This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Plymouth Brethren Christian Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Well I was working for the brethren in the UK until members said some pretty extreme things..I googled them and found out the profits were channelled into suppressing child sex victims, gay conversion therapy, lobbying conservatives to abolish welfare, handing out leafets and campaigning for conservatives and have received £1.1b in PPE contracts from the government... which is hilarious as their religion was created because they thought the church were too close to the secular state, but at this point they are almost symbiotic with the state.
None of this absolutely credible mainstream news is included in this wiki.
And also parts of this wiki are clearly written by brethren in first person terms seeking to justify themselves. I also note the poor grammar consistent with a writer who was forbidden to attend mainstream schooling or university.
This page was separated from the Exclusive Brethren page in February 2008. For discussion of issues relating to the RTH brethren article content before then see Talk:Exclusive_Brethren and Talk:Exclusive_Brethren/Archive_1
Jarich ( talk) 09:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
When did the group start? This isn't explained clearly. It should be in the intro. Malick78 ( talk) 10:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am adding material from a French language research publication which should help. Feel free to provide a more accurate translation. Veritan ( talk) 02:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The article included:
in the New Zealand politics section. I've removed this because it's badly written (it's a needlessly long sentence), it unreferenced, and doesn't strike me as being particularly relevant. Further, since this isn't an article about Don Brash, nor the EB's opinion of him (being only one member of the National Party) I'm not sure that airing his dirty laundry here is appropriate.
If you feel that including this is important, please feel free to explain it's importance here, and provide references for the facts that a) some people were surprised, b) Don Brash is a self-confessed atheist, c) he had that affair. Bonus points for d) why the EB would care about the sexual life of a secular politician.
Jarich ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Having been a Plymouth Brother, I feel an obligation to use the term "the Lord's Table" rather than "Communion" to describe the taking / sharing of the body and blood of Christ. I hope no one minds the changes. ( Paleocon44 ( talk) 07:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC))
Is there any external evidence that "Raven-Taylor-Hales" has been used to describe this group or is it largely a Wiki creation? The only self-published book I can find with that name is derived from Wikipedia.
I've just removed a set of Raven/Taylor/Symington/Hales tags from the Exclusive Brethren article but I'm not even convinced that the name used here is current. The use of Raven-Taylor I can verify from book published in 1936 though they were always called the Taylor party or Taylorites in my memory. But I'm not sure of the value of continually adding the current leader's name - what happens when it changes? Chris55 ( talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the group has been historically identified as Plymouth Brethren IV since at least 1906. The different Plymouth Brethren branches have been identified by roman numerals I to X at least since the US census in that year and CESNUR currently identifies them that way. I'm considering reverting to that name, if I can gather some authoritative references. Veritan ( talk) 21:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I have removed some information from the article, citing WP:BLP concerns. Just because we can source it doesn't mean it's appropriate to include it here. -- Diannaa ( talk) 15:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello - I am new to Wikipedia and so please forgive me if I make some mistakes. I have read this page with interest as I have personal experience of this Church. I am concerned because virtually all the information which is given portrays the Church in a bad light. There are no links to "positive items" such as details of all the charitable work that it does or even details of what its beliefs are. For example the article says that even Children engage in drinking alcohol - this is simply a gross exaggeration, another statement is that every person has to have their own copy of printed meetings, this is simply not true. I would appreciate the help of an Editor in order to make this article more balanced and fair. Can anyone help? Kiwiperson ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)kiwiperson 09.12.14
Hi
Please contact me if you are unhappy with having a link to Pauls Glad Tidings appearing on this page. Please do not just remove the link. It is a very important link and it links to a website that contains important facts,audio files and original hand written letters.
Link - * Where the assembly can be found now – official web site.
