This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I made these comments at Category talk:Children of God, but this topic could use a WikiProject, and also an article on Philip Sloan, most certainly notable enough. I could design a WikiProject, if there is participation and active involvement from at least a smattering of other editors... Smee 07:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
I have created a new template for related articles to this one. If you wish to add it to an article, simply add {{ Children of God}} to the bottom of the article. Thank you. Smee 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
I am glad that Smee was inspired to create this template; apparently the template was made shortly after I spent an hour mining for articles and adding them to Category:Children of God. There were so many that I created Category:Current and past members of the Children of God, Category:Books which discuss the Children of God and Category:People who researched the Children of God. It's good to see that others are interested in organizing these articles too! Perhaps more people will be interested to assist, now that there are more related articles easily available for referencing. Joie de Vivre 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Which way should the statement defining The Keys of the Kingdom be worded?
All input is appreciated. hmwith talk 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
xFamily Moving On These pages which describe "Key Craft" might be helpful. Joie de Vivre 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That quote and many other parts of that text explain the intrinsically spiritual (or Heavenly) nature of the craft. Presenting a religion's views of spiritual or heavenly craft as just some UFOs is a degradation and, given my long history with the WP:OWNing editor that edit-warred over the change and called it "nonsense", one that I see as deliberate. They believe in spiritual craft, not UFOs. Perhaps a fine difference but a difference nonetheless and if what may well be a knowledgable editor comes here and makes that distinction then I, for one, respect that.-- Justanother 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)24. I prefer to call it the key craft‚ for this craft transports the might and power and energy of the keys. It is spiritual, yet more real than life itself. Instruments of man cannot detect it, yet it is real, it is in existence. It is powerful‚ and it is to assist you in these Last Days.
I have created a See also section. The links in the See also are related to the Children of God but are not mentioned in the article. Links mentioned in the article are not in the section. Joie de Vivre 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the {{Cleanup}} template currently on the top of this article, but is the immediately following {{rewrite}} template really necessary? It says, "This article or section may need a complete rewrite." While I think the introduction might benefit from a rewrite, the placement of the template implies, at least to me, that it is referring to the entire article, and I do not agree with the template in that context. Joie de Vivre (who added the template) and other editors, what are your thoughts on this? -- Monger 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does Teens for Christ redirect here? I see no mention of it in the article. I am trying to find information on the website teens-4-christ.org. DangerousNerd talk contribs email 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have also placed a {{NPOV}} template in the article - the article is clearly written from a certain POV, this needs rectifying. Sfacets 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Again xfamily is a good resource as well as news reports but this is an integral part of the Children of God Story as he was a child of the founders and brought up in the Children of God and his claims of abuse especially against sibling Merry are substantial.
Links to the following in the See also section were removed:
FREECOG was one of the original groups that formed in opposition to a new religious movement, so certainly the first one should stay. The raid was the biggest news in years in Panton Hill, the second one should definitely stay. Third Culture Kids and Missionary Kids are terms used primarily in sociological contexts to describe children that spent a lot of time growing up in a culture that was not of their birthplace, family, or initial upbringing so there is no good reason not to have these. Love bombing... well, if you look at Flirty Fishing there is a strong argument for the "Family of Love" using this method. Religious prostitution, though it contains the word "prostitution", is usually used to describe "sacred whores" or "temple prostitutes" so I think is an appropriate description of Flirty fishing as well, they were having sex in order to win converts to the religion, often in exchange for money. Joie de Vivre 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooo look who's back. Stop taking my edits out of context (as usual). Sfacets 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The book, Not Without My Sister ( ISBN 978-0-00-724808-7) discusses the Children of God from the viewpoint of three of its former followers. Should this be included in the Media section, or should a separate article be written for it and included in the Books category? -- JB Adder | Talk 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to defend the cult, but for the sake of accuracy: the way River is quoted makes it sound as if he had been sexually abused by an adult member, while what he really says is that he "made love" with other "kids" [7] and that he'd rather undo that. He doesn't connect it to the cult.-- 87.162.54.100 ( talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This article needs serious help. xfamily.org is not a reliable source and all material cited to that site should be removed. -- Tom 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Just saw this documentary on a streaming video site. Never knew about the COG until after watching this. This documentary was released in 2007, relatively recently. It sheds a new and more personal light on the atrocities that was ongoing within COG. To whom are interested I urge you to watch this if you have not already. turtleh ( talk) 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
From our own dear wikipedia: New religions are often considered "cults" before they are considered religions[12] by social scientists, and usually by Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist theologians, and by the secular public – yet these three groups do not usually have the same understanding of the term "cult". People understand the term "cult" through the most popular usage in their cultures and subcultures, which can result in homonymic conflict, a communicative conflict with people who hold a different definition of the same term. This often results in confusion, misunderstanding, and resentment between members of "cult" groups and non-members.([ [8]])
What I don't understand is why some editors take things so personally. We all know how controversial new religious movements are, so there is no need to be so biased and negative like contributions from ex family members. Just try to be factual without being emotional about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljordani ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Bretonbanquet asked for some references to my claim that The Family International is "widely referred to as a cult" (in fact, "sex cult" is even more widely used). Well, below are 114 sources/references/articles from just about every major newspaper or magazine around the world. Is that "widely" enough for you? Call it "clearly contentious" all you like, but Wikipedia should never be about political correctness. If there ever was a group that fit the definition of a "cult", it is this one. -- Thorwald ( talk) 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Acoodrding to WP:LABEL: Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:
Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.
