Talk:The Revival Fellowship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	The Revival Fellowship 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 protection? 2 Edit warring 3 cultweb/cults affiliation 4 Eye Gouging 5 Balance in the article 6 Community 7 Logo 8 Nontrinitarian 9 CULT references 10 Moving forward 10.1 Criticism section 11 NATGOO 12 Criticism section 13 Disctinction between RCI and RF 14 Editors who sole contribution consists of reverting this article 15 Forum 16 Revival42 and her puppets 17 Seriously, though 18 Diagram 19 Protected edit request 20 Request for comment 20.1 History 20.2 Doctrine 20.3 Criticism 20.4 Statements by editors previously involved in dispute 20.5 Comments 21 Going too far 22 Let's get some order here! (please read this in its entirety) 23 Where to from here?

[edit] protection?

The use of numbers by the RF to avoid proper editorials makes a mockery of the site which is merely a way for them to advertise.

This site does not cover the historical basis of the group and their practises and should be open for a proper edit. It is currently merely an advert for the group.

The site does not provide an objective view of the group.

I notice that there is a lot of reverting back and forward on this page. I think there should be links to pro-Revival Fellowship links (www.trf.org.au) and sites like rc.cultweb.org which share the alternate point of view on this very controversial group. Also suggest that someone seek informal mediation from the cabal (see help pages) who can freeze anonymous edits on the page and add anti-vandalism protection. Like many, I believe that the Revival Fellowship is a dangerous group, but would encourage both sides of the issue to fully express their opinions.Seldon-au

I agree that this page provides no useful information about the history or activities of the group. I have no particular affiliation with either side of the debate, but this page cannot remain as it is. If you look at pages for every other religion they contain criticism from individual or groups who do not agree with their beliefs or practices. This is called objectivity, not slander or hatred. It's just stating all the facts and allowing readers to make up their own minds. Nomenklatura44 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that referencing a blog or opinion page is not fair or balanced. And a few individuals are attempting to make this group seem more controversial that it really is. They are a Christian denomination and the Cult references and pages are not scholarly articles and therefore have no standing in the article. It is best to keep it simple and we will continue to delete cult references as unfounded. At some time we will have to have a mediator involved if this continues. Anonymous people should not be allowed to have editing rights on this page. Revival42 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)revival42

Oh - btw - the cultweb.org site has been taken down so referencing it is useless. I believe this was after litigation was threatened and the site found to be promoting hatred and carrying many slanderous statements. Revival42 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)revival42

As of 25th of March 2007 the cultweb.org site has resumed operation. There was no litigation towards it. The site was down temporarily due to financial reasons.

[edit] Edit warring

I notice there appears to be a lot of edit warring on this article. I just want to remind both parties of the three-revert rule.↔NMajdan•talk 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cultweb/cults affiliation

There is no affiliation with cultweb or any other cult discussion forums/organizations. These are truly based only on self opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Picheriko (talk • contribs) 11:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Regardless of affiliation, many, many ex-members and experts characterise RF as a cult/cult-like organisation, and it's important that the Wikipedia article reflects all viewpoints. Please read through the policies, particularly that on neutral point of view. Thanks. 81.105.176.121 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read your NPOV... i'll quote you: ""We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.""

References to cults, etc are OPINION.. Not FACT.. How about we state facts then.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.228.246 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

What is being reported here, in the Wikipedia article, is that some people regard RF as a cult - the references you removed establish this as fact. The other information you removed is also verified - if you disagree with the teachings of RF (or don't know of the details of its establishment) you should discuss your issues with your pastor. Natgoo 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

regard = opinion. Fact is, it is a Christian based demonination. As mentioned before, if I believe an organisation to "suck" or dislike their service, I would not regard them as a "bad customer service organization" when infact, all they do is sell washing machines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.228.246 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, which is what the article is stating. The article does NOT say that RF is a cult, but that some people regard it as one, which is fact. Natgoo 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at Criticism of Christianity. Its a whole article dedicated to information that criticizes the religion. But it is all verifiable. Same thing here.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

regarding some people believing this is a cult. Some people believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny too. And reference a blog, or website that has no intellectual standing should not happen and will be deleted. Commission a white paper, have it peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal and perhaps then you will have something that you can add. And why waste your time with this. Isn't the catholic church the largest cult in the world? Do they have cult references on their article?Revival42 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Revival42

Thanks for your input, but please don't remove others' comments from talk pages. Why do you object to the characterisation of the group as a cult by some people being included in the article? The Wikipedia article doesn't say that the group is a cult, but that some people regard it as one. Regardless of its 'truth', I feel the criticism is valid information about some people's feelings about the group and should be included in a balanced, encyclopaedic article. The first time I heard the RC (and please, don't argue that it doesn't count, the groups have a shared history and identical doctrine and dogma) referred to as a cult was in a Time magazine article in the early 80s - I can't search the Asia-Pacific edition archives from here but I will try and source it when I can. The references provided are valid for the section as it is written. Natgoo 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, all.

I have written several articles that appear at a website that is critical of RF teachings (www.pleaseconsider.info), but I have never referred to the RF as a cult.

I am currently a doctoral candidate, my research subject being the theology of the RF and the RCI. The writing of my dissertation is currently under way; my research is factually based, and conforms to standard academic ethical policies and procedures. Would any references that I care to submit meet the evidentiary requirements of Wikipedia?

Regards,

Ian

Sure, Ian. Submit any changes you have in mind and see if they're accepted by the community. Cheers Natgoo 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eye Gouging

The story of eye gouging is totally irrelevant to the group "The Revival Fellowship". Please refrain from posting stories based on rumour or here-say. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Picheriko (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree. The story is only substantiated by a message board posting, which is not verifiable. Until a decent reference can be established the story should be kept out of the article. Natgoo 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance in the article

There has been plenty of edit-warring over this article recently. I suggest that editors stop removing valid, verified information and instead start adding information to provide balance and start working towards an NPOV article. Natgoo 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Some great work so far, seldon-au. Thanks. I think the reference to the eye-gouging story is still a little shaky - was there any independent media coverage at the time? I'll see what I can find... Natgoo 09:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The page as it currently stands (23 Feb 2007), is terribly non-neutral and is more of an 'anti-The Revival Fellowship' page. I recently did some editing, which was considered vandalism, and the changes were obviously reverted.

Why is it that unverified negative statements are allowed, yet verifiable neutral statements are not?

The RF is not King James Only. This is verified here

The BRF website is a 'vanity publication' produced by a member of the Brisbane RF assembly (Craig Howard). Ian Thomason

The RF is not nontrinitarian.

The RF claim to being trinitarian can be challenged by the fact that they disallow, disavow and distance themselves from both the Nicene Creed and Definition of Chalcedon. It is these two credal formulations which stand at the heart of all orthodox Christian teaching on the subject of the Trinity, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Ian Thomason

The church was formed in 1995, so why is there a reference to a 1984 RCI magazine?

Why does this page not allow The Revival Fellowship's core beliefs to be shown? Instead it mentions Pyramidology, British-Israel and Bible numerics which are considered to be peripheral topics of interest. The core beliefs are verified here Tangools 08:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Tangool's claim, British Israel and Bible Numerics are anything but peripheral subjects. BI, for example, stands at the very heart (or 'core') of the RF's interpretation of biblical promises and prophecy (i.e. 'doctrine'). Further, the official RF website includes more information on both BI and Numerics than they do on any other subject or item of belief (including, for example, on Jesus Christ). Ian Thomason

The core beliefs have been added and a correction to the salvation message. I think it is best to keep the article simple. They are a Christian group, have a set of beliefs, came out of the RCI and continue to worship and preach their message worldwide. Revival42 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)revival42

But they are unique in that they preach heterodox doctrines shunned and excluded by other Christian groups (that the white British peoples are really the 'lost' tribes of Israel; that the Great Pyramid was built by Israelites, and functions as a calendar in stone that identifies world chronology; that the Bible was written in 'code', etc). All of these beliefs, incedentally, have been promoted and presented by both Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, and the original Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the precursor to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Ian Thomason

I think the article is much better now. Nice and simple, and relatively unbiased. Thanks to everyone's contributions. Tangools

Agreed! Article is fantastic, thanks for everyone's contribution and constant attention.

There seems to be plenty of edits with people adding cult references to the page. Revival fellowship is not a cult and should not be linked to cult discussion groups that have no affiliation.

