Talk:Assemblies of Yahweh

message: Sad to say, the anonymous has resurfaced. I reverted the Obadiah page to remove past graduates names. If this road is allowed to be followed, all of the dozens of graduates histories must be included, a path which has no place in a neutral article. Pertinent information only please. WEMUS (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon is Back!

message: Sad to say Wemus has resurfaced. Perhaps one of the many socks puppets that want to make Wikkipedia into an advertisement board of sorts. 
We need to clean up this article and the other articles that have been affected with the agenda in question. If we can create some kind of new baseline we can have a stable article to go back to if or when another sock appears. It's devilishly difficult trying to cherry pick through what to keep once a new sock appears. If we can restore the article now we may be able to maintain it.
It is unfortunate that cult followers are trying to use this article for advertisements for their cult literature. It is very evident that what they are attempting to get a following from people who come here for unbiased facts, which you would expect from an encyclopedia. Their biased opinions, revisionist history and attempts at cover-up of the real facts is quite disturbing. In the originally article it stated that they were "controlling" and their actions here just goes to prove that. They have used this page as their personal play ground. This article at one time was accurate and they have made it into a cult advertisement. They continually try to distort the facts and remove the historical facts in it as well and replace the facts with their opinions. They have made this article into a link farm for their many websites, making this article into nothing more than link spam. Some of these "socks"  have been banned, but they just pop up again under a new name. It is time that the administration of this encyclopedia do something about this far fetched fringe group and put a stop to vandalism here. This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox for advertising. The behavior of WEMUS Davidamos and others is really deplorable.  The takeover of Wikipedia by fringe groups is not good. We need facts in here not opinions of fringe cults and their followers.
::My name in a Headline-Totally Cool.
::Any-who, We, except for the Anonymous who hacks it up, are making progress on this article. (An article which is about the Assemblies of Yahweh, and what they do, not the slanted ravings from the above author.) If the accuser who writes above would get off his Kuester and begin to work with Wikipedia instead of against this unbiased page would move forward. I tell you what, (bit o' advice) when you want to make a statement, chuck it out into the discussion and if it is proven by vetting with traceable, relevant  facts, then it of course can be included.  That's what Wiki-thusiasts do. Like the good book says, "for lack of wood the fire goes out".WEMUS (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WEMUS is Back! With Biased Views & Revisionist History

message: The Assemblies of Yahweh does not teach that only America will
be receiving judgment and only by economic upheaval. It is taught
that the whole world will come under judgment by many means as
outlined in the Scriptures.
As to the "traditional" Jewish dating of "Rosh Hashana", this
does not come under the meaning of worldly holidays here. Also 
it is not a general item as is ment for this section.Fctedt (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 10/7/2008 

message: :I added a topic for discussion in the Sacred Name Movement article which concerns the Assemlbies of Yahweh article. Comments would be appreciated.WEMUS (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole question of whether the Assemblies of Yahweh is, or is not, part of the Sacred Name Movement is complicated by the way people inside and outside of the AoY conceive the SNM. How formally is a "movement" defined?  For insiders, it appears to be a question of alliances, links, and fellowships with certain specific groups and people.  For outsiders, being part of the SNM is marked by using Hebrew forms for Sacred Names. These two views, each using different criteria, seem to have led to editing and reverting on this point.  Since Wikipedia is written to inform outsiders, I have a gentle proposal.  Would it be acceptable to all sides if the article contained a sentence that said something like, "Though the Assemblies of Yahweh does stress the use of Hebrew forms of sacred names, and does celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles and other Levitical commands, (traits that are shared by many in the broader sacred name movement), it is not formally linked to any organizational Sacred Name Movement"? Would something like this be helpful and acceptable?? Pete unseth (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree with that suggestion Pete. It wouldn’t be helpful at all. The Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of the Sacred Name Movement and that statement is plainly put in the article. Apparently, in the SNM, a battle over doctrines exist, which is why the Assemblies of Yahweh is not part of that movement. In Citer (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sacred Name Movement]]

message: They are those who keep claiming the Assemblies of Yahweh should use their own web page to present information about them. Perhaps they don't recognise the purpose of a encyclopedia: 
The very reason why doctrines are presented on any religious page on this encyclopedia, is that anyone reading can see if the doctrines are accurate, and in accordance with the Bible. Now we're getting claims that they are a cult? It's the very reason why the doctrines are on the website, so all can determine for themselves what they are, and what they aren't.
Now, could we please have tolerance of all faiths on this encyclopedia.
REPLY:  You have been tolerated way to much. Your endless removal of the factual statements of the original article are deplorable. You continually try to change the real facts and present a distorted view of the historical facts.  Aren't you proud of your groups teachings? Like the fact that your organization has for years proclaimed that "Jesus Christ", "God", and the "Lord" are pagan deities? You continually try to remove this fact from the article. Perhaps your doctrines have been proven to be "kook religion" by Biblical scholars and you don't like it?  It appears that you are running for cover!  And as for Assemblies of Yahweh status as a cult, you maybe should check this list of cults out as found on google:
Perhaps you should check with groups like Yahweh's Philadelphia Truth Assembly and people like Don Mansager and perhaps Jacob O. Meyer's very own sister, Mildred Deck and his brother, Carl Meyer, and several of his children, like his daughter Rachel, who left the Assemblies of Yahweh... get your facts straight before you come in here and start whining....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.64.161 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History]]

