres are run now, the whole thing became clear and obvious and the pieces are now tied together giving the whole picture. I never really tied it up this way before and I am glad that I had bother to check it out. Unless you are oversight, you start to assume everything is OK but don't really see the hidden works of the oversight and how everything works together as the result. You basically have to work the opposite way to the oversight understand the ins and outs.

Yeah I am happy with the article now than before. I was really having a hardtime getting correct information out because it seems such a big task balancing it all while there was plenty of people writing about this without some firm background or understanding and bring their own bias no matter whether they have good intentions or not.

I also updated the Church genealogy diagram with clearer text.

I hope we made good common ground with enough balanced wikipedia information for readers.

Topsaint (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Floorwalker,

Thanks for changing the tenses, I'm a bit weak in that area :(.

Mmmmm... I have to make another stab at the diagram. it's fine on my computer screen, so i have to try some experiment on a different browser and computers. Hopefully it would not take long to do.

Topsaint (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Topsaint - picture comes up alot better now :) doesn't make the article look so squwished :P Floorwalker (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Topsaint,

Ive temporarily removed the Code of Conduct \ Fornication Policy section not because I disagree or don't want it up there but you have confused two specifically separate areas and my heads hurting trying to fix\re-write whats currently there. You've done a great job but I think its a bit harder when as you say, there is limited public knowledge available. Heres my notes:

The original "Code Of Conduct" you refer too was focused 1. at the youth of the church but was relevant to all members in 'living the good life'. 2. It was also focused at broader areas of concern where the youth would find the most amount of pressure, mis-leading information or harm to their spiritual walk. It was not specifically focused at Fornication though that was certainly listed.

The refocus of the previous "Code Of Conduct" was not reviewed due to the fornication policy as this is something RCI still to this day firmly stands upon. As you have mentioned, any spirit filled member who commits fornication will be permanently dis-fellowship as this is something that RCI state is written in black and white in the Bible. I am a bit concerned that if the original change on RCI fornication policy has a full section to itself other than a brief mention it may aggravate vandalism although if this is something the community generally wants to know then we can certainly go into all the reasons RCI came to that conclusion.

The "Code of Conduct" wasn't changed due to it being "outdated" or "unnecessary" it was because 1. Its impossible to detail every do and don't, as time goes on theres always going to be new threats\issues to a persons health spiritually, physically and mentally. So in the end you would end up with a book bigger than the Bible. 2. The focus needed to be placed onto the individual as already mentioned. 3. If you had a rule stating if you do X you get X result sometimes the situation isnt as black and white as that. You certainly have done a fantastic job of the section and I commend you for your work it. Its just that the terms "outdated" and "unnecessary" attempt to sum up a decision that is a bit more involved than that. Having rules in place protect its members are very important and the core of its purpose\intent still exists.

"...the ownus is now focused on the individual church members to. . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phillippians 2:12) in the absence of the presence of oversight" is mis-leading, it has nothing to do with "the absence of the presence of oversight" whether the oversight is present or not. RCI's stance is that receiving the holy spirit with the physical sign of speaking in tongues is a personal experience and one thats between the individual and God. So with the focus being "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" it allows the individual to take ownership for their own actions rather than being able to blame another individual\external influence.

So as you can see the article needs a bit of work, as statements like "Each church member makes their own moral decisions and behavior based on the revised fornication policy" is not actually accurate. It was something that each member was\should have been doing the whole time its just theres a stronger focus on its importance.

In regard to this section what are we hoping to achieve? It might make it easier in re-writing the section. Do you want the fornication policy up there to talk about how RCI split and the reasons they came to this conclusion? And then have a separate section on acceptable conduct of RCI members? As Ive already stated I think your making a great contribution its just this section may be easier if its split or simplified or expanded in greater detail though I feel that may be unnecessary. Maybe post a work in press in the discussion section for us to work on together before publishing so that it doesnt look like were edit waring etc. Thanks

Crunchynut 08:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crunchynut,

Thanks for the feedback, yes i can see how it could be misleading. However the revised fornication policy did remove a lot of extraneous rules that was floating about. I have created only a paragraph about the revised fornication policy influences over certain rules and re-emphasized the ownership value.

I think accurate statements would be suffice. Simplifying it would not help because it not that simple, but neither it should be as complicated as it can be. I cant see expansion as it would not be useful for the readers nor is there any gain to anyone but could create complications because as you have said, its not as straightforward or black or white and i wouldn't want readers to take on board the guidelines without proper consultation with their oversight. As it is, Revival Centres has oversight consultation and personal ownership in order.

The goal of this section is to emphasized the spiritual direction that Revival Centres is heading. Which further cultivates an church identity and culture that is different from other Revival groups.

I don't think that we need to discuss the fornication policy in any detail because like you said it would be prone to vandalism. Plus it would open a can of worms if we discuss on how RCI split. And to explore the reasons they came to this conclusions, then we would be quoting 2/3rd of the new testament before we even start to make any commentaries let alone discuss the assertions being made and that starting with the RCI view of things. No. This is definitely not the format for this.

Also it shows that there are more oversight consultation and guidance over matters as a oversight safe-guard rather than reliance on the code of conduct.

Yes, the fornication policy did not create a revision on the code of conduct as there was always revision on it. but it did make certain things more important and made things more clearer as well as removing some extraneous rules. It did influence rather than change church conduct as well as redirecting different issues to oversight.

OK I will add what I have written now below in a new section so please make some corrections/changes and comment. I have added and remove things with what you have mention. I will put it up tomorrow in the article.