There is the issue of the Second coming prophesies. These were done in 1984-85 by Lloyd Longfield of the Revival Centres. There is some thought that this article was written 10 years before Revival Fellowship was even formed. Perhaps this could be deleted and maybe a note to view it on the Revival Centres page? Revival42 05:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)revival42

The Second coming prophesies definitely appears out of place. It looks to be a feeble effort to discredit The Revival Fellowship.

If this was an article about 'Australians' and there was a section about 'Anti-baby views' with a quote of Queen Victoria 'I don't dislike babies, though I think very young ones rather disgusting.', it would be seen as out-of-place. The quote was said by an Englishwoman not an Australian, and it was said before Australia was even founded...

But Australia was founded (colonized) by English, so Australia is pretty much 'part' of England right? And England's leader once said this quote way back in the 1800s.

This is the same poor logic that claims 'The Revival fellowship was founded by ex RCI members, so the RF is pretty much 'part' of RCI, and an RCI leader once said Jesus might return on such and such a date way back in 1984.

But several high profile RF pastors have also publicly claimed that Jesus would probably return before 2000. One, at least, based his opinion on his understanding of 'Bible Numerics'. Ian Thomason

Absolutely irrelevant. Tangools 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the RCI article as irrelevant to this article. It is still available on the RCI article, but since Revival Fellowship is not part of RCI it does not fit here. Revival42 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)revival42

It has been generally agreed that the RCI article on second coming does not fit here. Revival Fellowship is not part of RCI.

[edit] Community

Josh, I may do a bit of an edit on your addition to the community section. We want to keep the article simple and not overplay it. Revival42 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Revival42

[edit] Logo

Could someone add "The Revival Fellowship" logo? thanks

[edit] Nontrinitarian

I've added again nontrinitarian to the introduction - it's important RF doctrine that the Holy Spirit is not God is not Jesus Christ, clearly outlined in their teachings. Natgoo 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted non-trinitarian - it is obvious that you are trying to discredit the church, but the church does teach and believe in the trinity. Not sure what your goal is, but we will continue this as long as you like. Who hurt you so bad that you feel you have to work so hard to hurt this church and its members. They love the Lord and want to see people saved. What is your beef and why not let it go and do some work for the kingdom on your own?

How is noting that the church doesn't believe in the trinity discrediting anybody? The statement of belief states 'Jesus Christ is the son of God' - if you have difficulty accepting that you need to discuss your issues with your pastor. Natgoo 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Natgoo - I don't remember seeing you at the Pastor's meeting, or at any of the council meetings.

What on earth does that have to do anything? Basic reading comprehension demonstrates that the RF follows nontrinitarian doctrine (even described as pre-Nicene by several pastors). Why do you feel that this is negative and an attempt to discredit the RF? Please try to articulate your objection to the inclusion of this information, so that we can all understand your feelings and work towards a consensus in this matter.Natgoo 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Natgoo - the point is that I have attended these meetings and am a lot more plugged in to the RF doctrine and teachings than you. Debating the trinity doctrine is way more complex than is called for in this article. The word "trinity" doesn't even appear in the bible. You are wrong in your understanding of RF doctrine. By why waste time debating over a word. Officially RF is trinitarian. If it is such a big deal to you, I will raise the point at the next Pastor's meeting. Revival42 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Revival42

Please do, as the group's statement of belief and teachings contradict your assertion, and should be reviewed if no longer true. As we can only work with verifiable information (are the minutes of the pastors' meetings publicly available? Please provide them if so), and this is a central part of RF doctrine, I feel the information should be included. I agree that the trinity doctrine is complex, but RF's response to it has never been - it has always, and continues, to claim that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are not one with God, which is the central tenet of the trinity. Natgoo 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wasting your time - we will revert this non-trinitarian reference. The debate is too complex for your attempt to label the church in this category when clearly it is not. Revival42 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)revival42

[edit] CULT references

I'm sick of having to restore this page due to cult references.

The revival fellowship has no affiliation with cults. People have ideas that the RF is a cult, but this can be said about every church. So perhaps you all need to update every other churces wiki reference and wack in a cult link.

See my point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.31.194 (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Frankly, no. This talk page is for discussion of this article - if you feel that other articles should contain additional information please discuss your feelings on the talk pages for those articles. If you are 'sick' of anything (although I don't understand if you are, as you have only made one edit to the article, which was today) I suggest you carefully read and absorb the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on ownership of articles and neutral point of view, take a deep breath and work on a different article for a while. I also suggest you carefully read and absorb the policy on civility, as your edit summary and tone are quite rude.

You haven't yet stated your objection to the inclusion of the information in the article, just that it isn't true (which is irrelevant to its inclusion in the article, as it is a subjective determination). Please read through the policy on building consensus and start trying to do so. Natgoo 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of taking a breath. Natgoo, there are no Cult references even on the Revival Centres International page. I can see from your profile that you must have been shunned and quite hurt sometime in the past. From reading your personal page, you come from a very bias background. I think it may have clouded your neutrality and ask you to move to another article. If you can find a verifiable, non-opinion based source (a web page set up by an ex-member doesn't count), maybe we can talk. For now - give it a rest for a week and think about why you feel to the need to do what you are doing.Revival42 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)revival42

It's simple really - I'm interested in building a factual, balanced encyclopaedia article, and this criticism is important to that aim. You have totally misrepresented my personal experiences and viewpoint, not that it matters - I have only inserted factual, verified information. Again I ask you to please articulate your objections with the view to building consensus, and if you have comments about the information in other articles please discuss those on the appropriate talk page. Also please sign your comments, and if you have replied to someone else's comment (or made edits when you weren't logged in) please indicate that you have done so. Natgoo 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You personal bias is important, since you are not really writing a clear balanced article. I have asked nicely that you leave your cult reference off, since a) it is not verifiable, b) simple untrue. c) very opinionated. Please go added your reference to Revival Centres, The Roman Catholic Church, etc. I don't see anything on these sites, nor in the counter cult space either. And sorry, I came back to sign my last comment, but forgot. Revival42 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) revival42

Few words, pot, kettle, black. Trying to say that natgoo is biased with a nick like Revival42, your having a laugh. Also trying to say that she had a bad experience in the past from the church could be consided a personal attack so please keep your discussion on topic Revival42 and please learn how to indent when your replying, it makes reading alot easier. Further more read the articles you mention, the Catholic church has numerous references to criticisms, and because its so big, it even has it's own article Criticism of the Catholic Church. 192.150.20.11 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

Can we please work together now to improve this article? It needs work - the grammar is dreadful in places and it lacks a criticism section. If we can't reach consensus between us we can ask for input from other editors. Natgoo 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeking unprotection for this article. I'd like to place an unbalanced template at the top, to attract the attention of other editors and start to generate some discussion (at the moment it feels as though the only people who have interest in this article are church members, which is reflected in the discussion on this talk page and the lack of criticism in the article). There is lots of critical information available - some important links are: pleaseconsider.info, rc.cultweb.net, the caic document archive (which is a fascinating resource) and the RC discussion boards. Natgoo 12:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Just a thought, Revival42, would you be amenable to having verified quotations of the RF Council, or more particularly, of its Chairman, John K included within the body of the article? In other words, would you welcome John K's doctrinal and sociological opinions (as voiced from the pulpit) introduced into the article so as to enable readers to better discern the credibility and Christian nature of the RF?

I have several such extended quotes (providing the necessary context) which I would like to see included. They are remarkably candid, and paint a slightly different picture to the one you wish to see presented of your church. Given that these remarks originate from within the very group that determines 'official' RF teaching and practice, surely you couldn't object to their inclusion? (Ian Thomason)

Okay, how about something along these lines:

The Revival Fellowship has been heavily criticised, mainly by ex-members, for its theology and doctrine. Theological criticism centres on the requirement for speaking in tongues and the group's strong focus on Acts 2:38^[1], while doctrinal criticism centres on the Revival Fellowship's dogmatic approach to community and fellowship, in particular the requirement that members minimise their interactions with the 'world' (excluding evangelism) and its practice of disfellowshipping members for minor trangsressions and minor criticism of church leaders, and the extent to which the oversight control the lives of its members^[2]. An internet messageboard has been established for discussion of the group's practices, and may be found here.