message: I'm new. Is it possible and acceptable that I add footnotes to this page, it would really help. Davidamos 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one note already present, whcih I've made visible. More can be added according to Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Tikiwont 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please also check WP:CITE for the reference formats. --Tikiwont 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would start at Wikipedia:Uploading images and try to avoid getting in Copyvio trouble.  --Tikiwont 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: There sure is a lot of disinformation on Wikipedia isn't there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.142.89 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to address the COI, POV, and organizational issues of the article by adding referenced content then by all means, go ahead. --NeilN 16:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the article is about the AOY rather than by he AOY, my feeling is to use the more general and succinct term.  By the way, I think I'll put up a request for comment on the article to get more eyes on it.  If I request page protection it will end up fully protected, and no matter what, it will be the wrong version .  Acroterion (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertion makes sense.I reread the article on the Name Yahweh and they state it just about exactly like you did. (I hope that the RFC page yeilds results. The way it was completely reverted doesn't give a lot of hope that the anom will respond though).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WEMUS (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea behind the RfC is to involve a wider portion of the community to gain a consensus.  Protection just freezes it somewhere until the warring party(ies) give up and go away, which usually isn't productive.  Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The RFC below used the main article title as the section name, but the section is actually "RfC". The template has been corrected. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See our discussion immediately above about terminology.  Thanks for the input, and remember to keep a neutral point of view.  Acroterion (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: *The Outreach section needs to be trimmed and summarized as it's now looking to be a listing.
*The Criticism section has been neutered by removing the associated explanation.  I think the wording should be put back  --NeilN 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty misleading.  The doctrine section has a full introductory paragraph and the accepted beliefs have full sentences, not one or two word points.  --NeilN 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  I've reverted back to your last version. --NeilN 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now semi-protected, since the main problem appears to be a single IP editor.  Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank You Sir (Or Ma'am) for working in the best interest of this article. WEMUS 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations 

message: I have placed the notability tag on this article. There's nothing in the article that indicates significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag 

message: The current statement of beliefs states that the AoY reject inspiration of the Greek New Testament. It would be helpful to me if the belief was stated in the positive, in a more informative way, stating that AoY believes that the NT was inspired in Hebrew, Aramiac, or Syriac; or that it was not inspired at all. As it is, it wells what they do not believe, but does not tell what they do believe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think concern has already been raised about introducing too much information of wikipedia about the Assemblies of Yahweh. The Assemblies of Yahweh do not believe the New Testament was originally written in Greek, nor do they believe in any such thing as an Inspired translation, since all translations are the work of "fallible man". They believe in the Inspired Scriptures, but not in a inspired translation.In Citer (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration and Greek New Testament 

message: The reason I removed the recent reference box was that most of the
references did not relate to the AOY. I.e.: The article has already
established that the AOY is not a Christian organization having Christian doctrines (see opening with AOY Statement of Doctrine reference). Most of the proposed references where for Christian
organizations or other such material/organizations also not related
to the AOY. I would have done the same to references of there being
laws kept in Islam that appear similar or Islamic messianic references etc... or there being offices of "elder" in Mormonism and
so forth. They just would not truly apply.
I know that people like to compare one thing to another but it should factually apply.
Also this AOY article has been hard to keep stable. A lot of people
have wanted to assert opinions of what the AOY does or proclaims.
The goal has been to keep this article streamlined and only state
(briefly) some of the things that the AOY actually does or proclaims. Not what some one thinks or believes they say or do.
Removal of this recent reference box was in effort to continue this.
First, referencing an item from the AOY article to a Christian reference could be (even if well intentioned) some one's opinion. (As the AOY claims and exhibits itself as not being Christian such references would not factually apply)
Second, such references in the past have led to battles of opinions.
Third, streamlining is maintained by removal of non sequitur references.
I realize that it is hard to reference this article to other sources.
Hopefully this will explain my actions somewhat for now. If not, please continue the discussion.
Fctedt (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now :Template:The Assemblies of Yahweh, so I think further discussion should go to :Template talk:The Assemblies of Yahweh.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of recent reference box   