There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:
We can not just label it a cult in the lede Weaponbb7 ( talk) 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that if the group's current name is the "Family International" the article still pops up as the "Children of God"? I think the main title of the article should be changed to the "Family International" as opposed to the "Children of God". The reasons being:
We should consider this for change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb fisher ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Trimmed down EL sect, added {{ No more links}}. It was beginning to become a linkfarm. Cirt ( talk) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Children of God (cult) → Children of God — Children of God (cult) is clearly the primary topic: it is vastly more recognizable than an album, a novel, an English translation of a Hindi word, an 1800s religious group, or a song. — Whatever404 ( talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved as originally proposed. Ucucha 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Children of God (religious group) → Family International — - added to Wikipedia:Requested moves by Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This article has huge issues with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:PRIMARY. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Under Media featuring the group it is stated, that:
2019 Netflix documentary series The Family covers the political influence of the group in explicit detail.
but the documentary is not really focusing on The Family International, right? But rather on The Fellowship, if I'm correct?
There's a sentence in " The second generation" sub-section of "Issues" which says "Everyone should read the book, Not Without My Sister, by Kristina & Celeste Jones & Julianna Buhring, where they wrote their life stories of being in The Family International." That sentence seems pretty non-encyclopedic. The book should probably be a citation.
superman (
talk)
06:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The publication Sex, Slander and Salvation that is referred to in the academic section is being so heavily criticized that I think I should mention it here. http://www.skeptictank.org/wsns.htm http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c26.html http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/J._Gordon_Melton
Question is if it should be referred to as an academic publication with all this critique. -- 83.248.239.86 ( talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? Which Theologians might these be? - 114.76.227.0 ( talk) 08:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Hollywoodbob123 has recently been (quietly, at first) removing any references or links to the xFamily.org website. Hollywoodbob123 has made two claims about xFamily.org: (1) That it is "a dated, irrelevant and untrustworthy site. Note: viruses have been found on this and reported to spamcops"; and (2) "Information on [xFamily.org] is copy-write protected and is being illegally used without permission. Placing links to questionable [sic] is not a good practice for Wikipedia". I would like to know how Hollywoodbob123 has come to these (very explicit) conclusions about xFamily.org? Does Hollywoodbob123 represent TFI? If not, how does he/she know that xFamily.org is using material without permission? Anyway, the point to all of this is that I actually think xFamily.org is a very good resource on TFI. It seems to be the most comprehensive resource out there about this secretive group. The database containing nearly all of David Berg and Karen Zerby's writings, appears to be the most complete out there. I propose that those links be restored. -- Thorwald ( talk) 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Here we go again. User:Franklinrailroad continues to remove links to xFamily.org without discussing their removal here first (as I have repeatedly asked he/she do). We have already discussed the inclusion of these links many, many times before (and not just counting the above; see the archives) and the consensus was to keep them. The only reason I can find why he/she keeps removing them is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't wish to get into a edit war (and this user might be bordering on an WP:3RR violation), so could other editors comment on this and help us out. Thanks! -- Thorwald ( talk) 18:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that there was a category for "other" links that repeated the links that were in the "sites by former members" section. Since this is an unnecessary repetition of links I have removed the "other links" category. I also question the fact that there are 2 links to the same site in the "sites by former members" section? I have not edited this yet as I wanted to receive feedback from the editors first. Newsocleo ( talk) 14:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree to remove these external links. I will go ahead and assist with this, and make sure that the page is not a web directory. I don't believe these links have any reason to be on this page. Franklinrailroad ( talk) 05:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, there was no consensus on this, you went ahead and did it, it was pointed out there was no consensus and your edit was reverted. You then went ahead and edit the page again to remove the links, falsely stating in the edit summary there was a consensus. I am not putting it back ATM to avoid a possible edit war, but IMO these links DID belong, as xfamily.org is the defacto authority on the topic, and as significant and notable to the topic as the actual home page of the organization. Snertking ( talk) 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. I now see that User:Franklinrailroad is a confirmed sock of User:Asmitriver and User:Samantha1rouge and has been blocked. Barring any objections i will restore the links in a day or so. Snertking ( talk) 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
HERP DERP... Never mind. I see Authur Rubin already undid that.