Natgoo 14:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. You cannot seriously consider the above statement to be balanced in anyway. Look at all the explosive "Red Flag" words you are using. Not only that but you continue to use unreliable references, which we will revert if added. Revival42 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

Can you please tell me why you feel these are unreliable sources? I disagree. The 'red flag' words are what people are saying. Would you prefer it if direct quotes were used instead? If you don't feel this is suitable, what do you think a criticism section should consist of? Please read through the sources I've provided above, and tell me how you feel the criticism is better summarised? Natgoo 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NATGOO

You are clearly an ex-member. Bugger off and whinge somewhere else. Same goes for the RCI wiki entries. You are a nuisance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.31.195 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

You profess to bring balance to the article and neutral points of view. The article shouldn't have a point of view at all. It is simply fact. This is a church, this is where it is and this is what it believes. There is neither positive nor negative reference. A positive and a negative reference doesn't make a neutral article. Spend your time edifying the brethren. 210.18.193.211 03:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay - to start with, 139... please limit your comments on this talk page to discussion of the article. If you feel the need to discuss editors you can do so on their talk pages. It's not appropriate here, and you are veering very close to a personal attack. For the record, I have never even set foot in an RF meeting, let alone been a member or in any way otherwise associated. Thanks for trying, though. 210..., it is your point of view that the RF is a benign church, it is the POV of others that it is a dangerous cult. The article should present all sides, and the fact that all of the non-church results when you search for RF in google are critical is pretty telling.

Do you have any comments to make on the criticism section I started above? I'm reinstating the unbalanced tag to point people to this talk page - please don't remove it and then not contribute to the discussion. Please carefully read and absorb, if you haven't already, the five pillars of wikipedia to understand what this encyclopaedia is trying to achieve, and how people are expected to behave while editing. Natgoo 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why we waste our time with you Natgoo. You have been very successful at adding all your references here on the discussion page and anyone can view them. I think you only want to stir up useless debate and have no desire towards balance. All your edits and suggestions have been very extreme and very unbalanced. This group is not a cult, and the only truth in your criticism is that some leaders or pastors may have made mistakes, or been too strict.

As for referencing the blogs, and opinion or self published works the following policy will need to be adhered to: 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. " Revival42 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

To which websites are you referring? The section above uses only primary sources, and never says that the group is a cult - have you even read it? Do you have anything to say about the additions I want to make to the article? Please stop talking about me, and start talking about the article! Natgoo 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Natgoo- I did not express a view that RF is a Benign church. I believe otherwise. I believe the article should be benign, neither expressing pro-RF or anti-RF sentiments. It shouldn't be used by the church as a recruitment tool and it shouldn't be used by scaremongers as a deterrent. Your own words seem to display an attitude of extremism - eg. heavily, minor, minor, (these are matters of personal opinion and not referenced) If these additions were made the article would be open to pro-RF tesitmonies etc. Neither are fair. My view is - no deterrent and no recruitment. No POV at all. 210.18.193.211 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe what natgoo is adding seems to be an undisputed fact which is some people do percieve RF to be a cult. Also the cultweb site is in DMOZ so it has been verified as a reliable source by a human editor. You don't get into DMOZ otherwise. So I'm putting it back in as you can't argue that a movement against RF doesn't exist, and it's relevant to the RF article. Fact is fact. 192.150.20.11 08:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing whether an anti-RF/RCI/Catholic etc.. movement exists. Yes it is fact. It isn't relevant to the wikipedia article as this movement doesn't change what the RF is. Whether or not people like the church is irrelevant to what the church is. These movements require their own wikipedia entry external to this one.210.18.193.211 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)]]

No I disagree, the anti-RF movement is too small to be in it's own wikipedia article, and in anyhow if there was an article it would have a link from this one which I reckon you would remove any. Every other group that has a wiki article and has an anti movement against it mentions this in their article. For example, even though the Islam article is so long, they still have a section in there about criticism of their religion even though they also have a seperate article as well. To not mention it would be ignoring an undisputed fact. And of course the anti movement is related to the church, because you can't be anti against something if it didn't exist in the first place. Since you all agree there is a anti movement, that is a fact that's undisputed how can you dispute it's place in the article? All these reverts are obvisouly done by church members who of course are biased, and sometimes so biased that can't see it themselves. So since the fact that there is an anti movement and that is not in dispute, I'm putting it back in. Heck, if it's good enough for a major world religion, it's good enough for your small article.

Look I know it must feel like we are attacking your faith, we are not. We are merely pointing out the fact that there are people who don't like your religion. You are free to believe what you want, wether it be Jesus Christ, the easter bunny or santa claus. This also means others a free to believe your a cult, just like you believe we are all going to hell. If your beliefs about Jesus and the Holy Ghost are allowed in the article (by your reasoning they shouldn't be as they are non verified point of views that people believe in) then when a group of people believe your a cult and have started a movement against you that should also be in. Your beliefs don't trump everyone elses, they should all get a mention in the article. It's not up to you to edit out the FACTS you don't like especially when they are undisuputed and you agree it's a fact.

Also if you read it, nowhere does it call your religion a cult. It is merely saying some people call it a cult and have started a counter-cult movement against it. While I agree by having people merely call it a cult does not warrant a mention, but the fact that people have started a movement against it THAT deserves the mention.

But look on the bright side. If Jesus was real, I'm sure his band of merry men were called a cult in their day.

192.150.20.11 09:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First - register as an editor - we will accept no edits from anonymous users. Second - learn to spell. OK that was an unfair shot - I apologize. The fact remains that the site you are referring to - which I rechecked - is an unauthorized secondary reference. The site was set-up as a personal page by <removed for potential infringement of WP:BLP>. He apparently has abandoned any maintenance of the site and many of the pages are invalid links that are dead. This big movement you keep referring to is really a personal opinion group and is not as big as you make out. I am not afraid of criticism, nor do I judge that everyone else is "going to hell". That was really silly of you to suggest that. What we as editors object to is the strong language being used to make it sound like this group is a) waiting for the mother ship to return, or b) going to take its followers into the desert for some 'last stand' against the world. There are a lot of really good things going on in the church. The consensus of the editors is to maintain a small article about the group and avoid over-promoting the church, or making them seem bigger that they really are. At the same time, we will revert links to unauthorized personal blogs or websites as stated by Wikipedia policy. If you do register as an editor, please make a suggestion here for an addition before editing the main article. Revival42 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

Well, I've just removed the addition you made yesterday that sounded exactly like you're waiting for the mother ship to return, so that should help. And, again - it is your opinion there are 'a lot of really good things going on', but it is the opinion of others that the group is dangerous and harmful. Why does your opinion trump those of others? Why should your bias be given precedence? All I ask is that the article include all points of view, not just those of a small group of church members - it is not the place of Wikipedia to 'edify the brethren'.

Again, I ask that you become more familiar with Wikipedia before making pronouncements like "we will accept no edits from anonymous users" - your knowledge of basic Wikipedia policy is obviously sorely lacking. I also note that you choose not to revert the edits from anonymous IPs that share your bias.

I've added the criticism section above but I've reworded it in places. The sources are primary sources, except for the Freedom of Mind Centre, a well-respected site run by Steven Hassan. I believe I have addressed all of the objections that have been raised here. I've also removed the unbalanced tag. Natgoo 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Please discuss before reverting, or edit as you feel appropriate, thanks. Natgoo 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC) The editorial does not reflect an objective view of the group and acts merely as a tool to promote their views and does not place them in any historical context. The article has been perverted by the group which uses its membership to stop objective assessments of their group.

First - editors that are pushing extreme views should register and not make edits anonymously. Second, the article was more or less simple and balanced. I was glad to see you toned down some of your extreme views in the last edit - it is a start. However, I am not willing to accept blogs, personal websites, or vanity publishing as a reference. The sites that you referenced are all those - and the freedom of mind site is very outdated and refers mostly to RCI. Reading through the claims they make about what the RCI do is quite wrong. Perhaps there have been individual pastors that have crossed the line and been extreme, but this in general is not the case. And particularly since the Revival Fellowship is not a part of RCI, it makes no sense to include it. Revival42 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

None of these are personal websites, and all but the Freedom of Mind site are primary sources. If you need help understanding what that means there is a helpful article here. Your objections aren't valid - are you saying that what you think is more important than what others think? That what you say should be believed more than others? I disagree, and find this attitude extremely arrogant, as are your actions here. Did you read the Freedom of Mind site? It doesn't sound like it. If you feel it also has relevance to the RCI article you're welcome to add it there. Your characterisation of anyone that has views different to yours as extreme is bizarre, and indicative of your bias. Natgoo 18:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the criticism section again - in so doing, I draw your attention to:

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. [1]. If you choose to ignore Wikipedia policy, I think we will have to inititiate the dispute resolution process. Natgoo 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the site, which is under the heading Revival Centres. Besides the fact that has nothing to do with Revival Fellowship, except mentioning it, the site contains errors and old material not relevant to this article. I am not sure why you have gone back to name calling, but you seem quite passionate in your desire to get your way here. I have tried to be fair and respectful in the latest round of suggestions.