Topsaint (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Topsaint I removed links to other church groups in the See Also section. This is mainly because RCI doesn't associate with any other group - and links in the See Also section generally make it appear that RCI has some sort of links with those groups. Floorwalker (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent unexplained deletions

- This page has been semi protected due to the continual deletion of large parts of this article by anonymous users. If there are legitimate problems with the content of the article, could those users now discuss them here? WjBscribe 01:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

- -

[edit] End Time Prophecy

- - The supposed 'prophecy' of 17 Sep 2001. I have left this in, although I think it is one of those cases where this article is unbalanced. The truth is, despite many decades with the RCI, I have never heard such a date preached. The only thing I have ever heard is that "of that day knows no man". The article that contained this date was prefaced with the fact that 'poetic licence' was being used. This is the point I was trying to make before about lack of balance - one article is quoted without its full context, and decades of "no-one knows the date, just like the Bible says" are swept aside as irrelevant (referring to your deletion of my earlier comments). If you want to complain of rewriting history, you need to contemplate this also, I think :-). I intend to put a fuller context around this later - your thoughts? Informed99 08:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

- - If you want to clarify this you can put that the article by Lloyd Longfield was a "what if this were true would you be ready?" article. The article used the timeline from the pyramid that correctly identifies Moses, Jesus, WWI and WWII, and ends in September 2001. Hmmm - looks like Lloyd only missed by 5-6 days (ie. September 11). I am not a member of RCI, but I remember the silly count down clock that Troy Waller set up, and when 911 happened, I thought wow - was the old guy ever close... Revival42 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)revival42

- - That particular count down I haven't heard of before (with 911), would you have links to back this up or articles about this? I have seen about the pyramid used to identify Moses etc, but hadn't heard of that one. On a side note I took out the link to the 17 Sep 'prophecy' as the original article - if you read it - is a what-if scenario and only ever meant to be taken as such, ie like ones we have seen occasionally on TV - "What if there was a bird flu out break tomorrow". I'm suprised there is contraversy around this myself as the article read in the context it is written is quite clear and statements taken out of context aren't helpful. Floorwalker 12:06pm, 10 July 2007

- -

The countdown was Troy Waller's attempt to suggest that Revival Centres taught that Armageddon (final battle) would begin September 17, 2001. He set up a clock on his website that counted down to September 17, 2001 with a big headline "Countdown to Armageddon - according to RCI". The website is gone so there is no link that I can provide. As you pointed out, anyone reading the article can see the silliness in believing that RCI taught the world would end on a specific date. Glad to see you removed it, as it didn't add any academic value to the article. Revival42 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)revival42
This is interesting. I have a transcript of the pastor's meeting held after the Convention in 2001, wherein Simon Longfield admits that his father (and others) had been 'indiscreet' with respect to date setting in the VOR and elsewhere, and that as a consequence certain "chickens had come home to roost" on the internet. He then cautioned those present to be very careful about making similar comments (publicly) into the future. This transcript was circulated to RCI pastors at the time, and was for a while, available at the "pastor's only" section of the RCI website. In effect then, Troy Waller's comments were completely factual, with the former senior pastor of the RCI having been exposed for "date setting". (Ian Thomason)Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

- -

I have also altered the wording in regards to the "actual date" of the return of Christ in regards to Christ's return before the millenium. Revival Centres International has said for many years that "of that day knows no man" in regards to his return. I am happy to discus this. Floorwalker 6:23pm, 10 July 2007
And I would be more than happy to discuss the matter with you, too. (Ian Thomason)Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

- - On the second coming prophecies section, I have made citation link and cleared up 1917 generation Revival teaching. You can read for yourself, from the link, that the booklet refers to fulfilled prophecies of the signs and not to the actual return. Topsaint (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

- -

[edit] continual editing

- - IT seems there are many disgruntled members with little facts about the organization.

No doubt. However, there are also a number of former members who are not disgruntled, but who have amassed a considerable volume of knowledge about the organisation itself, and its teachings. I consider myself in this group, given that your church and its theology is the subject of my doctoral research. (Ian Thomason)Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

- - Most of it is total crap and people thinking it's a cult. Fact is, it's a christian organization, not a cult.

Some of the information that's circulating about your group is inopportune, but much of it isn't. And as for whether or not the RCI falls under the rubric of "Christian" organisation would entirely depend on what one means by the term "Christian". (Ian Thomason)Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

- - If you chose to reference it to cults. I might go ahead and modify all the catholic, budhist, muslim, JW, etc pages and put cult references in there and see if they like that..

- - See my point?

- - This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion based forum. Go to your little cultweb forums and complain in there, not in this place. - -

Given that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, alternate viewpoints also require a hearing. Otherwise, 'Wikipedia' serves no other purpose is this instance than to function as an on-line pro-RCI advertisement. (Ian Thomason)Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

- - Thankyou! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.228.246 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 February 2007.

- -

Did you mean to post this at Talk:The Revival Fellowship? That is where you have done most of your editing. Please don't make threats to disrupt Wikipedia because you have a different perspective, it's far more productive to add information to the article to present a more balanced view.. Natgoo 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

- - -

No, I have been following both pages, I to am an ex member and references to cults are irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.108.126 (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

- - To settle the issue of continued additions of websites as sources, Wikipedia has the following policy on reliable sources:

- "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. "

- -

[edit] diagram, and some comments

- - Looking at the diagram -- shouldn't the National Revival Crusade have arrows from the Assemblies of God and British Israel World Federation both going into it? I think that's really show how the AoG, and BI etc, fit into the picture. 58.179.233.5 11:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- - I have added some information to the family tree diagram - I think it's a succinct graphical representation of the information presented textually in the paragraph, and as such adds to the article. Talk pages are great for discussion, that's what they're here for!

- - I'm quite surprised that this article doesn't contain more information on the group's practices or beliefs, or any criticism, when there is lots of information available. Most, and most certainly the best, articles on religion have this information (see the featured article on Baha'i Faith for an example of an excellent article on a religious denomination). The article has been around for a while now but most active editors spend their time removing information, rather than improving the article. How can this be rectified, and the article improved? Natgoo 11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

- - Hi 58.179.233.5,

I added a new diagram that will show the church genealogy and includes the groups as expected because of their influence on RCI doctrine.Topsaint (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Natgoo,

I have added more information about the group's practice, beliefs and criticism and church response as expected for balance. However much information that you have referred to in the past are heavily outdated and heresay and many issues were revised and dealt with by the oversight over the time. Most former members would have not recognised the difference now and had not consulted with the group's as to what has changed. some have contact the group's oversight and some have even gone back, apparently with a clean slate.Topsaint (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View and some wikipedia guidelines

- - There sadly appears to be some bias and ulterior motives in some of the revisions of this page beyong the established wiki ideal of improving articles so that an overall balanced and correct article is informative.