Snertking (
talk)
I intend to add a section on systemic sexual abuse if I can find the appropriate materials. Such as: "I am totally satisfied that there was widespread sexual abuse of young children and teenagers by adult members of The Family, and that this abuse occurred to a significantly greater extent within The Family than occurred in society outside it. " - Findings of the High Court of Justice Family Division, U.K. Excerpts from the Judgement of THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD - Oct 19, 1995 W42 1992 http://www.exfamily.org/the-family/court/davidito-book.htm 69.245.72.101 ( talk) 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that xFamily.org has been discussed above somewhat, but it clearly needs to be brought up again. Regardless of whatever opinion you hold on the site or the cult or whatever, it is pretty undeniable that xFamily.org does not qualify as an appropriate site to use as a source for claims made in this article. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, meet the rules outlined in WP:RS.
Furthermore, if it does republish old content from other sources without permission, this is a clear copyright violation. Wikipedia rules on copyright state that we do not link to sites that violate copyright.
There are other sites and mostly message boards that were actively being promoted in the article. Message boards do not meet WP:EL rules for links in an external links section and clearly are not appropriate as external links in the body (as those are not allowed at all) and, again, do not meet WP:RS rules.
It is disturbing that some users above seem to be defending the inclusion of these sites in the article just because they like them and not because they meet Wikipedia's rules and policies. It's funny how they complain about IDONTLIKEIT when there are real problems that were raised and ignored.
Considering how much content is sourced or dependent upon these sites, the article is going to need a massive rewrite. I have already pulled the most blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, but a lot more needs to be done. Surely there ought to be plenty of sources that meet WP:RS rules that could be used instead. If there are not, then we have a different problem. Right now, though, from the content and some dodgy comments above, the article as it stands has a very particular viewpoint to express, which is a violation of WP:NPOV rules.
I'll have to go see how the controversy over editing of the Scientology article was handled by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, because whatever they came up with there is likely applicable here. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone knows if they had a TV series for children? thanks, Austral blizzard ( talk) 14:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
On the list of "Spirit Helpers", along with Marilyn Monroe and the Sphinx, is included "the Snowman". Could someone possibly expand on or clarify this? Cactus Wren ( talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going through this article pruning all kinds of material added by what are obviously two opposing sides. I have removed rnverified, non-neutral, promotional material, as well as a huge load of material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced, material that in its current state simply violates the WP:BLP. For the record, I do not consider xfamily.org, which appears to be a kind of Wiki for disgruntled former members of this group, a reliable source, and it is entirely possible that the site hosts copyright-violating material as well. Material I am removing also includes stuff that has only primary sourcing.
I want to alert editors to the possibility that if the edit warring and the non-neutral editing and the soapboxing etc. continues, there is a real possibility that this will end up before ArbCom, and no one wants that, least of all me. Please be wary of policy. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 15:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Family International. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I happen to be a current member of TFI and I find your info to be quite outdated. If anyone wants to know up to date relevant information about TFI you can look it up or contact TFI on either website http://www.thefamilyinternational.org/ or http://tfionline.com/. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.180.245.247 ( talk) 04:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
yw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.217.115 ( talk) 07:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Shepherd, G., & Shepherd, G. (2005). Accommodation and reformation in the Family/Children of god. Nova Religio, 9(1), 67-92.
The Love Charter is the families set governing document. It entails each members rights, responsibilities and the requirements needed. The purpose in making this document was to solidify the Family's basic rules so a person or family could have better responsibility in making decisions. This charter increased the number of single family homes as well as homes that relied on jobs such as self-employment and system jobs.
Izzy Chelini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzychelini ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Family International. 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) 02:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The article title should be in line with the organization's official name, as seen on the "TFI" site (the title and use in the content). http://www.thefamilyinternational.org. It clearly shows the organization's name is "The Family International", similar in format to "The Salvation Army." (Note: The Seventh-Day Adventists' official name is "Seventh-Day Adventist Church"--no "the". https://www.adventist.org/en/). Of course, in text, the "The" of an organization's name is not usually capped, although it usually is capped in the first instance of an article/essay/press release, etc.