Where is this statement referenced - "members are encouraged to minimise their contact with the "world""? I do not believe this to be true. Maybe a reference would be handy to establish it. I have an alternative wording - members are encouraged to minimise their contact with "sinful influences". No one can minimise contact with the world. (maybe if the laws of gravity changed) Wording is confusing.

[edit] Disctinction between RCI and RF

There needs to be a clear distinction between the RF and the RCI.

The RF was formed fresh as a result of Lloyd Longfields moral decisions in 1995. Hence, any articles, sound recordings, pamphlets and references pre 1995 (as this the date the RF formed) are totally invalid.

The only references should be post 1995 and clearly identified as "The Revival Fellowship".

I disagree. That's ignoring the 40-odd years of shared history that you have. The RF did not just spring out of the ether in 1995; prior to that RF and the RCI were the same thing. That is the history of the organisation. Natgoo 06:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Natgoo - I can see your point in some things, but they are clealy biased and aren't a reflection of the organisation. If you are claiming to not be a member or ex-member, then your statements cannot be verified as you are basing your opinions on rumour, here-say or made up stories by disgruntled ex-members. As said before, if an organisation/group of people "XYZ" claims that organisation "ABC" are "this and that", it's merely an opinion and not a factual and therefore organisation "ABC" would not be categorised as such based on a load of waffle.

It is a fact that people have these opinions of the RF, as it is a fact that you have your opinion of the RF. Please respect Wikipedia policy by improving the article instead of just removing sections you don't agree with. I concur with the removal of the line 'The RF is a totally voluntary organisation' - I don't think the article needs to state this, it's implied. Natgoo 06:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of opinions on other organisations... Are you going to help me edit all the wiki entries there as well?? Lets start with BMW, I hate their cars along with another 44000 people agreeing with me... see my point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Picheriko (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Hey picheriko, I bet you didn't read the BMW article, because if you did there is a section in there that criticizes BMW. It talks about how people didn't like a design of theirs. But, according to you, this is all opinion so should be removed, even though it's part of BMW's history. See you don't get the point, it's not the fact that you and 44000 others don't like the cars, it's that they don't like the cars for a specific reason and it's related to BMW. This is along the same lines, some ex church members don't like your methodolgy and have decided to help people who have been hurt by it, this too is now a part of the history of your church and should also be expressed in the article, not doing so would leave the article very imbalanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.150.20.11 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Natgoo - why don't you start following Wikipedia policy and dont get all upset. The fact is those pages are covered under this policy: As for referencing the blogs, and opinion or self published works the following policy will need to be adhered to: 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. Revival42 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

Ok first off a link to the policy that Revival42 keeps mentioning (but never links to) Wikipedia:Verifiability to help aid our discussion.

Now, lets clarify by quoting "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.". That's as close a quote I can find similar to the one Revival42 keeps pasting. Small differences between should and largely. Remember the word should (and largely) both mean that sometimes you CAN link to personal websites in some circumstances, as long as you follow some guidelines.

Now lets look at the circumstances in which we can put a link to a self published website: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. ".

Still with me? Next the website in question, lo and behold, it has it's own wikipedia article Freedom of Mind. Ok that means first up it's notable (or at least the author is). Further more Steven Alan Hassan passes the test of "well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field".

Last test, has it been published by reliable third-party publications? Well yessir he's published 2 books (according to his wikipedia article) with the information that is on his website and quote "The book has been reviewed in the American Journal of Psychiatry, and in the The Lancet, and has been praised by many scholars and cult experts". Now just to clarify both the American Journal of Psychiatry and The Lancet are reliable third party publications.

So to sum it up, it passes the wikipedia test for validity and should stay.

On a side note, if you read Mr Hassan's article in wikipedia, he too has a criticism section were people have criticized him. But again according to you guys that should be removed because it's people opinion on him. So, are you guys starting to see a pattern emerging? Article after article with criticism sections. If you look at most articles on wikipedia, especially controversial ones like this, they all have a criticism section, but then how were you guys to know when you only ever edit this article. 192.150.20.11 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of mind link you refer to is labeled Revival Centres International - perhaps you can try to add it there. That being said, the article itself is quite outdated and contains many errors and personal opinions rather than the facts of what actual happens in RCI. Therefore, I feel this link doesn't belong in this article. Revival42 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

They have a shared history and also there are specific bits on there to do with RF, I suggest you read it. It has scanned documents from the church, newspaper articles etc, hardly personal opinions. --192.150.20.11 09:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a resolution to this would be to put something along the lines that RF was formed as a seperation from RCI in 1995, and for earlier history to see the RCI wiki site? The RCI wiki site has acknowledgments to associations and seperation from previous groups, this is undisputed history, just like the Greek Orthodox mentions about it's schism with the Roman Catholic Church - up to 1054AD they both had shared history (being the same group as it were) but after that point they became 2 seperate identities. There are doctrinal differences between RCI and RF - I'm not saying to put that in, just that RF was formed as a schism from RCI in 1995 over the issue of sex before marriage. [[User:Floorwalker|Floorwalker 02:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors who sole contribution consists of reverting this article

Will all those people whose only edits consist of just this article please stop? Your obvisouly members of the church with exreme bias. In wikipedia this is what's called a meatpuppet and is against policy. So like Revival42's policy of only accepting edits to 'her' article that are logged in (or confirm to her POV), I'll have to start a policy of reverting all edits done by editors whose sole contributions to wikipedia have been to edit (specifically revert) this article. Actually I won't do that as I will probably hit the 3rr rule before they run out of church members, but then one could argue that it's fixing vandalism which doesn't count under the 3rr rule. So just so we are all following policy, no meat puppets, this means if you were called here by the church to edit the article, don't do it. 192.150.20.11 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I do view other pages and contribute to other pages. The fact is, I would like to see a balanced article, something Natgoo and 192.150.20.11 seems to be threatening to make impossible. For this edit war to end, why not make some suggestions rather than put links in that many (whether church members or not) disagree with. As it said somewhere in Wikipedia policy, state the facts and let that speak for itself. If you have some suggested facts about the church that you wish to include in the community section, that may be more appropriate. Revival42 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

We have made suggestions, it is you who continues to revert them. You have acknowledged in the past that the fact exists their is criticism of the church. Also you continue to remove the references which are needed as per wikipedia policy to back up the facts. Please leave in all valid references, but feel free to contribute to the rest of the article when you spot errors.

---

[edit] Forum

I don't think the aimoo forum is an appropriate link; Wikipedia doesn't normally recognize internet forums as reliable sources, and that a critical forum exists isn't inherently newsworthy, either. I'm taking the liberty of removing this one source. Note that I have restored the most recent removal of the entire criticism section. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In this context, I feel it is appropriate - the link is labelled as 'a forum for discussion of the group's practices'. There are other sources, such as [2] and [3], but these have proved to be more objectionable to some as the word 'cult' is in the URL. Natgoo 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section is now under Community where facts are listed. Links to RCI labeled information is not appropriate. Thanks for the input FisherQueen. But the revert of the article has cut both ways and the POV pushing should remain with stating facts and letting others judge. Revival42 21:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

Why don't you take your own advice and leave the facts in and let others judge? --192.150.20.11 09:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revival42 and her puppets

Let me draw your attention to the wikipedia policy on puppets Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Quote:

It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible. (See: Wikipedia:Canvassing)

The arrival of multiple newcomers with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints rarely helps achieve neutrality and usually damages it. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less.

