Talk:The Fellowship (Christian organization)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

National Prayer Breakfest

Under the section of National Prayer Breakfest, the following statement, In 2008 the Fellowship and its Congressional allies received widespread media attention and public criticism for involving military officers in organizing events surrounding the National Day of Prayer, particularly since no one was allowed to be involved in organizing an event unless they were a "Born Again" Christian (prospective leaders were required to sign contracts to the effect). I would like to know the source or sources for this statement. User Calslib June 24th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calsman (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and secrecy

The following is not NPOV:

The organization, which strives to be "invisible", has been the subject of recent media attention as being overly secretive. This attention though is generally the product of journalists who despite being extremely intelligent, seem completely unable to make the distinction between an organisation which is secretive about its activities, and a group which chooses not to publicise its activities.

The above makes implications about the journalist's intellegence with regard to the secrecy/invisibility issue that are opinion and not NPOV. What is meant by "invisible" needs to be clarified. The alledged secrecy issue is debatable and their are those who claim that the group has a secret plan to create a bible-based goverment, free of the seperation of church and state. This article should address the controversial aspects of this group better. --Cab88 15:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer, we can label it Original Research. Under either label, it is an opinion of the writer, not of a reliable public source.--Cherlin (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is interesting that the only documentation on this group anywhere comes from left leaning groups. This comes as no surprise since the membership of the group, overwhelmingly right leaning, maintains a great interest in secrecy. As a result, the available literature on The Family paints them as an extremist, sometimes fascist organization. This fact makes it very difficult to paint an unbiased picture of the group --Nscheibel 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is interesting that this complaint completely ignores the evidence of what members and leaders themselves say, and makes elementary errors in logic and character assassination.--Cherlin (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other "The Family"

Isn't there a cult that calls itself "The Family"?

Yes, the Children of God, also known as the Family of Love, follows a leader called Dave Berg (a.k.a. "Moses David"). --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the history of the United States there have been several groups of whom have used the term "The Family", including organized crime syndicates dating back to the 1920's Mafia, communal groups such as Charles_Manson Family, and religious organizations with names like Family International.

Fellowship

You recently re-added some misleading information to the "Fellowship article" that I had removed based on my research of the orgins of this organization (including Vereide's biography) and personal contact with some you are associated with this group. Based on primary sources, that has also been summed up in their archives, Vereide organized breakfast groups "to pray about perceived IWW and Socialist subversion and corruption in Seattle, Washington's municipal government. Group began to meet regularly and expanded to include government officials, labor leaders, etc." To highlight socialism as a primary reason of gathering is misleading and affects the integrity of this article. In fact, just as the information at the archives suggest, labor leaders were also included. In fact, one of the biggest breakthroughs for this group (whose primary focus has been reconciliation) was gathering big business leaders and labor leaders together to pray...and to continue to meet in that spirit of reconciliation. You will also find in the archives evidence that socialist-leaning politicians also participated in some of these prayer groups. The huge success of this movement was because of the reconciliation that brought people together from different beliefs and backgrounds. If you do proper research, you will see that this is one of the biggest criticisms of the current National Prayer Breakfasts by many christian leaders; muslims, jews, buddhists, etc play key roles in the program among christians. I would ask that you remove these statements for the integrity of the article. Thank you Politico777 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence rules the day. Got citations? PRRfan 23:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please read our policy on attribution. Doing your own personal research, based on personal contacts, is an unacceptable source of information (see our policy on original research) and a violation of our guideline on reliable sources. You may not agree with such policies and guidelines; if you do not, please go elsewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton?

What is her purpose of participating in this organization? Did she do so just in order to make her platform more attractive to the conservative side? I've lost all the respect for her.

See Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's professor at Georgetown. A caricature of his work is conspiracy theories, about CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the like, but he was a scholarly professor of history. Quigley warned about elite cliques forming; but the impressionable and ambitious Bill took this as a roadmap, rather than a warning. Hillary's quest for power follows the same path.

Douglas Coe merits a biographical page

Coe was the founder of this group in the 1960s. He is a hero of Al Gore. Who is he? What was his education? His roots? Parents? Upbringing? Siblings? Is he married? Kids? His own beliefs? Career path? Surely this merits more than a redirect to this group.