If no objections, perhaps in a few days the title change process could take place, as outlined here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Moving_a_page, by anyone adept at such. Kibbitzer 19:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibbitzer ( talk • contribs)
Greetings. I'm new on this page, but certainly not to Wikipedia. I have been a financially contributing user of Wikipedia for years. I'm sorry to start a new topic. Feel free to instruct me if there is another protocol for this. (The rest of this message deleted by myself, when I learned it should be addressed on another site. JohnnyJohnnyG ( talk) 15:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC))
Okay, I see, my sincere apologies. That is indeed, why I started off by saying, "Feel free to instruct me if there is another protocol for this." I'll take up the issue at WP:AIN and also let the editor in question know what the issue is. Thank you. JohnnyJohnnyG ( talk) 15:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I know there are some minor mentions of the sexual exploitation and misconduct but overall the article seems quite a it whitewashed. I only just learned about this cult after reading about River and Joaquin Phoenix yesterday and reading through several sources, I'm wondering why the Story of Davidito/Davidito letters aren't even covered here. I realize Rodriguez is linked but I would think given the wide coverage and significant impact the letters had. I'm just wondering if there was some past discussion about this or what. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Family International →
The Family International – The organization name (e.g., as given in the opening sentence and the official website name "thefamilyinternational.org") seems to include "The", and the name is abbreviated TFI, not FI, so it seems a bit strange to omit the "T" in the title of the article. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
17:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In the very beginning of the article, it says that "TFI is a cult". That's the basis for adding this article into [[Category:Cults]]. Tony85poon ( talk) 06:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
"removed Category:Cults which is for articles about cults in general, not specific organizations" This edit summary by another editor is a good one, give credit to where credit is due, I just repeat here. Tony85poon ( talk) 19:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that back in September 2019 someone removed a whole bunch of links in three successive edits without edit summaries or any explanation here on the talk page. All of the links appear to be critical of the organization. I think they should probably be restored, but maybe someone with more experience editing this page should weigh in first. I haven't been here before and may be missing relevant context. ( The edits in question) 67.188.1.213 ( talk) 03:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
First of all the IP is not completely wrong asking for more neutral in the lead in doubt. Second- and more importantly if a negatively connotated term is used for a description it needs to well sourced. So to use the term "cult" here it needs to be backed up to very least by reputable mainstream media sources better yet by scholarly literature. The websites currently cited seem to fall way short of that in fact at a first glance they might not be a valid sources at all for WP.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
In all due fairness, Kmhkmh, Alexbrn could just be busy doing something else. I would wait for a while before removing anything. 79.66.4.79 ( talk) 18:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, to whomever is reading this. I think that calling the TFI a cult in Wikipedia's voice violates NPOV, because the sources that are used in the article to serve as references to it being a cult are not really what I would call scholarly. The fact that it's veritable doesn't mean it should be there. Otherwise, Wikipedia's pages on the Catholic Church could be flooded with lunatics calling it a cult because it's "veritable" (just using an example that came to mind. Have no doubt that TFI is a cult, but strongly disagree that calling it a cult in the first sentence of an article is NPOV, because "new religious movement" could work just as well -- and it's a term without bias, too.) 79.66.4.79 ( talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Based on those and a few other the term "cult" seems appropriate even for the lead. However the current sources would need to be replaced by some of the above or any other sources passing the requirements of WP:V.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Labelling the organization as a "cult" rather than "new religious movement" violates Wikipedia's policy regarding a Neutral Point of View. As many have pointed out throughout the talk page, the word "cult" is derogatory and reflects personal bias. Although some have voiced support in calling the group a cult, no one has challenged the fact that the word is biased. So, until this claim gets challenged, the word "cult" remains as a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Theobvioushero ( talk) 23:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
your money and your sex life now belong to us. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed repeatedly since 2004. There is not agreement that "cult" is a biased term. Again, if you want to seek outside opinions, you've been presented with an option for doing so. Until you do so, I suggest you stop WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 15:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
References
This article cites the xfamily.com wiki and/or primary-source material hosted on the xfamily.com website as source in several places. A discussion regarding the related Flirty Fishing article on the reliable sources noticeboard [12] seems to be reaching a consensus that this source cannot be cited in that article, and everything stated there in regard to the wiki seems equally relevant here, meaning that citations will need to be removed, and alternate WP:RS sources directly supporting the relevant material be found. Fortunately this article seems much less reliant of xmamily.com than the Flirty Fishing article, so this should be less of a problem. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzychelini. Peer reviewers: Cfurey.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I made these comments at Category talk:Children of God, but this topic could use a WikiProject, and also an article on Philip Sloan, most certainly notable enough. I could design a WikiProject, if there is participation and active involvement from at least a smattering of other editors... Smee 07:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
I have created a new template for related articles to this one. If you wish to add it to an article, simply add {{ Children of God}} to the bottom of the article. Thank you. Smee 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
I am glad that Smee was inspired to create this template; apparently the template was made shortly after I spent an hour mining for articles and adding them to Category:Children of God. There were so many that I created Category:Current and past members of the Children of God, Category:Books which discuss the Children of God and Category:People who researched the Children of God. It's good to see that others are interested in organizing these articles too! Perhaps more people will be interested to assist, now that there are more related articles easily available for referencing. Joie de Vivre 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Which way should the statement defining The Keys of the Kingdom be worded?