If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

So all the brethen that have been called by Revival42 calling to action to revert this article, on the basis of wikipedia policy this is not allowed so please stop. Good faith has come and gone and now all editors who continue to revert without constructive edits are clearly puppets of Revival42 will be treated as vandals and hence the 3RR does not apply when reverting your changes. Revival42 you have been warned multiple times by multiple people that your conduct is not very becoming of wikipedia policy and yet you continue to break it. We tried to work with you in good faith but you continue to refuse and make false accusations. I see you have even tried to complain that I was threatening you but I have not, if I am mistaken please point out where I threatened you.

--192.150.20.11 09:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

192 - seriously, that is a completely wrong accusation. I have worked at editing this article and want balance. You are reverting and vandalizing and other editors have come in and reverted the personal opinion pages and vanity writings. Yes I am a member and if you note from the last edits, I have been trying to go down the middle road. This is not an advert for the church. What I will accept is listing facts and letting others judge. You have also been requested to take the middle ground. Hopefully you will calm down, stop the shouting and personal attacks and work with us rather than pushing you own agenda. Revival42 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

[edit] Seriously, though

Aren't there any better sources for the criticisms of the church than the presented ones? They don't appear to fit the reliable sources criteria very well, and kind of undermine the credibility of those trying to prevent this article from becoming an advertisement for the church. If the church really is guilty of abusing its parishioners, hasn't it been written about in a real newspaper somewhere? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(posted after ec with poster below) Ah, there's the thing. It's such a small, far-outfield group, and from my understanding very little of what occurs seems to be actually criminal (and if it is it's quickly swept under the carpet), and (again from my understanding) the interconnectedness and similarities between the groups means that most available information is written about them collectively, rather than referring to each individually (except where personal stories are being recounted). I'll revise the section a bit to clarify. Here is a series of articles run by the Geelong Advertiser detailing some of the emotional abuse occurring in the Geelong Revival Centre - by all accounts (except, perhaps, those of current members) very similar practices occur in all of them. I am aware of two (unconnected) people who claim they are currently writing books, and one a doctoral thesis (as detailed above). Are you including the pleaseconsider.nfo link in your assessment? Short articles of theological criticism of the RF/RCI etc etc are not particularly likely to attract the attention of major media sources. Natgoo 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We now have input from an outside well respected editor that the references are invalid. Can we move on to listing the facts and leaving personal opinion pages and websites that are labeled RCI off the Revival Fellowship article. Revival42 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

I appreciate your lniking to the Geelong Advertiser articles; they work a lot better for me as sources. Revival42, I was starting a conversation, not declaring the references invalid. That's how we do things on Wikipedia- we discuss them, and decide together; we don't just make a snap decision and then change the page without consensus. Please, don't use my question as an excuse to remove this section unless that's what we all decide to do together. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Geelong Revival Centre is a completely separate church in adminstration and has nothing to do with Revival Fellowship. Revival42 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

[edit] Diagram

I've added a helpful graphic to demonstrate the relationship between RCI and the splinter groups a bit more clearly. Natgoo 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no relationship. Again, you have clearly proved your ignorance to all organizations and their structures..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Picheriko (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 April 2007.

Please provide more detailed feedback. The basic structure is correct, but if you feel there are more nuances in the relationships that would be appropriate for the article please let me know. Diagram is provded below for context. Natgoo 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The diagram is nice Natgoo, good work. However, the problem might be that you labeled it Revival Fellowship family tree. We have been trying to point out to you the Revival Fellowship is not Revival Centres. They have a separate page that you can make comments on if you wish. None of the organizations are related. It may be better to leave it out as I don't think it adds much. Revival42 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

[edit] Protected edit request

{{editprotected}} 195 here, finally registered. Can we please restore the page to the balanced POV of where it shows the history and the criticism? It's quite clear that members of the church have biased views and are the ones who have been reverting constantly anything about the church that they don't like. They have broken the rules multiple times, including 3RR's and meat/sock puppetry. They have also been soliciting other church members to come and help them push their POV which is also against policy. If you check the people who keep reverting, their sole contribution to wikipedia consists of reverts to this article. These people were offically warned numerous times to stop their blanking yet all they did was to remove the warnings from the their talk page. IMHO I agree with most of natgoo's content and changes and it appears to be well written and researched (like the image it explains things well), except I agree with FisherQueen that the forum link isn't really appropriate for an encyclopediac entry. It's quite clear from this talk page that the church is quite controversal and has generated criticism about it that is notable enough which should be mentioned. Other wikipedians not from the church also agree a criticism section is needed. Every other religion article, indeed most possibly-controversal articles, all have a criticism section. Without it, it just sounds like a big ad for the church where only good things happen.

And definitly remove/change this statement "It is also documented and widely known that members of the Revival Fellowship having being miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments" for numerous reasons. It's not grammatically correct and most of all it's not verifiable. Maybe something more along the lines of "Some members of the Revival Fellowship have claimed to be miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments."

--Dalore 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Support removal of "It is also documented and widely known that members of the Revival Fellowship having being miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments." Support also the restoration of the history section, and the criticism section with the addition of the newspaper source provided by User:Natgoo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record I support the balanced statement: "Some members of the Revival Fellowship have claimed to be miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments." I am not sure who changed it but it makes sense. Revival42 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

The newspaper article refers to a group call the "Geelong Revival Centre" and is an entirely different church. Come on guys - that one is really unfair, even you have to admit it. Revival42 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

I don't think these edits should be made until the RFC below goes through. The page was just protected today because of edit warring. Hopefully, after the RFC, a consensus can be reached and the protection can be lifted. CMummert · talk 23:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

This is a dispute about the inclusion of criticism of the Revival Fellowship and information about the group's history in the article. The sections under dispute are:

[edit] History

The schism in Sydney that took place in 1991 occurred when one of the pastors in Sydney had his son excommunicated for the ‘appearance of fornication’. Single couples were not allowed to dance or be alone together before marriage. This was followed by intense lobbying of the congregation and disputes over the ownership of the Moorebank property. Members from Melbourne arrived and changed the locks and there was legal disputation about the ownership of the property. The Revival Fellowship was formed as a result of a 1995 schism with the Revival Centres International, which was itself the result of a schism from the Christian Revival Crusade. The movement began as a small group of soldiers who accepted British counter propaganda during the WWII that the British were the chosen people and not the Aryans. This group later accepted non-British into its congregation but classes them as Gentiles and considered them unworthy to hold important positions in the church. The Revival Centre continued to promote the idea of the British as the chosen people of God. A doctrine they were also known for was the belief that the Russians are the direct national descendents of Esau and that these “Reds” will be destroyed by God in a nuclear holocaust during the End Days. They quoted from the KJV where “The first came out red, all over like a hairy garment; and they called him Esau.” He would become the evil nation in the North that would attack Israel in the End Days. Gomer was the Germans who they see as aligned to the Russians. In 1958, when the Christian Revival Crusade adopted a constitution, pastors Lloyd Longfield and Noel Hollins withdrew - forming the Revival Centres of Australia. This schism from the Crusade then spread to other states, and overseas. Over this time, the group fragmented into various camps - including, in 1972, the Revival Centres associated with Noel Hollins (based in Geelong), and the Christian Assemblies International (a more Europe centred 1991 split).

The Revival Fellowship was a large schism from this original group. At a Christmas 1994 church camp Lloyd Longfield instituted a policy providing that sexual defaulters would not find restoration possible. The Adelaide assembly, lead by pastor John Kuhlmann opposed the move - withdrawing from the Revival Centre group with approximately half of the assemblies (30), a third of pastors (35) and probably over half of the membership (3,300 including 120 from Melbourne - the bulk of membership outside of Victoria and Tasmania). Approximately half of the missions work in Papua New Guinea adheres (15,000 strong) with smaller assemblies in Europe and a significant work in Malawi.^[3]

[edit] Doctrine

addition Centre continued to promote the idea of the British as the chosen people of God. A doctrine they were also known for was the belief that the Russians are the direct national descendents of Esau and that these “Reds” will be destroyed by God in a nuclear holocaust during the End Days. They quoted from the KJV where “The first came out red, all over like a hairy garment; and they called him Esau.” He would become the evil nation in the North that would attack Israel in the End Days. Gomer was the Germans who they see as aligned to the Russians.The Revival Fellowship holds to the British-Israel doctrine, although racist elements of the teaching are strongly denied by the group^[4]. Despite this statement, the group was mentioned in a report on "Racism on the Internet" by the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission for the online documentation of the group's beliefs^[5].

Bible numerics^[6] and pyramidology theology are also taught, and some members claim miraculous healing from disease ^[7].