Fisher-Smith: Who are the people who inspire you? Who have been your heroes?

Al Gore: Jefferson. His essential genius, and his understanding of the human spirit. About heroes I might have right now [...:] Alexei Yablokov is the leading environmentalist in Russia, and a real tower of integrity. Sherwood Rowland, the scientist who alerted us to the problem of ozone depletion, is a hero to me. [...] Wangari Matthai, a woman in Kenya who started a tree-planting movement [...]. Outside the environmental movement, I have a friend named Doug Coe who devotes his life to the message of Christ in a completely nondenominational, noninstitutional way. He just lives it, and is incredibly loving and strong.

DBrnstn (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, but according to a recent NBC report, very little is known of Coe. However they did obtain exclusive footage showing his rather curious speaking style - he compares devotion to Jesus with the blind allegiance the Nazis had for Hitler. He also compares Jesus to China's Mao.VatoFirme (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, I've created a stub article for Douglas Coe. Note that according to the Family article (and other sources) he did not found the Family, Abraham Vereide did. mennonot (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal interpretation

The assertions that The Fellowship is in violation of the United States Constitution is unsubstantiated and unverified. The allegation is completely uncited and the constitutionality of the group's practices is subject to significant debate. I flagged the article for NPOV. Valkyrynele (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Family organization has created a network of politicians throughout American and Foreign governments, they use this organization to force individual politicians to turn towards their own right wing views. For instance, no President has been elected who has refused to attend the groups prayer organization or doesn't have of the governments prayer groups supporting them.

How trustworthy a source?

Just wondering if Jeff Sharlet is truly trustworthy as a source. Looking over his books and papers, I sometimes wonder if he has an axe to grind with Christianity. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His personal opinion of christianity, or any religion, is less important than the substance and veracity of his works. He is viewed as trustworthy by at least one major news channel. Wikipedia is not in the business of independent verification, we must let our citations speak for themselves. One could also very reasonably argue that this group's dogma is quite unchristian.--Eion (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A BOOK to consider

[1] The Family The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power By Jeff Sharlet I heard this guy speak and read his book summary (but have not read the book). It may be a source of good research on this topic. (Author is mentioned above but not the book.) Propkid (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

broken link

The last reference links to a non-existent page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.40 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOPV

This page sounds like a group of Leftist conspiracy theories rather than a trusted source. Rockules318 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article about a fringe or cult group will sound odd (for lack of a better word) when the group is odd. What specifically are you claiming to be "NOPV" (sic) or "conspiracy theories"? Шизомби (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined the content of the article, but a cursory review suggests that it is in violation of WP:NPOV#Impartial tone. Extended section-heading lists of past scandals and affiliated organizations suggests that the WP:STRUCTURE of those parts of the article may need to be reconsidered as well. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extended list of scandals because this organization has been involved in many scandals. By your logic, Wikipedia should not list all the scandals of an organization that has been involved in many scandals. That would be inaccurate and would not reflect a NPOV. I believe until you can substantiate your charge with more than what you say was a "cursory review" and identify specifically what does not constitute a NPOV, the piece should not be labelled for not having a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likesausages (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant two things - first, it appears that there is undue weight being given to the scandals. Second, the current use of headers in the article is clearly a violation of the Manual of Style, which is linked to in NPOV section I linked to with WP:STRUCTURE - please read the links I provided in my statement before further replying, so you understand what I'm trying to say. Finally, please sign your posts using ~~~~. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken. Thank you for explaining. I made significant edits to reduce the number of section headings, remove the controversies section and integrate its content into the article, and remove or tone down negative statements where unsubstantiated or unbalanced.Likesausages (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections, then, to removing the tags? If so, kindly cite specific passages that offend, along with suggestions for improvement. PRRfan (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the headings tag. I'm going to leave the neutrality tag in place - the article is still generating complaints (see below) and still does have a negative tone (it even managed to violate Godwin's law in the lede - I just removed the offending statement.). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the top; still see anything to justify the tag? Kindly be specific. PRRfan (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization: the Family, not The Family

WP:MOS says:

"Use of "The" mid-sentence: The definite article is not normally capitalized in the middle of a sentence; but there are idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of works of art, which should be quoted exactly. Common usage should be followed on a case-by-case basis. As usual, it is a good idea to consult the sources of the article."