- - Crunchynut I refer you to this, ironically already printed out on this page, "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

- Removing links to well established, researched and written articles on wikipedia that further inform readers about a topic touched on in any page is not allowing balance in an otherwise informative article. I have rewritten the intro to include your obvious desire to prostelyse in a factual context, which includes some articles already written in this wiki. Your reverted intro comes close to being weasel words.

- - Similarily removing criticism of the group and links to other webpages for no reason other than they are 'anti' or not 'official' webpages of the group involved is ridiculously biased, unbalanced and anti-wiki. The pages have multi, in some case disagreeing, sources who are willingly named and thus fit wiki guidelines better than the RCI 'official' source. Please refer to other religious articles on this site for other examples of disagreements concerning particular religious doctrine leading to balance in articles and an overall longer and better article.

- Wikipedia does not have 'pro' or 'anti' pages on any organisation and Crunchynut, you have no authority to demand the formation of them.

- - Placing unfounded individual reasons concerning religious schisms in any article on wikipedia is also showing bias, this time in the negative. Unless you have something constructive to add to this article you are vandalising and ruining an article when you could actually be improving and adding balance.

- - There are both negative and positive RCI forums on the internet so let's leave wikipedia out of the bashing/witnessing shall we?

-

- Quoth-the-craven 04:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Quoth-the-craven

-Hi Quoth-the-craven

I hope that I have improved greatly the article from the 'edit wars' such that it is beyond editing over trivial information misconception that is over the internet and lack of inside knowledge from those who never participated in the group. However what I try and achieve was to place accurate information to improve the article and not reversion or deletion as some may do. Balance is tricky but personally I would avoid some of the outdated information and unbalance views by those who have been long out of touch with the group. IMHO, they have done more speculation rather than seeking understanding directly. I can sympathised with their pain and in some cases the door was always open for them but the group has moved on and so I pray that they do move on as well.

Some of the problems here was that may posters have not consulted for accurate information and have not worked on a common ground to bring an article that is balanced and non-offensive to the group as well as able to show concerns of those who had a "bad" experienceTopsaint (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Survive82.gif

-

- Image:Survive82.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

- - Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

- - If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

- - BetacommandBot 05:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

- -

[edit] Speaking in Tongues - Glossolalia as evidence of the Holy Spirit

- I have fixed an edit by Seldon-au that stated that the doctrine of speaking in tongues (as being a nessecity) in Revival Centres gradually evolved over time to being a focus. I have altered this as it has always been a core beleif of RCI that speaking in tongues is the evidence that a person has recieved the Holy Spirit. Please let me know if there is evidence contrary to this. Floorwalker (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your view is wrong. The doctrine of "tongues" as a necessity wasn't the position of the RCI for the first three to four years of the movement's existance, a claim that can be proven by recourse to early editions of the VOR.Didaktikon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


- -

[edit] Additional Sections

- - I have basically added sections that are relevant to the groups practice, beliefs and activities. Therefore you would see basic and fairly straight forward sections on General Meeting Format, Spiritual Gathering and Practices, Revival Centres International's Beliefs and Revival Centres International Publications. Most of their basic main approach are on their official website so I am very surprised that hardly anyone has developed it from the primary source as these information are basically a list of things that they do or have done. Its basic value is not even debatable.Topsaint (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section to be edit and placed later

[edit] An emphasis on church members personal responsibility for their individual conduct

After the 1995 schism and then change of leadership from Lloyd Longfield to Simon Longfield in 1998, Revival Centres Internationals had a revision on the Code of Conduct. It was found that most of the rules and regulations that were written in the code was based on many moral dilemmas concerning fornication and other behavioural problems that the people of the church faced. It was concluded that many rules and regulations contained in the code of conduct had not stressed enough the importance of personal ownership for each members’ actions and in practice had problems deemphasizing many other individual/external influence on each set of circumstances that church members faced. Therefore the code of conduct had the impossible ongoing problem of detailing every behavioural rule and consequences as there was always going to be new threats/issues to a person’s health spiritually, physically and mentally.

While the intention of the code of conduct was to address boarder areas of concerns that church members, especially young people, would find the most amount of pressure, misleading information or harm to their spiritual walk, the onus is now focused on the individual church members to " . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). This means that each church member continues to make their own moral decision and behaviour (as before with further consideration to the revised fornication policy) rather than to strictly based their decision on the previous code of conduct guideline that had difficulties in covering a range of different individual cases or set of circumstances because each situation was not necessary as straightforward. This leaded to more oversight guidance than to oversight discipline.

The influence of the revised fornication policy on church conduct meant that many of the rules in the previous code of the conduct guidelines regarding the conduct with the opposite gender, had more consideration to the serious consequences of fornication i.e. permanent disfellowship, and consolidated of many behavioural issues and attitudes leading up to that point. Consolidation meant that some rules became extraneous although the core intent still remains. This enables the individual church members to make clearer and better moral decisions taking into account of the gravity of their situation as well getting clearer guidance within the church.

The natural result of this revision means that there was more allowances for church members to take even more personal responsibility for their spiritual growth and less personal intervention by the church oversight unless it was absolutely necessary or there was an urgent concern raised. This also means there was a moving away from the oversight being seen as a type of confessional outlet and being more of a "shepherd guide.” Creating reliance on oversight guidance and spiritual advice rather than the previous code of conduct guidelines. All urgent matters and different set of individual circumstances are now addressed case-by-case by the local assembly pastor in consultation with the principal pastor Simon Longfield because the variety of communication technology (e.g. emails, telephone & internet) available, therefore establishing greater oversight consistency in discussions and consultation than before.