[edit] Criticism

As with all the groups associated with the Revival Centres, the Revival Fellowship has been criticised, mainly by ex-members, for its theology and doctrine. Theological criticism centres on the requirement for speaking in tongues and the group's strong focus on Acts 2:38^[8], while doctrinal criticism centres on the Revival Fellowship's dogmatic approach to community and fellowship, in particular the requirement that members minimise their interactions with the 'world' (except for the purpose of evangelism) and its practice of disfellowshipping members for perceived minor transgressions and criticism of church leaders, and the perceived authoritarian focus of the group^[9].

</references>

1. Rev. Rowland Ward, Religious Bodies in Australia (3rd edition), 1995.

2. [4]

3. Briskin, M (ed). 1998. "Racism on the Internet". B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission

4. [5]

5. [6] ‘Acts 2:38: The Grammatical Structure of Acts 2:38' By Ian Thomason

6. [7] Steven Hassan's Freedom of Mind Resource Centre

[edit] Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

1. The Revival Fellowship is a small, Pentecostal sect that requires submission to the oversight and support of the spirit-filled church. Many ex-members report the manifestation of these requirements as described in the criticism section above. In addition to the refences provided above, these links add some context and history of the organisation: rc.cultweb.net, the caic document archive (which is a fascinating resource), [8] and the RC discussion boards.

The history and other disputed sections are well-referenced, but are continually reverted, and the claim that "It is also documented and widely known that members of the Revival Fellowship having being miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments (ref: [9]") inserted. Please read the rest of this talk page for more lengthy discussions. Natgoo 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

2. I did gently question the sources, which appeared to me to be questionable under WP:RS. Specifically, http://www.pleaseconsider.info appeared to be not entirely an independent source, but one which exists to criticise the Revival Fellowship. The Freedom of Mind Centre works better for me as a source, but I asked if there was any mainstream newspaper coverage to support the criticisms. My comment was intended to work toward discussion and reasonable consensus, and User:Revival42 misrepresented me completely when he said, "We now have input from an outside well respected editor that the references are invalid." In fact, I am satisfied that the sources provided in response to my question are acceptable.

User:Revival42 has repeatedly removed all information critical of the church and added information that is not at all unbiased ("It is also documented and widely known that members of the Revival Fellowship having being miraculously healed from diseases and other ailments" was an especially objectionable one), making little serious attempt at achieving consensus on the talk page. His username identifies him as a member of the church, and almost all of his edits are in this article.

I'd like for User:Revival42 to stop reverting this article and either withdraw from editing or work within Wikipedia's process to achieve consensus on it. If User:Picheriko is not a sockpuppet, then she is a meatpuppet, another member of the church recruited to promote their point of view on Wikipedia, and I'd like her to agree to the same- either withdraw, or participate by citing Wikipedia policy and seeking consensus. I'd like the 'history' and 'criticism' sections to be returned to the article. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Controversal organisation (aren't they all in religion) and so like all the other religious entities articles on wikipedia should include a criticism section to balance it out (clarification, not criticising the church, not wikipedias place, but mentioning that criticism exists, which the church members agree exists). The history of how it was formed seemed quite neutral to me and fits an encyclopediac entry. The doctrine section comes from their website so how can one argue with that? Also most editors supporting the POV of Revival42 fail the 100-edit rule (she herself is also guilty). According to policy Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual. This means that her and the users she has called to help should not be used as a guide for consensus. --Dalore 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Thank you for these inputs and dispute resolution. I am one individual and if we want to talk about meat puppets, the forum board set up by ex-members has actively recruited its members to help in the "edit war" so perhaps those editors recruited by the forum should be considered one person. Revival42 20:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

Over the past week, I have made several suggestions to list facts not in dispute and have made attempts to work towards consensus. However, there appears to be a concerted effort lead by Natgoo to discredit me and label my edits. In reverting the article, I have disputed the inclusion of the websites as unreliable sources. Specifically: a) Pleaseconsider - this is a vanity publication by an ex-member. b) Freedom of Mind - specific link refers to Revival Centres International. It is old and outdated and Revival Fellowship was formed well past this article. In fact it is unfair and bias to suggest that Revival Fellowship members were once Revival Centre members. c) Cultweb link - this page was set-up by an ex-member of the RCI and most material and links are dead or not maintained. Most material on this site refers to Revival Centres. The name of the website itself is very controversial. Revival42 20:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

I have suggested the middle ground approach of stating facts about the community and letting others judge the facts on their merits. If people disagree with doctrine of administration, they can see that on its merits. Revival42 20:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival 42

Why is there so much shouting and anger by other editors towards this particular church? Why is there not more edit wars on other church pages. Revival42 20:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

5. I support a criticism section but not one above. Does RF esteem Acts 2 v 38 above any other scripture? I doubt it. It is simply on their church logo. The diagram is nice but simplistic. This is what I support for the section -

The Revival Fellowship has been criticised, mainly by ex-members, for its administration and doctrine. Doctrinal criticism centres on the requirement for speaking in tongues.(needs valid reference). Administration criticism centres on the group's approach to community and fellowship, in particular the requirement that members minimise their interactions with the negative influences of the world (needs valid reference) and its practice of disfellowshipping members for perceived minor transgressions (needs valid reference), and the perceived authoritarian focus of the group. (needs valid reference).

If every fact can be supported with valid references no one can dispute. So far the referencing has left a lot to be desired.

6.

[edit] Comments

Revival42 has stated, "In reverting the article, I have disputed the inclusion of the websites as unreliable sources. Specifically: a) Pleaseconsider - this is a vanity publication by an ex-member." This is a somewhat surprising assertion, given that Revival42 has taken umbrage with people linking the RCI and the RF together. The authors (there are two) of 'PleaseConsider' are not now, nor have they ever been, members of the Revival Fellowship. Both are, in fact, former members of the RCI. Does Revival42's comment offer a tacit admission then, that the distinctions between the RF and the RCI are rather inconsequential?

One of the authors of 'PleaseConsider' is currently undertaking doctoral research on the theology of the various Revivalist groups. Surely his opinion must be viewed as 'informed', and as such, given some credence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 27 April 2007.

Please note that the above unsigned comments were written by one of the authors of 'please consider', who is wanting to self promote himself as an expert. The fact remains that Please Consider is a vanity publication. revival42 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

No, they weren't. There is zero evidence to support this assertion based on 203...'s contributions. Please stop shit-stirring. Natgoo 10:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this language necessary??210.18.193.211 04:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Natgoo, whatever personal issues you have with me aside, the IP address of the above comments has been checked and it was in fact Ian Thomasson that added the comments. Sorry, but I am not stirring things up, just wanted full disclosure. Revival42 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

Well, the very least you could do is spell my name correctly (Thomason, one 's' only). And, perhaps as part of your charge for 'full disclosure', you should identify yourself, publicly, as well? I suppose that would, at least, be honest. In any case, from what I've read here, Revival42, you seem to take issue with anyone whose aim is to provide a balanced and informed opinion of your fellowship. The consequence is that you choose to denigrate rather than communicate. 'PleaseConsider' seems to have drawn your ire, yet it exists for but one reason: to provide an informed critique of Revivalist theology. Not a single article therein chastises your fellowship with respect to either church practices or polity. The articles (as with the site generally) are limited to the evaluation of Revivalist theology. But is 'PleaseConsider' really to be considered a 'vanity site' because I've put my name to my articles for accountability purposes? 'Revival 42', I've studied your theology for approaching 15 years. Your theology is the subject of my doctoral research. Contrary to your charge above, I've no wish to 'self promote as being an expert'; however, I am qualified to offer an informed and technical theological opinion on what your church teaches. I do have the qualifications and the experience to provide this much, at least.