-- Stephe Noakes ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember that back in about 1998 there was an edict that all of the Hales Exclusive Brethren in South Africa should leave the country, closing' the position' there. Most did so, emigrating to Australia or elsewhere, with a few remaining and either leaving the sect or forming an unrecognised splinter group. Maybe someone who knows the details could add an account of this, as it seems both relevant to the history of the sect and illustrative of the level of control exercised by the heirarchy. 62.253.201.218 ( talk) 13:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:2605:8d80:6e3:38b0:e513:5832:5f7:689e, based on your edit notes, the basis for these extensive removals seems to have been that you believe Behind the Exclusive Brethren is not a reliable source as we define that in WP. I believe you will have a hard time finding consensus for that conclusion. If you want to raise the question, the correct place is WP:RSN. If you raise it there, please leave a note here saying you did so. Jytdog ( talk) 08:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Should charity work such as the Rapid Relief Team be included in this article? It was established in 2013 with teams in New Zealand, Australia, UK, Europe, North and South America, the Caribbean and Canada. It provides catering assistance to charitable organisations such as the emergency services. They also provide care, food and shelter for the homeless. See www.rapidreliefteam.org for more details. Is this significant enough to put in the article, since it is a huge part of their present culture? PumpkinHair ( talk) 06:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that there’s simply too much detailed and unfocused content here, which serves to obfuscate the broader history, purpose and context of the group.
A lot of the content here appears to have suffered from inconsistent editing and reversions, which means that people and topics are referenced with no prior introduction.
Until I added his name to the lead, there was no mention of Bruce Hales’ name or his role until he was simply referred to as ‘Hales’ about halfway in.
Similarly, ‘the Aberdeen incident’ is referred to by name but without explanation. There was an entire section on the incident, but this has been inexplicably removed.
I think this article needs a careful trim and re-organisation to ensure that it’s a lot more brief, factual and useful than the waffle we have here currently. ollee ( talk) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
A large portion of this article seems, to me, to be using remarkably emotive language, specifically the discipline section. For example: "necessary and painful" is a justification and apology for the actions. Think it could do with a rework, but don't want to make any changes myself. The Charity Work section is also fairly emotive: "quality assistance", "greatest challenges" Eip618 ( talk) 09:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Full details on this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/cultsurvivors/comments/maffh9/pbcc_abduction_foiled_by_ontario_private/ Also a podcast about the kidnap attempt where the target talks about it himself. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/richard-marsh/id1569093583?i=1000565258954
Obviously we can't cite a reddit thread can we? We would want a reliable source for citation. Would a podcast be sufficient source? Sporkstar ( talk) 20:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Plymouth Brethren Christian Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Well I was working for the brethren in the UK until members said some pretty extreme things..I googled them and found out the profits were channelled into suppressing child sex victims, gay conversion therapy, lobbying conservatives to abolish welfare, handing out leafets and campaigning for conservatives and have received £1.1b in PPE contracts from the government... which is hilarious as their religion was created because they thought the church were too close to the secular state, but at this point they are almost symbiotic with the state.
None of this absolutely credible mainstream news is included in this wiki.
And also parts of this wiki are clearly written by brethren in first person terms seeking to justify themselves. I also note the poor grammar consistent with a writer who was forbidden to attend mainstream schooling or university.
This page was separated from the Exclusive Brethren page in February 2008. For discussion of issues relating to the RTH brethren article content before then see Talk:Exclusive_Brethren and Talk:Exclusive_Brethren/Archive_1
Jarich ( talk) 09:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
When did the group start? This isn't explained clearly. It should be in the intro. Malick78 ( talk) 10:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am adding material from a French language research publication which should help. Feel free to provide a more accurate translation. Veritan ( talk) 02:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The article included:
in the New Zealand politics section. I've removed this because it's badly written (it's a needlessly long sentence), it unreferenced, and doesn't strike me as being particularly relevant. Further, since this isn't an article about Don Brash, nor the EB's opinion of him (being only one member of the National Party) I'm not sure that airing his dirty laundry here is appropriate.
If you feel that including this is important, please feel free to explain it's importance here, and provide references for the facts that a) some people were surprised, b) Don Brash is a self-confessed atheist, c) he had that affair. Bonus points for d) why the EB would care about the sexual life of a secular politician.
Jarich ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Having been a Plymouth Brother, I feel an obligation to use the term "the Lord's Table" rather than "Communion" to describe the taking / sharing of the body and blood of Christ. I hope no one minds the changes. ( Paleocon44 ( talk) 07:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC))
Is there any external evidence that "Raven-Taylor-Hales" has been used to describe this group or is it largely a Wiki creation? The only self-published book I can find with that name is derived from Wikipedia.