Topsaint (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

G'day Topsaint,

I think what you have done looks quite good. Its a bit wordy but ultimately seems to achieve the goal. Well done.

Crunchynut 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi Topsaint,

I didnt realise you were going to add the old guideline stuff as well so I have attempted to re-phrase it to have a more general focus rather than go into specifics. The main reason is that as there were many many versions of the code of conduct I feel its more relevant to give a general overview rather than list each specific rule as they have been superseded by RCI's current standard. Also I feel this could lead to the issue as mentioned previously about vandalism. Happy to discuss if you feel differently. Thanks

Crunchynut 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Crunchynut,

that bit was still left when you temporarily removed most of section so I didn't look at it. But fair call on making it more general as it was never really as straightforward even for those rules e.g. what is the criteria for a worldly party? would that includes workdos? etc etc. It ends up being rules upon rules as we have stated. So we really don't need to go into specifics as there was many rules and many versions of those rules as well.

I thought that subheadings would break the section up as it gets a bit long. Maybe "An reemphasis on church members personal responsibility for their individual conduct" and "oversight reorganized." Any suggestions?

I'll have a bit of a think and wait for a while and readdress it later. But feel free to make some subheadings to break the section up. If it is possible break a sentence up into two or three sentence without losing the info to make it less wordy. But I think a break and a fresh look at it in the new year might help.

Topsaint (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I put some comments at the top of this discussion regarding re-organising this article. Comments welcome. Informed99 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length, structure, NPOV...

I have just dropped in on this article. It appears much too long for the topic, has too much detail on church practices and too little external commentary or evaluation or sources re the organisation. It doesn't look to me to be WP:NPOV, but then I had trouble actually understanding some sections. I note at one stage in the past a link to a group critical of church practices was edited out and incorrectly referred to as vandalism. I have made an attempt to correct this particular problem. It might be good to organise it more simply and to group discussion of various controversies regarding the church in a section that would follow on from one that outlined church beliefs. I also noticed a reference to modelling it on the Ba'hai article - actually not the best of FA articles in WP if you ask me, but anyway - Ba'hai is an entire, global religious faith, not one regional denomination of one faith, so this article should not need this amount of detail on doctrine, church practices etc, but just focus on those where it differs from related or antecedent denominations of churches. I note an assessment was recently sought. My feedback would be that this is a case where a shorter article will actually be able to rate better. Will drop back in some time. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity link?

User:Topsaint took out a link that I re-inserted in Revival Centres International. The link to the Revival Centres Information page is not a "vanity link". It is a link to a group that has certain views about Revival Centres International. It is just as valid as, for example, including a link to a local environmental organisation webpage in a section of an article about a mine that touched on issues or controversies around that mine, provided the linked page set out relevant issues. That appears to me to be the case in this example. Topsaint indicated it contains "unbalanced and extreme" views. That may be so, but is not for us to judge - the encyclopedia is documenting the controversy, including the existence of those "extreme" views. One of the purposes in documenting the ABC interview is to help establish the 'legitimacy' of discussion around those views, as a national broadcaster can be regarded as a more authoritative source than an organisation's webpage alone. For these reasons I am reinstating the link. We can discuss further here if anyone wishes.

As i flagged abiove, the article might be improved by consolidating material on controversies, and the new cross-referral is good. The section at the end however devotes too much space to rebuttal and not enough to the concerns themselves. I haven't the time now, but will hopefully get around to helping on it in future. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am taking out the link to RC cult net as it consists mainly of Original Research, but am leaving in the link to caic.org. Reading the FAQ section on the page will indicate that RC cult net doesn't fall under the wikipedia guidelines, caic.org does. Floorwalker (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing here. The policy on original research applies to the writing of Wikipedia articles, not to whether the sources one uses are themselves original research. Thus the link to the cultweb site ("Revival Centres Information") does not present an issue in regards to this policy. It would be legitimate to give limited credence to the site on its own - as can be gathered from Wikipedia policies and guidelines that encourage the use of the best sources available, such as peer-reviewed academic articles. However, that is not an argument against inclusion of the reference in this case, for several reasons.
  • First, much of the RCI article, particular when describing the church and its activities, is supported by citation of the RCI organisation's website. This represents no higher standard of quality assurance in sources than the cultweb site itself - they are two websites run by people with views and information about the organisation and neither is a distinterested observer.
  • Second, the concerns raised by the cultweb site have been diiscussed on other credible forums, such as the ABC broadcast (hence also the need for that reference), giving further support to its validity as a source.
  • third, the site is being used to support a statement of very limited strength, namely "...with some treating it as a cult." This is not a strong claim - it states only that some people call RCI a cult and discuss it in those terms.
Your inclusion of the caic.org.au site is a good idea, and we can further integrate this into the text of the entry. I ask you to reflect on your commitment to removing the cultweb reference despite these arguments. Its removal does not seem to me consistent with Wikipedia policies, or with the spirit of the online encyclopedia, which is to provide neutral point-of-view articles that cite the full range of information available, and that allows people to then explore that information and make up their own minds. I will put the citation back in a couple of days from now unless you can convince me otherwise. However, i wil see if I can come up with a form of words that will further qualify the language of the sentence that it supports, and will also draw on the caic material. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - I did just read over the "No Original Research" section in Wikipedia and saw that I had taken it out of context for the reason that I gave. I would argue against though the use of same that "some treating it as a cult" as it starts to appear as weasel words. Also on looking at the verifiability section of wikipedia it states the following:
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
RC-Cult wouldn't come under an established expert on the topic - it is compiled by people who have left RCI or one of the groups that have splintered from it. As such a fair bit of the information isn't directly relevent to RCI, it's like having a forum of people complaining about the Commonwealth bank of Australia and then linking those complaints to the Reserve Bank - both were split from each other, both are independant of each other. . I have no problem though in using newspaper refrences etc. But when quoting from these make sure that it is talking about Revival Centres International and not Revival Fellowship, Revival Centres of Geelong etc as these have no affiliation with RCI. But I am willing to discuss if I have misunderstood the policies. Floorwalker (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rc-cult is not under an established expert and are mainly opinions expressed from former members with no third party input and sole desire to countermeasure any "Revival" groups. However caic.org.au is a larger site that includes other groups besides "Revival" groups and was monitored under an independent observer and established expert. And so it is very similar to have an ABC interview with the third party input, and the ABC does not deal only "Revival" groups but reports on other groups. This site may include contributors to the RC-cult site and may contain also the same/similar information, but it has credibility that the other site does not have. Plus it directly refers to RCI and not "lumped" with the other splinter "Revival" groups.