It's not personal! Without evidence, stirring things up is exactly what you're doing. Natgoo 10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that properly documented criticisms should not be censored from the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where both sides of an issue can be reasonably, openly and fairly presented. Allowing overzealous members to enforce their own versions of censorship in Wikipedia is a disservice to the idea of balanced and thorough coverage that Wikipedia aspires to provide. -Scott P. 02:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott - this page doesn't seem to be about "an issue". It is supposed to be a verifiable description of this group. Why should it also tack on disputed opinions? Why can't people's studies be done, and conclusions released independently of this page? If anyone had a dispute as to whether this church existed, or misstates their beliefs, I could see a reasonable addition to the article. However I don't believe anyone has a disagreement that TRF's doctrine is as stated etc.--64.195.212.67 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as there is no disagreement that criticism of the group exists. This is an encyclopaedia, and should present balanced facts. Natgoo 10:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope this has provided an opportunity for people to take a deep breath - hopefully, we can work towards a resolution.

i)As far as the diagram goes, there are lots of church "family trees" here on Wikipedia. (See Image:Connection2 900.jpg, for example.) Comment 5 (which unfortunately is unsigned) says it's "nice but simplistic", but it certainly seems helpful. Is anyone offended by the word schism?

ii)In principle, a section on history and criticism is important to have. I've been reading a lot of the comments, but I find it hard to see what is inaccurate or even biased about the history paragraph.

iii)Concerning sources for criticism, I think the B’nai B’rith reference has to go - it is only a mention of a website, and was almost ten years ago.

iv)Criticisms concerning the practice of the RF needs to be very specific to RF - that is, a "perceived authoritarian focus" of RCI is not a valid criticism of RF. (Hence, all references must be after 1995.)

v)Criticisms in regards to theology can have a broader range, as long as it is a specific criticism of a specific teaching that RF acknowledges. As far as I can tell, everybody agrees that speaking in tongues is required - so any theological critique of that position may be appropriate.

vi)Thus, it seems to be that a site like www.pleaseconsider.info might be OK since it deals with criticism of theology rather than of practice.

OK, how does all this sound? Putting the edit wars behind us, where can we go from here? StAnselm 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I would also welcome moving forward on this! The criticism as referenced is specific to the RF, as it is mentioned by name in the sources - I think the issue may be that the article needs to more clearly articulate the similarities in practices between the RF and the RCI. There is one significant difference between the two, from what I can gather - in the RCI you are 'put out' for life, with no chance of redemption, if caught fornicating, but in the RF you are only put out until marriage (or a certain time period, say 2 years). The other aspects, the time commitment, emotionally enforced fellowship, separation from 'wordly' family and friends, fear of shunning and rejection and pastoral control over every aspect of life are, apparently, identical. The RF is a direct clone of the RCI in every single aspect barring sex. Many ex-members don't, or can't, differentiate between the two groups because they were members of both. But how can we make this clear in the article? I've done a lot of reading since working on this article. These are fascinating groups. Natgoo 10:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

settle down a bit Natgoo. The above comments you make are totally unfounded. You been spending too much time reading hearsay. To answer as an authority on RF I will confirm the following. a) if a person is caught in the act of fornication, they are under church discipline and put out of fellowship for a period of time. No where do we ever indicate a 2 year period. b) people attend regular meetings, but it is not emotionally forced. c) regarding separation from the world, that transcends many churches and follows biblical teaching. I would hope that you are not asserting that RF teaches an extreme separation from the world (ie move to the desert, or mountain top). d) regarding pastoral control over every aspect of life: Not at all. This may be a matter of opinion but in general Pastors are leaders and teachers, not Lords over. e) RCI and RF may both teach Act 2:38, but again they are separate groups for over 10 years. I have met so many members of the RF that have never had any involvement in RCI.

if you really want to move forward, strike a balance and there is no need to overplay the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revival42 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, there are different perspectives, and a fair, balanced and comprehensive encyclopaedia article should contain all of them. Natgoo 10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs any reference to the RCI beside mentioning it in history. Why should a separate organisation be mentioned. If confusion arises in ex-members they can contact the RF directly to discuss. The article is constantly being over complexified it should simply state what the RF is. It is totally voluntary.

Yes, and a balanced criticism section would help achieve this aim. This repetition of the term 'totally voluntary' is interesting, though, and almost Freudian in its insistence. Natgoo 10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I think one way forward, keeping in mind the feedback here, would be to improve Revival Centres International, including the criticism, and make reference to it in each of the associated articles. That would better reflect the nature of the criticism, centring on the RCI but including the practices in the splinter groups, and highlight the interconnectedness between them. Could this work? I'll have a think about it and see what I can come up with. Natgoo 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The point we are trying to make is that going down the "highlight the interconnectedness" between RCI and RF approach is not the consensus. The consensus is that they are separate groups. It has been generally agreed that articles, or references older than 10 years do not apply to the article on the Revival Fellowship. Revival42 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

Of course they are separate groups, but the fact remains that the RF started as a schism from RCI, have the same pastors and fellowship in the same buildings as they did when they were RCI, and have the exact same beliefs, practices, fellowship schedules, unique vocabulary, songs, brethren (mostly) and rules, with one crucial difference - the consequences of bonking before marriage. I don't understand how it can be argued, in light of this, that the criticism isn't inclusive, particularly when there are specific references (and whole messageboards devoted) to RF. Really, I don't think either should be listed as a separate denomination, but different churches in the same - they share a distinctive faith.

Most Pastors in RF were not pastors in RCI, many buildings and locations have changed, don't know about the songs, but we do many songs found in many churches. Other non-RF members have also agreed that you are off base on trying to tie the groups together, so why not direct your criticism in a different direction. And tone it down a bit. That's all the other editors are saying. Revival42 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

I'm really struggling to understand the objections to including any criticism in the article, it really does seem as though church members are trying to stifle critique, which is sad, but I guess is to be expected in a small evangelistic church. But - there is criticism of all religious denominations included in their articles, even whole articles devoted to it in some cases, and I find the suggestion that this article about this group be any different ludicrous. Natgoo 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Natgoo, you don't have your facts correct on how the group formed, you claim not to be a past or present member of the organisation.

As for beliefs, faith, etc. Again, if you have no prior experience in the group, you cannot provide informative, accurate information, what are you basing it on? (I know you are basing it on information derived from cult discussion boards).

The Revival Fellowship was formed in 1995 as a result of a biblical translation issue cited from the existing chairman - Lloyd Longfield). Anything post 1995 has no affiliation with the Revival Centres International (RCI). They are 2 totally separate groups.

Getting back to cult website references (ie "pleaseconsider"). Again, the RF has no affiliation or connection with these sort of groups. The websites contain information which is un-reliable, hence, no reference should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.149.31.230 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Oh, please. What purpose does lying to Wikipedia serve? You're not as esoteric or as exclusive as you would like to be, or think you are. All of this information is freely available, from those websites and the official websites - basic reading comprehension is not that difficult, people. I wrote the 'community' section of this article - interesting that my information is correct when it's not criticising the group, and incorrect when it is. Interesting, and telling.

Regardless, neither of you have answered my question - why should this Wiki article be any different to others about religious denominations? I suggest you take a look at some others - get an idea of what the rest of Wikipedia is like. Limiting yourselves to two (not particularly good) articles isn't going to do that. And blanking this page is just ridiculous. Get a grip. Natgoo 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We have suggested good ways to balance the article, unfortunately you have failed to listen to the consensus--that you need to use proper references. It is very telling the language you have used and the lies you have tried to portray (or perhaps you are just uninformed). The most telling is when you try to bring articles about other unrelated churches (ie the attempt to add an article on the Geelong Revival Centre, and minutes from a 1992 group from New Zealand). Revival42 15:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

I think we have all understood that Natgoo, from his self professed Gay Atheist1 point of view, thinks this church is very bad. Now that we have cleared up any misunderstanding on Natgoo's point of view perhaps we can start to look at what we agree on and use "edit protect" to fix some things in the article. Revival42 15:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

Please point out to me where I tried to add any information about the Geelong Revival Centre or minutes from New Zealand? You can't, because you're lying. And please don't characterise my desire for an objective, balanced, neutral article as thinking this church is 'very bad'; what is evident is that you think the church is very good, and therefore this article, on Wikipedia, can't contain referenced criticism. Again, you haven't answered my question - why should this article be any different to others on Wikipedia?

There has been no consensus reached here yet, as is evident from the comments, so please stop trying to subvert the process (blanking the page didn't work, obviously). Natgoo 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you would deny adding a newspaper article about the Geelong Revival Centres, since if you look above in the discussion you can see where I called you on that very point. As well as the minutes to the 1992 break away group from New Zealand. And I have no idea who blanked this page, but it wasn't me. Stop trying to say you want a fair and balanced article. The fact is all you want to do is vandalize, spread rumours, unfounded hearsay. Revival42 18:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

I have offered many solutions and agreed with some edits that are fact. All this, in an effort to find the middle road. Other authors have provided some steps towards a balance which I am in agreement with. Revival42 18:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

When did I try to include the Geelong Advertiser articles to the Wiki article? I introduced them to this talk page, in response to a request for further information, to highlight the emotionally abusive practices that many people say occur in all of the splinter groups - a perfectly valid use of that information. And I did not add any minutes from any meeting - get your facts straight. Your lies and attempts to discredit me (although why you think calling me gay would do so, I know not) are really ridiculous.