All input is appreciated. hmwith talk 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
xFamily Moving On These pages which describe "Key Craft" might be helpful. Joie de Vivre 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That quote and many other parts of that text explain the intrinsically spiritual (or Heavenly) nature of the craft. Presenting a religion's views of spiritual or heavenly craft as just some UFOs is a degradation and, given my long history with the WP:OWNing editor that edit-warred over the change and called it "nonsense", one that I see as deliberate. They believe in spiritual craft, not UFOs. Perhaps a fine difference but a difference nonetheless and if what may well be a knowledgable editor comes here and makes that distinction then I, for one, respect that.-- Justanother 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)24. I prefer to call it the key craft‚ for this craft transports the might and power and energy of the keys. It is spiritual, yet more real than life itself. Instruments of man cannot detect it, yet it is real, it is in existence. It is powerful‚ and it is to assist you in these Last Days.
I have created a See also section. The links in the See also are related to the Children of God but are not mentioned in the article. Links mentioned in the article are not in the section. Joie de Vivre 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the {{Cleanup}} template currently on the top of this article, but is the immediately following {{rewrite}} template really necessary? It says, "This article or section may need a complete rewrite." While I think the introduction might benefit from a rewrite, the placement of the template implies, at least to me, that it is referring to the entire article, and I do not agree with the template in that context. Joie de Vivre (who added the template) and other editors, what are your thoughts on this? -- Monger 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does Teens for Christ redirect here? I see no mention of it in the article. I am trying to find information on the website teens-4-christ.org. DangerousNerd talk contribs email 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have also placed a {{NPOV}} template in the article - the article is clearly written from a certain POV, this needs rectifying. Sfacets 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Again xfamily is a good resource as well as news reports but this is an integral part of the Children of God Story as he was a child of the founders and brought up in the Children of God and his claims of abuse especially against sibling Merry are substantial.
Links to the following in the See also section were removed:
FREECOG was one of the original groups that formed in opposition to a new religious movement, so certainly the first one should stay. The raid was the biggest news in years in Panton Hill, the second one should definitely stay. Third Culture Kids and Missionary Kids are terms used primarily in sociological contexts to describe children that spent a lot of time growing up in a culture that was not of their birthplace, family, or initial upbringing so there is no good reason not to have these. Love bombing... well, if you look at Flirty Fishing there is a strong argument for the "Family of Love" using this method. Religious prostitution, though it contains the word "prostitution", is usually used to describe "sacred whores" or "temple prostitutes" so I think is an appropriate description of Flirty fishing as well, they were having sex in order to win converts to the religion, often in exchange for money. Joie de Vivre 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooo look who's back. Stop taking my edits out of context (as usual). Sfacets 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The book, Not Without My Sister ( ISBN 978-0-00-724808-7) discusses the Children of God from the viewpoint of three of its former followers. Should this be included in the Media section, or should a separate article be written for it and included in the Books category? -- JB Adder | Talk 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to defend the cult, but for the sake of accuracy: the way River is quoted makes it sound as if he had been sexually abused by an adult member, while what he really says is that he "made love" with other "kids" [7] and that he'd rather undo that. He doesn't connect it to the cult.-- 87.162.54.100 ( talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This article needs serious help. xfamily.org is not a reliable source and all material cited to that site should be removed. -- Tom 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Just saw this documentary on a streaming video site. Never knew about the COG until after watching this. This documentary was released in 2007, relatively recently. It sheds a new and more personal light on the atrocities that was ongoing within COG. To whom are interested I urge you to watch this if you have not already. turtleh ( talk) 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
From our own dear wikipedia: New religions are often considered "cults" before they are considered religions[12] by social scientists, and usually by Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist theologians, and by the secular public – yet these three groups do not usually have the same understanding of the term "cult". People understand the term "cult" through the most popular usage in their cultures and subcultures, which can result in homonymic conflict, a communicative conflict with people who hold a different definition of the same term. This often results in confusion, misunderstanding, and resentment between members of "cult" groups and non-members.([ [8]])
What I don't understand is why some editors take things so personally. We all know how controversial new religious movements are, so there is no need to be so biased and negative like contributions from ex family members. Just try to be factual without being emotional about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljordani ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Bretonbanquet asked for some references to my claim that The Family International is "widely referred to as a cult" (in fact, "sex cult" is even more widely used). Well, below are 114 sources/references/articles from just about every major newspaper or magazine around the world. Is that "widely" enough for you? Call it "clearly contentious" all you like, but Wikipedia should never be about political correctness. If there ever was a group that fit the definition of a "cult", it is this one. -- Thorwald ( talk) 01:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Acoodrding to WP:LABEL: Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:
Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.