It is clear from the context that "the Family" and "the Cedars" refer to the organization that is the subject of the article and to the lodge owned by it and discussed in the article. Adding further capitalization that is contrary to the general rule of WP:MOS, i.e., The Family and The Cedars, does not add any clarity for the reader. Whether or not the Family chooses to capitalize "the" is immaterial: Wikipedia follows its own style guide and not those of organizations or corproations who may be the subjects of articles -- see WP:TRADEMARK. Ground Zero | t 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory?

I have just read this article for the first time. It has the feeling of an expose of an ugly conspiracy rather than presenting a neutral point of view. It does not belong on Wikipedia according the standards that have been set. It seems oriented toward creating an emotional response. I also question the use of some quotes, which seem to be taken out of context specifically to create a negative impression. Not only that but it is a rambling mess. In short, I think that article needs to be ditched and someone with writing skill and a neutral position should start over. Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.88.140 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, where articles are not "ditched." You are more than welcome, however, to make or suggest edits to the existing article. Bear in mind that citing reliable sources is the best way to convince other editors of the value of your edits. Registering a username, signing your posts (use four tildes), and leaving edit summaries will also help. PRRfan (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "ditch" you mean "significantly re-write to fix problems" or "remove potential WP:BLP issues", feel free. Otherwise, we generally prefer to rehabilitate articles which merit inclusion but which have issues. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilberforce Foundation != Wiberforce Forum

Hi everyone,

What evidence links Wilberforce Foundation to Wilberforce Forum and Wilberforce Project?

Do they have directors or properties in common?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not being familiar with any of the above, perhaps someone simply heard multiple names in use and just assumed they were different terms for the same group? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associates and Close Friends

United States Presidents of both parties, including Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had connections to the Family.[13]

^ a b c d e f g h i Sharlet, Jeff (May 20, 2008). "Book Excerpt: The Family". Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/book-excerpt-family?page=3. Retrieved on August 3, 2009.

This paragraph leads someone to think that Jeff Sharlet states that Barack Obama has connections with the Family. When reading the article, there is no mention of Obama. I have the book and there is no mention of Obama in the book either.

I think that Obama's name should be removed from this paragraph.

While the article might not cite Obama have having spoken there, the picture on the right seems like pretty good evidence. —jfry3 (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sentence could be rewritten to be more clear. I agree that the phrase "United States Presidents of both parties, including Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had connections to the Family[13]" sounds like these presidents were possibly members of this organization, or at least supporters. Because the citation immediately follows this sentence, it also gives the impression that the Sharlet citation supports this statement, but the citation never mentions Obama.

As the poster above mentions, the wikipedia article does contain a picture of Obama speaking at a prayer breakfast. However, this picture isn't cited as a reference in the sentence, and the placement of the Sharlet reference at the end of the sentence gives the impression that Sharlet discusses Obama. So I agree that this sentence should be changed.

Also, it may be that the phrase "have had connections" is simply too vague. While some might argue that speaking at a prayer breakfast might be a "connection", others might disagree. I suggest rewriting the sentence to be more specific. Perhaps "President Obama gave an address at a recent prayer breakfast sponsored by the organization," with an appropriate citation. The same could be done with the other presidents: "George H.W. Bush spoke positively of the organization at ____ date", with a citation, or something like that. The phrase "have had connections" could mean anything, so it's probably better if we provided specific examples for each president; then, the reader can make up his/her own mind about the level of each president's involvement. Just my two cents! :) --74.66.80.186 (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this group exists?

Are you sure this group exists? It sounds like an awfully sensationalized story to me, like Majestic-12 or the Illuminati. Could it really hold a breakfast that every President since Eisenhower has been to and be associated with "cores of Senators and members of Congress, executive branch officials, military officers, including several Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, corporate executives, the heads of religious and humanitarian aid organizations, foreign leaders and ambassadors. According to David Kuo, former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives" and still remain such a secret? Where's the evidence besides other people's word? Web wonder (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 115 cited sources do you take issue with? Kindly be specific. PRRfan (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]