Caic.org.au may comes under "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: " where as Rc-cult definitely does not.

However it must be expressed that Caic.org.au is borderline because the publications are not actually produced by an established expert whose work in an relevant field has previously published by a third party. I have not seen any of the contributors to RCI articles whose work are in Theology or Religious Studies journals, despite it being under an independent third party. I fear that Caic is not as "expert" third party as we like to think it is because it seems to just veto any articles as long as it opposes the groups ideas in question. Although it mentions the B.I.T.E method, It has no real criteria or rating systems applied to any groups and so when it allows contributers to say whether it is a destructive cult or not, it freely allows it without any independent review, rating or criteria of it's own. It becomes an religious complaint dumping ground. Subtle informed opinions within their articles rather than through critique of theology. (If I was a postgraduate supervisor, I would have chuck it back and tell them to rewrite it again because it's not even up to tertiary academic passed grade in that field.) Some of the other publications of other more known groups on the site are of questionable standard. But it must be mention that although it does allow a rebuttal of the presented information, the first information given is easily done without verifiable proof but the rebuttal of the same information needs the same verifiable proof to change it. On their official website, their links to certain sites are under questionable authority as well. So it does come under " However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting. . ." Personally I have grave concerns in using such a source and I really don't think it is worth reporting such a source.

Anyway that is my opinion on this. It's very borderline because it's not a tightly run or fair system for their line of work, it has no stamp of being an "expert" other than a few articles. Not totally convinced about Caic.org.au being as an "expert" third party, although on the surface they have some experience, it's not their expertise and the site is carried on the shoulders of volunteer contributors rather than by experts contributors (who havn't actually contribute specially to this site but are taken and in some case not even referenced or acknowledged correctly and therefore not sure it had their approval, not that they wouldn't agree to it being there). So hopefully you understand my reservations about including this source. It is in an very gray area and I mainly lending towards removing it as it literally don't come under wikipedia policy as stated above.Topsaint (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

It appears that there is an attempt to remove any links that are remotely critical of RCI. This is an encyclopaedia and not an advertising billboard. A neutral point of view means that multiple sides of an argument can be put without placing undue weight on issues of minor disagreement. The existence of multiple websites critical of RCI should be noted. Much of this article is based on RCI website material, it is only reasonable that a few points written by others critical of RCI should be given an airing. I have replaced the removed link and added another link from a website which has some interesting criticisms of RCI. Gillyweed (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate, please stop wasting our time if your not going to actually read the full history of the discussion section. Im not even going to bother explaining too you why pleaseconsider/caic does not qualify as a reliable source as per the wiki guidelines. Feel free to talk to a wiki admin who have already approved their removal. All your doing is vandalism. Crunchynut (talk) 07:00, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the entire section... twice. And I can see no argument put that CAIC is not acceptable as a source. All I see is people trying to remove criticism of RCI. Gillyweed (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, then as per your comments, you agree that pleaseconsider is not an acceptable source. So we will start with one step at a time and only this will be removed until we can resolve the caic issue. Crunchynut (talk) 06:55, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see where I said that Pleaseconsider was an unacceptable source. Where did I say that? I am replacing it. Are you saying that no sites critical of RCI should be listed in the article? Gillyweed (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to avoid

In the external links section of WP:EL.

-->>WP:LINKSTOAVOID

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

-->>WP:SYN

"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

-->>Therefore pleaseconsider is original research not accepted in WP nor in its external links. i.e. Links to external sites with OR cannot be allowed. It serves to advance a position opposite to the source cited especially when it is written by a couple of ex-members.

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.

-->> e.g. amioo site (i.e. Revival group discussion) presents that same promotion.

-->>WP:COS

"This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. "

-->>Ian Thomason is the main writer of pleaseconsider but until he can produce one of his works being published in a reliable publication, he is drawing conclusions from his own knowledge. The sources that he uses from the old RCI information to promote his views is contrary to the source he cited means that he is intentionally drawing from his personal knowledge.

He should not be involved in any articles relating to Revival groups until his results of his research is published by an independent third party. Therefore is it a conflict of interest. Any link to his website is not accepted because it contains original research and until it is cited in a publication, it is not reliable nor verifiable. He is an old ex-member with his own agenda. A number of RCI sources he cited has changed already in the RCI POV.

In the neutral point of view (NPOV) section of Wikipedia:No original research

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[1]

The external links of a few people POV constitute original research. So pleaseconsider falls on that category at this present time. And if there is any reliable published of what he has done, then only a summary results and citation of source can be used in WP. If a particular page on the pleaseconsider site has that research and the results of it, then only that specific page can be used as a link. Or else it is personal POV.

If there is any critique of RCI, then it must be written clearly with adequate reliable sources and done using this discussion page to improve it to a plausible standard before releasing to the article. A simple link to a website critical of RCI is not accepted in WP. There must be some substance to it in the article text before a link is expected.

So with according to WP policy, I am removing the pleaseconsider link.

I had another look at the main Caic site. It is still dubious, full of original research regardless of where it comes from, it even contains RCI articles that is written in opposite to other articles. It's like reading a newspaper or magazine they have one article saying one thing and another article saying the other and creating the allusion that both articles as fact. It doesn't look like it is used with any independent scrutiny. But full of original research with both views. If RCI wanted to post something then I can be certain they get another couple articles on caic themselves.