There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:
We can not just label it a cult in the lede Weaponbb7 ( talk) 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that if the group's current name is the "Family International" the article still pops up as the "Children of God"? I think the main title of the article should be changed to the "Family International" as opposed to the "Children of God". The reasons being:
We should consider this for change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb fisher ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Trimmed down EL sect, added {{ No more links}}. It was beginning to become a linkfarm. Cirt ( talk) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Children of God (cult) → Children of God — Children of God (cult) is clearly the primary topic: it is vastly more recognizable than an album, a novel, an English translation of a Hindi word, an 1800s religious group, or a song. — Whatever404 ( talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved as originally proposed. Ucucha 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Children of God (religious group) → Family International — - added to Wikipedia:Requested moves by Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This article has huge issues with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:PRIMARY. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Under Media featuring the group it is stated, that:
2019 Netflix documentary series The Family covers the political influence of the group in explicit detail.
but the documentary is not really focusing on The Family International, right? But rather on The Fellowship, if I'm correct?
There's a sentence in " The second generation" sub-section of "Issues" which says "Everyone should read the book, Not Without My Sister, by Kristina & Celeste Jones & Julianna Buhring, where they wrote their life stories of being in The Family International." That sentence seems pretty non-encyclopedic. The book should probably be a citation.
superman (
talk)
06:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The publication Sex, Slander and Salvation that is referred to in the academic section is being so heavily criticized that I think I should mention it here. http://www.skeptictank.org/wsns.htm http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c26.html http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/J._Gordon_Melton
Question is if it should be referred to as an academic publication with all this critique. -- 83.248.239.86 ( talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? Which Theologians might these be? - 114.76.227.0 ( talk) 08:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Hollywoodbob123 has recently been (quietly, at first) removing any references or links to the xFamily.org website. Hollywoodbob123 has made two claims about xFamily.org: (1) That it is "a dated, irrelevant and untrustworthy site. Note: viruses have been found on this and reported to spamcops"; and (2) "Information on [xFamily.org] is copy-write protected and is being illegally used without permission. Placing links to questionable [sic] is not a good practice for Wikipedia". I would like to know how Hollywoodbob123 has come to these (very explicit) conclusions about xFamily.org? Does Hollywoodbob123 represent TFI? If not, how does he/she know that xFamily.org is using material without permission? Anyway, the point to all of this is that I actually think xFamily.org is a very good resource on TFI. It seems to be the most comprehensive resource out there about this secretive group. The database containing nearly all of David Berg and Karen Zerby's writings, appears to be the most complete out there. I propose that those links be restored. -- Thorwald ( talk) 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Here we go again. User:Franklinrailroad continues to remove links to xFamily.org without discussing their removal here first (as I have repeatedly asked he/she do). We have already discussed the inclusion of these links many, many times before (and not just counting the above; see the archives) and the consensus was to keep them. The only reason I can find why he/she keeps removing them is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't wish to get into a edit war (and this user might be bordering on an WP:3RR violation), so could other editors comment on this and help us out. Thanks! -- Thorwald ( talk) 18:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that there was a category for "other" links that repeated the links that were in the "sites by former members" section. Since this is an unnecessary repetition of links I have removed the "other links" category. I also question the fact that there are 2 links to the same site in the "sites by former members" section? I have not edited this yet as I wanted to receive feedback from the editors first. Newsocleo ( talk) 14:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree to remove these external links. I will go ahead and assist with this, and make sure that the page is not a web directory. I don't believe these links have any reason to be on this page. Franklinrailroad ( talk) 05:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, there was no consensus on this, you went ahead and did it, it was pointed out there was no consensus and your edit was reverted. You then went ahead and edit the page again to remove the links, falsely stating in the edit summary there was a consensus. I am not putting it back ATM to avoid a possible edit war, but IMO these links DID belong, as xfamily.org is the defacto authority on the topic, and as significant and notable to the topic as the actual home page of the organization. Snertking ( talk) 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. I now see that User:Franklinrailroad is a confirmed sock of User:Asmitriver and User:Samantha1rouge and has been blocked. Barring any objections i will restore the links in a day or so. Snertking ( talk) 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
HERP DERP... Never mind. I see Authur Rubin already undid that.