I've just removed a set of Raven/Taylor/Symington/Hales tags from the Exclusive Brethren article but I'm not even convinced that the name used here is current. The use of Raven-Taylor I can verify from book published in 1936 though they were always called the Taylor party or Taylorites in my memory. But I'm not sure of the value of continually adding the current leader's name - what happens when it changes? Chris55 ( talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the group has been historically identified as Plymouth Brethren IV since at least 1906. The different Plymouth Brethren branches have been identified by roman numerals I to X at least since the US census in that year and CESNUR currently identifies them that way. I'm considering reverting to that name, if I can gather some authoritative references. Veritan ( talk) 21:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I have removed some information from the article, citing WP:BLP concerns. Just because we can source it doesn't mean it's appropriate to include it here. -- Diannaa ( talk) 15:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello - I am new to Wikipedia and so please forgive me if I make some mistakes. I have read this page with interest as I have personal experience of this Church. I am concerned because virtually all the information which is given portrays the Church in a bad light. There are no links to "positive items" such as details of all the charitable work that it does or even details of what its beliefs are. For example the article says that even Children engage in drinking alcohol - this is simply a gross exaggeration, another statement is that every person has to have their own copy of printed meetings, this is simply not true. I would appreciate the help of an Editor in order to make this article more balanced and fair. Can anyone help? Kiwiperson ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)kiwiperson 09.12.14
Hi
Please contact me if you are unhappy with having a link to Pauls Glad Tidings appearing on this page. Please do not just remove the link. It is a very important link and it links to a website that contains important facts,audio files and original hand written letters.
Link - * Where the assembly can be found now – official web site.
-- Stephe Noakes ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember that back in about 1998 there was an edict that all of the Hales Exclusive Brethren in South Africa should leave the country, closing' the position' there. Most did so, emigrating to Australia or elsewhere, with a few remaining and either leaving the sect or forming an unrecognised splinter group. Maybe someone who knows the details could add an account of this, as it seems both relevant to the history of the sect and illustrative of the level of control exercised by the heirarchy. 62.253.201.218 ( talk) 13:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:2605:8d80:6e3:38b0:e513:5832:5f7:689e, based on your edit notes, the basis for these extensive removals seems to have been that you believe Behind the Exclusive Brethren is not a reliable source as we define that in WP. I believe you will have a hard time finding consensus for that conclusion. If you want to raise the question, the correct place is WP:RSN. If you raise it there, please leave a note here saying you did so. Jytdog ( talk) 08:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Should charity work such as the Rapid Relief Team be included in this article? It was established in 2013 with teams in New Zealand, Australia, UK, Europe, North and South America, the Caribbean and Canada. It provides catering assistance to charitable organisations such as the emergency services. They also provide care, food and shelter for the homeless. See www.rapidreliefteam.org for more details. Is this significant enough to put in the article, since it is a huge part of their present culture? PumpkinHair ( talk) 06:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that there’s simply too much detailed and unfocused content here, which serves to obfuscate the broader history, purpose and context of the group.
A lot of the content here appears to have suffered from inconsistent editing and reversions, which means that people and topics are referenced with no prior introduction.
Until I added his name to the lead, there was no mention of Bruce Hales’ name or his role until he was simply referred to as ‘Hales’ about halfway in.
Similarly, ‘the Aberdeen incident’ is referred to by name but without explanation. There was an entire section on the incident, but this has been inexplicably removed.
I think this article needs a careful trim and re-organisation to ensure that it’s a lot more brief, factual and useful than the waffle we have here currently. ollee ( talk) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
A large portion of this article seems, to me, to be using remarkably emotive language, specifically the discipline section. For example: "necessary and painful" is a justification and apology for the actions. Think it could do with a rework, but don't want to make any changes myself. The Charity Work section is also fairly emotive: "quality assistance", "greatest challenges" Eip618 ( talk) 09:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Full details on this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/cultsurvivors/comments/maffh9/pbcc_abduction_foiled_by_ontario_private/ Also a podcast about the kidnap attempt where the target talks about it himself. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/richard-marsh/id1569093583?i=1000565258954
Obviously we can't cite a reddit thread can we? We would want a reliable source for citation. Would a podcast be sufficient source? Sporkstar ( talk) 20:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)