Simply because of that, I am removing the caic link as well. Surely you can find some better site as a reliable source and then write something on it. WP is not a link farm. If nothing reliable can be found then nothing can be added. Can not just add a link for the sake of adding a link that has an opposite POV, no matter whether it is true or not. It goes to show that it is an extremely small minority viewpoint and is considered as original research.

I don't know about you all, but the honeymoon links with dubious original research sites whether they are true or not, besides the primary source or by secondary source like the ABC interview, is an extremely small minority viewpoint. It is already cited with sources in the article itself with a summary understanding of the concerns expressed as expected in WP summation. The dismissal of concerns are clear as to why it is written as such. Unless you can expand the concerns expressed specifically to the issue without putting a personal slat to it, go right ahead as it is on the reliable source. If not, then it is balanced as is. You can only make a POV to a reliable limit because of the lack of reliable sources. No point in making it more than it is. Whether you like it or not or feel that it need an opposite POV for the sake having an opposite POV. It does not mean that it would be balanced because of it.

Again I am removing both links because of the dubious original research and lack of reliable criteria. This is Wikipedia not an advertising billboard of links. If there is merit in what they are saying, then write it in the article giving their reasons and then make a source citation with the then appropriate link and not just simply make a link to the site. It's not the Wikipedia way.

Sorry but I tried to see whether it has justification for them to stay but the more I Iooked into their site and the more I read on WP policy, the worse for them to stay as a link only. There is sufficient content to suggest that some people are not satisfied with the church and should leave it as a minority viewpoint for the meanwhile, until new reliable sources are presented. Until such a thing happen, then we deal with that when we crossover to that point. For now, just improve the quality of penmanship and format and add suitable information as before. .Topsaint (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - while I originally had said about caic I didn't feel comfortable with it - it contains many unfounded statements and accusations against RCI that can be nullified by looking through the RCI website, one example being on the stance with water baptism - the Catholic church acknowledges that baptism by christening was introduced late in the peice (9th or 10th century I think it was - though I may be wrong here), before it was done by fully immersing a person under water - where the site claims this is a modern phenomenon, there are many other inconsistencies on it, this just being one. Overall I think that those links fall foul of WP policy as stated above, and previously throughout the discussion thread. Floorwalker (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I am an ex-member of the RCI is largely moot. What is relevant, however, is that I am a doctoral candidate whose area of research is Revivalist theology. Consequently, my research conforms to academic standards, it is peer-reviewed, and it is factual. For your edification I am in the process of preparing several papers for publication in several peer-reviewed theological journals (including one Pentecostal journal), that details aspects of my research into Revivalist belief, and which will no doubt meet the requirements of 'Wikipedia' as an acceptable source. Shall we wait and see? (Ian Thomason)Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You are then in the wrong article. If you are in "Revivalist Theology" article then aspects of your doctoral work may have relevance there, but you still be in the sticky point of original research and conflict of interest. The point about you being an ex-member shows that you have some grievances with this group, enough for you to be a doctoral candidate whose area of research is Revivalist theology. That is very relevant and cannot be separated. Whether you believe that it is not so is irrelevant. I am not convinced that people can wear two hats without compromising towards one direction or another. Topsaint 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm in the correct article. The reason I introduced the information that I have, here, is to demonstrate the falsity of certain the RCI editors' claim that nothing of substance has changed in core RCI doctrines. The fact that I'm a former member of the RCI remains moot. Second, WRT your claim that my research must be tainted by supposed "grievous" bias, understand this: my research context is the university and not the parochial "Bible College". To succeed in the university context, one must give demonstration of the full range of critical skills needed, including the capacity for dispassionate "360 degree" research.Didaktikon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floorwalker (talk • contribs)
You are wrong. There are Christian sources from the 1st century onwards, that describes baptism as being by either pouring and/or immersing. Interestingly, 'immersionist' baptism as an exclusive rite can only be established from the late 18th century onwards! For the largest part of the Christian Church's history, baptism was by either pouring or immersing. These are the facts, and I'd be more than happy to cite the primary sources if you'd like. (Ian Thomason)Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Ian but that is not the total and full story, Baptism is a broad term that includes christening (sprinkling), infusion (pouring) and full immersion. Baptism is a Greek translation of tevila, meaning Immersion. Mikveh means a pool where water has gathered and is a essential part of any Synagogue. However it should be noted that a Mikveh can include Hezekiah's Tunnel, where it comes out at the Pool of Siloam, although a "medium sized" Mikveh can be used to fully immerse 3,000 people within a day by forming a entrance and exit points. The Pool of Siloam and other pools are even more effective! Mk 1:9-10 that Jesus and John were not just "by" the Jordan, but were down "in" (eis) it. Then, after being submerged, Jesus came up "out of" (ek) the water. All this would have been unnecessary if full immersion were not the mode used here. Similarly, according to Jn 3:23, why was John baptizing at Aenon near Salim? The text says it was "because there was plenty of water." According to Ac 8:36-39, Philip and the Eunuch "went down" (katebesan) "into" (eis) the water and after the baptism "came up" (anebesan) "out of" (ek) the water. It applies the same as Mk 1:9-10.It has been said that the translators of the seventeenth century were not free to render baptizo as "immerse" because the state church that "authorized" their efforts (i.e., the Anglican church) practiced sprinkling. Not wanting to upset the governing authorities, and yet not wanting to translate Scripture incorrectly, they simply did neither and instead transliterated baptizo.The fundamental meaning of baptizo is to immerse, and that was evidently the primary mode of baptism in the NT. The Greek word used to refer to washing one’s whole body is louo (Jn 13:10, Ac 9:37, 16:33, Heb 10:22-23, 2Pe 2:22). The word used to refer to washing only a part of one’s body (such as the hands) is nipto (Mt 6:17, Jn 13:8). If one was washing one’s clothes, then pluno (4150) was used (Re 7:14). There are specific Greek words for "sprinkle" (rantizo, 4472) and also for "pour" (ekecho), but significantly those were not the words used in the NT with reference to baptism. There are specific Greek terms for "sprinkle" (rantizo) and "pour" (ekcheo), but those were not the words Jesus chose to use in Mt 28:18. He used the word baptizo.