Snertking (
talk)
I intend to add a section on systemic sexual abuse if I can find the appropriate materials. Such as: "I am totally satisfied that there was widespread sexual abuse of young children and teenagers by adult members of The Family, and that this abuse occurred to a significantly greater extent within The Family than occurred in society outside it. " - Findings of the High Court of Justice Family Division, U.K. Excerpts from the Judgement of THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD - Oct 19, 1995 W42 1992 http://www.exfamily.org/the-family/court/davidito-book.htm 69.245.72.101 ( talk) 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that xFamily.org has been discussed above somewhat, but it clearly needs to be brought up again. Regardless of whatever opinion you hold on the site or the cult or whatever, it is pretty undeniable that xFamily.org does not qualify as an appropriate site to use as a source for claims made in this article. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, meet the rules outlined in WP:RS.
Furthermore, if it does republish old content from other sources without permission, this is a clear copyright violation. Wikipedia rules on copyright state that we do not link to sites that violate copyright.
There are other sites and mostly message boards that were actively being promoted in the article. Message boards do not meet WP:EL rules for links in an external links section and clearly are not appropriate as external links in the body (as those are not allowed at all) and, again, do not meet WP:RS rules.
It is disturbing that some users above seem to be defending the inclusion of these sites in the article just because they like them and not because they meet Wikipedia's rules and policies. It's funny how they complain about IDONTLIKEIT when there are real problems that were raised and ignored.
Considering how much content is sourced or dependent upon these sites, the article is going to need a massive rewrite. I have already pulled the most blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, but a lot more needs to be done. Surely there ought to be plenty of sources that meet WP:RS rules that could be used instead. If there are not, then we have a different problem. Right now, though, from the content and some dodgy comments above, the article as it stands has a very particular viewpoint to express, which is a violation of WP:NPOV rules.
I'll have to go see how the controversy over editing of the Scientology article was handled by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, because whatever they came up with there is likely applicable here. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone knows if they had a TV series for children? thanks, Austral blizzard ( talk) 14:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
On the list of "Spirit Helpers", along with Marilyn Monroe and the Sphinx, is included "the Snowman". Could someone possibly expand on or clarify this? Cactus Wren ( talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going through this article pruning all kinds of material added by what are obviously two opposing sides. I have removed rnverified, non-neutral, promotional material, as well as a huge load of material that is either unsourced or improperly sourced, material that in its current state simply violates the WP:BLP. For the record, I do not consider xfamily.org, which appears to be a kind of Wiki for disgruntled former members of this group, a reliable source, and it is entirely possible that the site hosts copyright-violating material as well. Material I am removing also includes stuff that has only primary sourcing.
I want to alert editors to the possibility that if the edit warring and the non-neutral editing and the soapboxing etc. continues, there is a real possibility that this will end up before ArbCom, and no one wants that, least of all me. Please be wary of policy. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 15:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Family International. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I happen to be a current member of TFI and I find your info to be quite outdated. If anyone wants to know up to date relevant information about TFI you can look it up or contact TFI on either website http://www.thefamilyinternational.org/ or http://tfionline.com/. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.180.245.247 ( talk) 04:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
yw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.217.115 ( talk) 07:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Shepherd, G., & Shepherd, G. (2005). Accommodation and reformation in the Family/Children of god. Nova Religio, 9(1), 67-92.
The Love Charter is the families set governing document. It entails each members rights, responsibilities and the requirements needed. The purpose in making this document was to solidify the Family's basic rules so a person or family could have better responsibility in making decisions. This charter increased the number of single family homes as well as homes that relied on jobs such as self-employment and system jobs.
Izzy Chelini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzychelini ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Family International. 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) 02:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The article title should be in line with the organization's official name, as seen on the "TFI" site (the title and use in the content). http://www.thefamilyinternational.org. It clearly shows the organization's name is "The Family International", similar in format to "The Salvation Army." (Note: The Seventh-Day Adventists' official name is "Seventh-Day Adventist Church"--no "the". https://www.adventist.org/en/). Of course, in text, the "The" of an organization's name is not usually capped, although it usually is capped in the first instance of an article/essay/press release, etc.