Your 'solutions' have so far consisted of reverting valid, referenced information and replacing it with one line [10] that in no way adequately summarises the criticism. Why did you choose to highlight drinking and smoking? Do you think that people are complaining of not being able to drink or smoke? Then you obviously haven't read any of the references in the criticism section - I think doing so now would be a great idea, so we're both on the same page.

I still think that fleshing out the RCI article, and making reference to it in this article, would be an appropriate, objective solution, suitably reflecting the nature of the criticism. Natgoo 20:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (straight! and female! yay!)

obviously you have no desire to find a middle ground. RF is not RCI or Geelong, etc. It sounds like you might want to spend more time editing the RCI article.Revival42 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

A middle ground that totally excludes one sector of the available information - because you just don't like it - isn't particularly middle, in my book. Natgoo 15:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I humbly apologize for my mistake earlier. Your profile brags about living in "grave sin", and I made a error. Second, I am open to a criticism section, but will not agree to including references to Geelong, or RCI material, or vanity publications. I am not total opposed to your diagram, but don't like it being labeled RCI family tree, as it leads people to believe we are part of RCI family. I agree with removing the statement about miraculous healings - that was not me that put that in. In the community section, a comment about testimonies and "claims" of healings is more that appropriate for this article. These are reasonable I hope. I think keeping the article small and simple is best, otherwise, we could see people adding medical certificates of healing and going into large reports of revival in Africa and PNG. I don't think this is the direction we need to go. Revival42 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

Thanks for the apology, but you've missed the point - I didn't care about what you said, but your intent (to discredit those with a different opinion) and your motivation (homophobia) were what was (and still are) offensive. I'm not sure what you're on about with the 'RCI family tree' as the diagram is captioned 'the Revival Fellowship family tree', and always has been in this article? Cheers Natgoo 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I must have been looking at an earlier diagram or perhaps viewed it on the RCI page, but it is still incorrect as it makes it look like this church is part of RCI and affiliated with Geelong and CAI. If you agree to stop attempting to link this church with RCI, Geelong and CAI, I will not complain about the diagram.Revival42 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)revival42

No, it doesn't. It clearly says 'schism' in the legend. Apart from that, the links are forged in history - not having a time machine I can do little to change it. Do you have any other feedback? Natgoo 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going too far

You guys can all dribble on as much as you want, simple fact that this is going too far and people have made it their duty to cause grief.

I'm no longer going to make edits as it seems only morons tend to read these pages anyway.

Rename the page for all I care to "The Revival Fellowship Cult" as that's what a number of you would like to see it called.

Adios and c u on the day.

[edit] Let's get some order here! (please read this in its entirety)

Hi. I'm a member of the Revival Fellowship. I also have a reasonable amount of experience editing on Wikipedia. Before the creation of this article, I had decided not to create an article about the Revival Fellowship because any article should have a neutral point of view - in writing the article I might not do that, or might not feel comfortable doing it. I've also chosen not to edit the Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) article. I stumbled across this article, found it protected, and then looked at this talk page. It's just going round in circles!

User:Revival42 has been accused of meat/sock puppetry. I find this unlikely. Rather, various Revival Fellowship members have independently come across this article and, unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, tried to step in and "set things right". I find this completely understandable, but it isn't acceptable in a NPOV encyclopedia.

I'll try to summarise what I think needs to happen:

• A history section does need to refer to Revival Centres International, and how the Revival Fellowship first emerged (perhaps with that history image).

I disagree here. It is vital as the history shows the group was the result of a financial conflict and a dsiagreement at the pastorial level over one of the pastor's children NB no such deference was ever given to others in the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.135.185.192 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2007

which shows you have a strong bias point of view. There are no references you can provide to prove this and as a statement of fact, you are completely wrong in what you have suggested. Fact: The split was over the doctrine of fornication. Other suggestions are rumour and have no basis on fact. Revival42 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)revival42

• The doctrine section needs improving and correcting, although at the present this is a minor concern - this edit war needs resolving first.
• A criticisms section is definitely needed, although it doesn't need to be big. I think a single mention of Revival Centres, pointing out that similar or identical criticisms are generally aimed at both organisations, would be a good idea. Ian Thomasson would be the best person to decide on a resource for a citation. It seems clear that online resources are not very suitable for citation in this article, but if Ian is a doctoral candidate he must have accumulated a wide range of physical resources, one of which would surely be suitable. If the argument about this section continues, perhaps a completely neutral editor should be found to write this section (although the problem with this idea is that the editor wouldn't really know enough to write about it). Revival Fellowship members need to step back and allow someone else to write this section. If you feel it doesn't have a neutral point of view, say so (politely) on the talk page, but don't just go and delete it again!

It is still basically the national identification of people without regard to the fact that nations consists of individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.135.185.192 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2007

• Perhaps this page should be protected from editing by unregistered or new users. It can't remain completely protected forever, but for as long as it has a criticism section there will always be people who want to delete it.

This is a problem with the article. It is written by members who use it as a promotional tool not as an objective assessment of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.135.185.192 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2007

actually, the aim is for balance and if you notice, most revisions are from strong biased, uncited vandalism. The other objective is to not overplay the significance of this church. Revival42 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC) revival42

It is evident to me that too many people editing this article just aren't familiar with how Wikipedia works. People in the Revival Fellowship can quite happily contribute to this article, particularly by refining doctrinal details, but we cannot just keep deleting a section because we don't like it! If you aren't prepared to write with a 100% neutral point of view, leave it for someone else to do. I hope to see this article reach some sort of stability.

If you have not already done so, take a look around at Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines. You shouldn't edit an article (especially a controversial one) if you haven't.

On another note: When you add a comment to a talk page, make sure you sign it with four tilds, i.e. ~~~~. This will automatically be replaced with your username or IP address and the time and date of your comment. It's much easier to follow a talk page if you know who said what.

Markdarb 09:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks for an excellent, succinct summary of the situation. Any ideas where such an editor could be found? I'd have a stab in a few months, but think I'm a bit close to all of this for the present. Natgoo 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to from here?

The article is now open to editing, which I think is good. We can get on with improving it!

Firstly: I feel that the article needs improving in general. It makes some fairly inaccurate/questionable statements, and also leaves out lots of information that should probably be included. The quality of writing isn't brilliant either.

Secondly: It currently lacks a Criticisms section. Do we think it needs one? I would say it does, as this is after all an encyclopedia, but we certainly don't want to go too far. It is interesting to note that the Revival Centres International article currently lacks a criticisms section.

Thirdly: This article lacks any history of the Revival Fellowship. What needs saying? How much? Again, it doesn't need to be elaborate. A single mention of the Revival Centres would be relevant. Inclusion of Image:RCI diagram.JPG would also be relevant.

The big problem is the lack of available sources. An anti-Revival Fellowship site is not a suitable source for citations, but I'm not sure if there is really anything else at all to cite! I suppose such websites could be used as citation for a simple statement that the Revival Fellowship has criticisms.

Before we jump in and make any Criticism or History sections we need a civilised discussion about it, with substantial input from some neutral editors who have nothing whatsoever to do with this topic.

Markdarb 11:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that we need civilized discussions. As a start, I have deleted the section about claims of healing in an effort to keep the article balanced and fair. The belief sections covers the teaching of healing. The point being that the article does not need to be huge. Revival42 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)revival42

Someone had added a section on the history of Revival Fellowship, which was dreadfully worded and very awkward. I have altered the section, though you guys may want to go over it and verify the information is correct. Seldon-au had a huge chunk on the history of RCI - which is largely irrelevant as discussed previously only needing at most a note to say that RF was formed as a schism from RCI.Floorwalker 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Markdarb that a diagram of 'church genealogy' would be helpful - and the RCI one seems to have been updated to something that's pretty clear and relevant (Image:Revival_Centres_International_Church_Genealogy1.png) - anyone agree? Johnprovis (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)