What I have used above is some of the refute. I see that you have some difficulties with the other version and overall picture, but that is not to say you are wrong but to point out that how you present it is not the full story. Topsaint 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Ian but again it depends on what "facts" you follow and on who you are willing to believe, because there are more than enough facts to persuade that the full immersion aspect of the term "baptizo" was practically used. The same argument can suggest that ekcheo in Ac 2:33 really means "immerse" since it is paralleled with baptizo in Ac 10:44-48! G. R. Beasley-Murray article on baptism in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology sides with baptizo as "dip, immerse" and points out that even in non-Christian literature it meant "plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm. J. D. G. Dunn wrote in the New Bible Dictionary (J. D. Douglas, editor) that New Testament baptism was "probably by immersion." Even Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, in giving the Greek root for "baptize," defines baptizein as "to dip." Those proficient in Koine Greek are fairly well agreed that baptizo generally means immerse. Whether you are persuaded by Anglo-Catholic interpretation what the modern translators are taught or not, it shows that you have loopsided with one "baptizo" aspect and not the other "baptizo" aspect. The idea of immersion baptism as an "exclusive" rite from the late 18th century onwards is very debatable and cannot be established as fact. You contradict yourself by saying it is modern phenomenon when you say that baptism was by either pouring or immersing for the large part of church history. When most people write "immersing" they are generally referring to full body immersion. It is an opinionated POV, you have offered and should be treated as such on WP. I really question whether you understood both aspects, but its obvious that you have a stance contrary to the general "revivalism" principles of this church and so it still doesn't help the articles quality. Topsaint 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As I stated yesterday (removed last night), "old" RCI information is still RCI information, and as such is worthy of a hearing. What is probably not widely known within the RCI, is that many doctrines have been revised, removed and/or overturned as a consequence of others pointing out obvious (and sometimes not so obvious) errors. To claim, for example,that the RCI has always taught the necessity of "tongues" is a case in point. Such is a patently false statement, and one which can be refuted from "old" Revivalist documents. (Ian Thomason) Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Your claim that it is not widely known within RCI about doctrines been revised, removed and/or overturned is completely wrong. Have you not been following this discussion page????? Your example of RCI have always been taught the necessity of tongues as a false statement is also wrong, Lloyd Longfield and Simon Longfield and others have always said that they didn't have everything that they have now when they first started, that is well known even to me. It is not "worthy of a hearing" as you have suggested and is a irrelevant trivial point. Trivial is not encourage in WP articles for reason to keep article updated and clear away from controversy that leads to edit wars which damages the article. Topsaint 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you continue to remove commentary of my own which disproves your assertions. I would ask that you stop doing so. ThanksDidaktikon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose my "agenda" must be somehow less transparent than your own? In any case, I can quite easily cite published source after source, and then spanning the 2nd through 21st centuries, that discredits the principle RCI salvation doctrine. I can quite easily prove that no-one taught your group's "salvation message" before the UPC first coined the notion in the early decades of the 20th century. Again, the facts are very easily established; whether or not they would survive the constant pro-RCI editing here, much less so. (Ian Thomason) Didaktikon (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There are enough sources that credits similar RCI doctrine before the UPC, it depends where you get your sources. You are not the only one who has been through Bible College. Obviously RCI has their sources which they personally prefer to hold them in high regards over the sources of the opposite POV. Whether they are reliable or verifiable is irrelevant to this article because it is the primary source. Most articles in WP naturally lends slightly towards the title of the article of the discussion because of the primary source factor. Pro or not, WP articles looks for NPOV, but it does not achieve that by simply dumping both views in the article to "fight it out". They all have to be reliable and verifiable first and then checked for relevances. The article is "Revival Centre International" not "Revivalist Teaching" or "Revivalist Theology Critique", therefore may I suggest that since you do hold a minority viewpoint opposite to RCI and have a pervious personal link to this group, that it maybe it should have a WP article of itself because it cannot be covered in this article and would retract from the article's quality in the flow etc. Because what you suggested is still original research and although it may later be published in journals (i.e. you can prove it) it is still an extremely small minority POV in respect to this article but it would not be if it has an article of itself. However your "agenda" reveals a conflict of interest being an ex-member and so in this article you are extremely restricted in what you can contribute. But if you are willing to create a new "Revivalist Theology Critique" WP article based on your work in these published Journals, it may serve it's own purpose. However you have to be willing to either step away or in some cases write yourself in the third person because of the potential problems with the nature of having a "conflict of interest" aspect. Wherefore only a summary and link to a WP article of "Revivalist Theology Critique" would suffice in this article. Topsaint 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As for your suggestion to my "agenda", I am keeping an open mind but keeping balance by quality not by quantity. I am neither pro or anti but believe that the article should be fair as well as balanced. Dumping ideas based on peoples POV in the article is the cause of many edit wars and sometimes it needs better care on what should be included or not. Relevance is the key here along with WP policy. When I came on, there was plenty of POV pushing from both sides as well as from "independent" wikipedians who have been revealed with an anti-church background and was sorely out of their depth. Some "independent" wikipedians have well meant intentions and have even pulled me up on certain points, of which I am glad because I have personally asked these "independent" wikipedians to come on and assess the article quality. I then adapted the article to the most fair and balanced way possible in line to their assessment. The article need dignity and care especially when there were meatpuppets on either side. I am sure that most people on here agreed that I have worked with both sides to present relevant issues that should be in the article as well as working with independent wikipedians that I have personally call upon to assess this article. Topsaint 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ian, I don't see you doing anything like what I have done but rather follow a path that has neither prove useful to prevent opposite POV pushing which demoralise this article nor helpful in improve the article quality. A quick internet research suggest that you have subtly "allowed" Meatpuppet as well as Sockpuppet activities that is unacceptable to WP and hence my reluctance to include any of what you may have suggested. You may think it is somewhat a blackmark on you, but please do not take it personal. I just need evidence of non-bias work. Even academic journals have bias so any articles you place there may still be unsuitable for Wikipedia, it depends on what you have written. If it is original research, it cannot be a stand alone research to be included especially if there is articles supporting