If no objections, perhaps in a few days the title change process could take place, as outlined here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Moving_a_page, by anyone adept at such. Kibbitzer 19:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibbitzer ( talk • contribs)
Greetings. I'm new on this page, but certainly not to Wikipedia. I have been a financially contributing user of Wikipedia for years. I'm sorry to start a new topic. Feel free to instruct me if there is another protocol for this. (The rest of this message deleted by myself, when I learned it should be addressed on another site. JohnnyJohnnyG ( talk) 15:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC))
Okay, I see, my sincere apologies. That is indeed, why I started off by saying, "Feel free to instruct me if there is another protocol for this." I'll take up the issue at WP:AIN and also let the editor in question know what the issue is. Thank you. JohnnyJohnnyG ( talk) 15:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I know there are some minor mentions of the sexual exploitation and misconduct but overall the article seems quite a it whitewashed. I only just learned about this cult after reading about River and Joaquin Phoenix yesterday and reading through several sources, I'm wondering why the Story of Davidito/Davidito letters aren't even covered here. I realize Rodriguez is linked but I would think given the wide coverage and significant impact the letters had. I'm just wondering if there was some past discussion about this or what. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Family International →
The Family International – The organization name (e.g., as given in the opening sentence and the official website name "thefamilyinternational.org") seems to include "The", and the name is abbreviated TFI, not FI, so it seems a bit strange to omit the "T" in the title of the article. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
17:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In the very beginning of the article, it says that "TFI is a cult". That's the basis for adding this article into [[Category:Cults]]. Tony85poon ( talk) 06:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
"removed Category:Cults which is for articles about cults in general, not specific organizations" This edit summary by another editor is a good one, give credit to where credit is due, I just repeat here. Tony85poon ( talk) 19:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that back in September 2019 someone removed a whole bunch of links in three successive edits without edit summaries or any explanation here on the talk page. All of the links appear to be critical of the organization. I think they should probably be restored, but maybe someone with more experience editing this page should weigh in first. I haven't been here before and may be missing relevant context. ( The edits in question) 67.188.1.213 ( talk) 03:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
First of all the IP is not completely wrong asking for more neutral in the lead in doubt. Second- and more importantly if a negatively connotated term is used for a description it needs to well sourced. So to use the term "cult" here it needs to be backed up to very least by reputable mainstream media sources better yet by scholarly literature. The websites currently cited seem to fall way short of that in fact at a first glance they might not be a valid sources at all for WP.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
In all due fairness, Kmhkmh, Alexbrn could just be busy doing something else. I would wait for a while before removing anything. 79.66.4.79 ( talk) 18:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, to whomever is reading this. I think that calling the TFI a cult in Wikipedia's voice violates NPOV, because the sources that are used in the article to serve as references to it being a cult are not really what I would call scholarly. The fact that it's veritable doesn't mean it should be there. Otherwise, Wikipedia's pages on the Catholic Church could be flooded with lunatics calling it a cult because it's "veritable" (just using an example that came to mind. Have no doubt that TFI is a cult, but strongly disagree that calling it a cult in the first sentence of an article is NPOV, because "new religious movement" could work just as well -- and it's a term without bias, too.) 79.66.4.79 ( talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Based on those and a few other the term "cult" seems appropriate even for the lead. However the current sources would need to be replaced by some of the above or any other sources passing the requirements of WP:V.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Labelling the organization as a "cult" rather than "new religious movement" violates Wikipedia's policy regarding a Neutral Point of View. As many have pointed out throughout the talk page, the word "cult" is derogatory and reflects personal bias. Although some have voiced support in calling the group a cult, no one has challenged the fact that the word is biased. So, until this claim gets challenged, the word "cult" remains as a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Theobvioushero ( talk) 23:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
your money and your sex life now belong to us. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed repeatedly since 2004. There is not agreement that "cult" is a biased term. Again, if you want to seek outside opinions, you've been presented with an option for doing so. Until you do so, I suggest you stop WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 15:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
References
This article cites the xfamily.com wiki and/or primary-source material hosted on the xfamily.com website as source in several places. A discussion regarding the related Flirty Fishing article on the reliable sources noticeboard [12] seems to be reaching a consensus that this source cannot be cited in that article, and everything stated there in regard to the wiki seems equally relevant here, meaning that citations will need to be removed, and alternate WP:RS sources directly supporting the relevant material be found. Fortunately this article seems much less reliant of xmamily.com than the Flirty Fishing article, so this should be less of a problem. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzychelini. Peer reviewers: Cfurey.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)