Talk:Cooneyites

insulted.

the cooneyites have but died out.i am a member of the original group and this discussion is utterly incorrect-firstly we arent a sect.sects are a group which have a dangerous potential and the meetings do not control people.i am free to remain in the meetings or leave.we are not protestant either and in fact protestants call us dissenters-we are anabaptists.anabaptists believe in adult baptism,staying as close to the bible as possible,plain,modest dress and such like.we meet in people's homes to pray,sing hymns and read from out bibles and discuss the gospel.other anabatists include the amish,the mennonites,brethren and hutterites.we arent as strict as the other anabaptists but very similiar.we use hymns old and new and have conventions during the summer months.our workers are chosen by God and forsake their careers and become like jesus nad the disciples,traveling about preaching and depending on the friends for food and shelter.the workers are male and female and respected.little children address them aunty and uncle and when they stay at peoples' homes often there is a good friendship and the worker is treated like apart of the family.we solve any quarrels and problems with the workers and donate money to areas that may need it.we do not own tvs or radios as they are a bad influence.this is a decision that we cherish.i grew up without a tv and i am glad i did.we do not attend cinmeas or theatres or pubs.instead we meet up a lot and go to the beach,have a picnic,go hiking,have a dinner party,go for a walk,sing hymns or go bowling.we respect other religions yet protestants look down on us and catholics laugh at us.i work,attend university,can decide if i want to be baptized into my faith or not but aparently i'm a member of a cult!?how can that be?we just keep to ourselves and try to obey the bible as much as possible.

The above section was added by PoppyDadswell at 16:40 on 15 October 2007. B1atv 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the messages which had been left for you you will see there is no need to feel insulted. Wikipedia has policies on original research, citable sources, conflict of interest and neutral point of view. I have explained in my earlier message to you how you can correct an article you feel is incorrect with appropriate sources. What you can't do is simply overwrite other edits. As for sects being dangerous - that is one definition of sects; but not the general definition. The Church of England is a sect as is Roman Catholicism. The term isn't meant as a term of abuse but as a generic description. B1atv 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

there is EVERY need to insulted.

there is EVERY need to insulted.that article is lies!a person from a different religion would be insult if they too found an article of lies, insulting their religion.i want people to know the truth of my religion not the lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppyDadswell (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Christian Conventions

I have taken the liberty of changing the heading, GwydionM. My specific issue is with the lack of citations to reliable sources in the text of the article, not to the list of References. There are only two citations, one to a SPS and one to a record of UK parliament. The goal of WP:V is that anything stated on this page can be easily checked by the reader against reliable sources. Slofstra (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is merged, the following text is fairly WP:V, IMO:
Those professing to be "Cooneyite" are a minuscule but still recognized sect in the UK, having just over 200 members according to the 2001 UK Census. [2] According to Roberts (1990), a Cooneyite remnant exists in various places around the world and continues to meet in homes for "church" meetings.
The Roberts reference needs to be linked properly, but that is easily remedied.
Is there any other WP:V text? Note that the historical facts within this article are already covered in Christian Conventions as is the split with Edward Cooney.

No, merger is a damn fool idea and is the third attempt by "Slofstar" to destroy this article, after two straightforward attempts at deletion. None of it makes any sense whatsoever. Souces are quite good. Overlap is normal.

I have removed my text, which was on a completely different topic.--GwydionM (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize for the PROD - only one though, not two. I thought procedure was to put in an PROD before making an AFD. Slofstra (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that this article is just a rehash of SPS, who I believe are mostly anti- this group. Most of the information here is not cited, so its reliability is unknown. Cherie Kropp is a WP:SPS. I suspect that Roberts is SPS but it's almost impossible to obtain this work. In any case, her work is not cited in the article. Finally, there are a number of evaluations of the group contained within the article, again not cited. Observations made as per this version:

[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)