the opposite view, of which there are articles supporting certain aspects of Revivalism. However if over time that others have use your article or you have expanded on an existing research, the better and more likely the minority viewpoint of this article will have a footing. If your theology then become a literal definable practice of a known group, rather than just theological discussion, then it becomes a "significant" minority, then I am sure you will be named as a prominent adherent. But right now you are not "significant" and academic journals of theological discussion does not necessary portray actual common christian group practice but fragments of those practices. Hence it becomes very borderline to include aspects of your work so readily (it's the nature of the subject area), but who knows in 20-30 years time how useful your work will be. But good luck on your doctoral work nevertheless. Topsaint 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway can we move away from using this discussion page as a forum to disagree or agree with the ideas in the article. It should be used to discuss ways to improve the articles quality not to discuss about the ideas in the articles, it is not a forum. So Ian, please refrain from making it into a Theological debate. This is not the place or the article for it. Remember Wikipedia does what a Wikipedian do. Topsaint 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just on a side topic - Didaktikon when editing talk pages, please use the quotations when replying to items, as editing directly users comments is not good form - it makes it appear as though you or the other person have said or meant things that they haven't. Please do not just start editing in the middle of a comment, add to the end of the topic page, please keep it clean. If you are unsure on how to edit or formatting guidelines, please edit the WP:SB, and also check out the WP:T. BTW I have tidied up this talk page and put the comments back together - I haven't deleted any comments or added anything to any comments - just put the comments back together as they were originally written. Floorwalker (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you've not researched the matter in anywhere near the depth that you ought. Beasley-Murray is a Baptist, hence his slanting of the evidence in his favour. Bauer's lexicon, the standard academic reference for all matters relating to koine Greek, provides considerably more context that what you've found in the NBD, which apparently even qualifies its comments by use of the word "probably". The lexical root of the word baptise is not baptisein at all, but bapto. The lexical roots of the word pineapple are "pine" and "apple". Care to argue that, based on root, a pineapple is a kind of apple that grows on pine trees? Get my point, yet? Further, given your subsequent comments (re: history of baptism), it's clear that you didn't actually read what I had written. So please go back and have another look.Didaktikon (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have simply established that certain claims repeatedly made by RCI editors are false. Wrong. Incorrect. You fellows wish to claim the moral high-ground on content, and wish to force others to hold to conditions that you're not even prepared to meet yourselves. Hardly the way to ensure that a "high quality encyclopedic article" is what results, wouldn't you agree? Given your paryicular claims, given that I can prove from your own official sources that the RCI hasn't always taught what it currently teaches concerning the necessity of "tongues", would you be prepared to admit as much in the article if I were to cite for your the references? I suppose what I'm asking is this: are you open to academic scrunity, to doctrinal and historical transparency, to moral honesty? And finally, would you be prepared to allow my research to be included and referenced in this article, once it has been verified by an acceptable third-party publication? After all, you've said that was all that was necessary before, but you seem to have changed your tune since.Didaktikon (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Topsaint", this may come as a surprise to you, but I actually teach biblical Greek in a tertiary context. I'm someone who is recognised as an authority on the subject, so it's just possible that I understand the too-ing and fro-ing of the history of this issue a little better than might you. So let's begin with the issue of mikvaoth, shall we? Mikveh were used for ceremonial washing, and not simply the act of plunging as you imply. Further, there were no Mikveh in Samaria during the 1st century, nor were there any standing bodies of water capable of immersing even one person, nevermind the numbers implied in Acts 8. Second, with respect to your ignorance of how the prepositions eis and ek function in the context of the baptism of Jesus by John at the Jordan: they describe the action of leaving the bank and entering the water, then of leaving the water and returning to the bank. The prepositional phrases say nothing whatoever about the depth of the water, nor of what took place in it! Third, the word "baptism" is a noun, it describes a rite and not an action. The verb "baptise" describes the activity of applying water to the body in the act of ritual purification, it too says nothing of "plunging". The Greek word that does describe immersing is bapto, but bapto is nowhere used of baptism in the NT!Didaktikon (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read my previous comments on etiquette and form. Please do not change other peoples comments, and keep it clean. Please read the wikipedia style rules and etiquette rules that I have posted previously, and try and keep the personal attacks to a minimum - sometimes things are read out of context or posted in the heat of the moment, but do not use this as a place to vent your anger out, only for constructive critism on improving the article. As it is right now we are going round in circles, and need to move forward rather than getting caught up in theological arguments. Floorwalker (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I wasn't venting, nor was I engaging in ad hom-style rebuttals. Could you please respond to my requests for information as to whether or not third-party, peer-reviewed research of mine would be amenable as a reference to this article. Thanks.Didaktikon (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I must apoligise, one of the comments fell off when I was making the talk more readable - I have reinserted the comments, I have not added or removed any words from anyones comments. This wasn't done delibretly but has been rectified. Floorwalker (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please post all comments at the BOTTOM of the page - inserting them at various parts is misleading - as your comment about deletion of your own comments was made after I had restored them, but placed several paragraphs previous which makes it appear as though I have been systematically and delibretly altering your comments - which were only done today and not yesterday as it would appear. If I may quote

I notice that you continue to remove commentary of my own which disproves your assertions. I would ask that you stop doing so.

Topsaint hadn't removed the comments, I had by accident, noticed it and restored the comments immediatly. Anyway this is now getting way off topic, time to get back to the page and proper discussion. I do apoligise if I have offended you - that wasn't my intention at all, at the moment it was to try and keep the talk page readable and clean without random comments inserted left right and centre which would change the original intent of the author (as some of my previous comments meanings had changed when comments were inserted in between). Like I said twice now, do not interrupt comments, but add to the bottom of the discussion as this can be viewed as misleading - it isn't an attack on yourself, but an attempt to help improve the style of editing. If you wish to quote a previous comment, then use the < blockquote > < / blockquote > tabs. Cheers Floorwalker (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)