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
They want the AOY article deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.103.241.89 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the major policies here is to assume good faith.  The fact that I simply asked for the specific users in question resulted in you believing that I want the article deleted isn't going to help.  Attacking everyone who discusses this article is not a good strategy going forward.  As to the article, most of my edits are getting the article in line with the Manual of Style.  While technically not a consideration, I will say that I know that articles which seems to be "unique" in their formatting (like the strange coloring) tends to look poorly.  The article needs citations for its information (preferably neutral outsider views) and if they aren't provided, the burden is on those who want to add information.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two users are discontent 

message: A user admin called ricky, a christian, has made some ghastly changes to the article, removing images, paragraphs etc. My talks arent working. Any one else who feels these edits worsenify the articel, please say so. Ricky complains that he doesnt want a edit war but whenever some one changes the article, he changes it back with a really bad excuse. IMO: You are not improving the article. 212.103.241.89 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud you ricky whoever you are. I know nothing about this denomination, nor do i want to, but this article is aweful when various wikipedia policies are taken into account and has all the hallmarks of being heavily edited by folks with a WP:COI problem. It should probably stubbified soon. Have added it to my watchlist and will think about whether i can help improve this article. Thanks for brining this to my attention 212.103 etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ricky not helping

message: This article is presented as what the AOY professes to proclaim.
Most, if not all (I have not had time to review them all yet
but have about 100) do this with out citing third parties as to
what the religious organization itself professes to believe. What
is presented in this article (AOY) is not an opinion of what the
AOY publicly proclaims but is taken and referenced from the AOY's
own publicly published statement of doctrine. As stated, this is
the practice of articles of this nature (religious organizations)
on Wikipdia. I have yet to see a call for the removal of all articles concerning religious organizations because of this practice. This is a commonly accepted practice for articles of this nature. (Except, for some reason, the AOY) Please see some of my other discussions on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ricky81682#Question_on_references_for_AOY_article  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:In_Citer#Thoughts_on_Assemblies_of_Yahweh_page_Doctrinal_Beliefs_section
Other items in the AOY article are public (i.e. WMLK, radio, television and internet broadcast) or otherwise referenced (i.e.
published books with library of congress catalogue numbers) Care has been taken to relate only what the AOY publicly proclaims to profess (as in the organization's doctrinal beliefs) or what is other wise publicly published. No discussions are entered into of the right or wrong of the AOY's doctrines. No opinions are given as to what the AOY publicly professes. None of the public activities (i.e. broadcast, publications etc...) presented are any one's opinion that these are done publicly. Because of this the AOY article is one of the more brief articles of a religious organization on Wikipedia. Effort will be made in the very near future (as of 1/2/09) to tighten up any other lose ends. Please discuss any ideas on this page's discussion or my talk page.
Fctedt (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've retagged pending consensus found here. Still reads like a COI-riddled advert to me too. I have never edited an article like this before, so it's possible that notability is different in this area, though i doubt it. As it stands now, not a single independent source on this congregation. Will think on this some more.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fct,  you seem to be of the mistaken impression that primary sources are prefered; they're actually seen as the least reliable for these sorts of things. Have a read of the following WP:V WP:OR and WP:NOTE. Should be helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Fct, I try to look at what you write and this is what i see. "walloftext.walloftext.walloftext." This is probably due to a deficiency of mine. But as a favor, could you make your point simply and briefly? Of course, not all primary sources are thrown out and of course some primary explanation of what a church believes is good, but the question becomes one of verifiability WP:V via reliable sources WP:RS sufficient to establish notability WP:NOTE.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This may be where you and I are having a failure to communicate. I just cast an eye over the Roman Catholic article and I count at minimum 30 reliable secondary sources (the actual number could be much higher; but i'd stake my live on 20 there at present). Yet you write it contains "hardly any outside sources or references." This may be a problem I don't know how to overcome. I look at citations and see dozens of independent ones; you look and see "hardly any."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: As a favor to you, i've looked over the Roman Catholic Church article citations. All of the following pass muster as per WP:RS - Woodhead; McClintock; the CIA; Aguilar; Barker; Black; Bokenkotter; Bruni; both Chadwicks; Collinson; Deak; Derrett; Duffy; etc... Ok, i give up. It looks like the preponderance of those sources are reliable and independent. Obviously, your faith is smaller and not as old, so it's not surprisign there's much less about it then the Catholic church. At the moment, the Assemblies of Yahweh article has one cite that looks like it might be RS, which is the one from the Reading Eagle.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "advertisement" tag 

message: Is there any reason to keep this section? There are no sources/citations. While if this church is going to have an entry at all, it should mention the books and magazines it publishes, that should just be a sentence or two under a heading like "publications and broadcast." The rest of the stuff in this section for which there are no sources/citations seems like non-notable stuff that most churches do (i mean, bullet points for the fact that it holds sabbath services and has a website?) Some of this stuff could be summarized elswhere. Taking a stab at this now.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Outreach Section

message: I'm going to leave this alone for now, because it seems obvious to me that some of teh editors on this are members of this church. I understand this might be an important issue for them. But, someone, please, get rid of the bullet points about their doctrine and the bullet points on what is rejected as "unbiblical." Try to right, oh, about 200 words focusing on how they differ from better known congregations, or areas where they place greater and lesser emphasis. I'm sure a book could be written on this churches beliefs; but encyclopedia articles are just supposed to have the highlights. Please give it a shot.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article may received constant pressure because it's promotional in tone and it's hard to establish notability without reliable secondary sources, of which there are very few. Somewhere up above you asked a question about the books - a list of self-published books of no demonstrated notability just seems like advertising; i left in the one self-published book that seems most important to the church (a book listed simply as "commentaries on galacians" or whatever doesn't leap up to the tops of the notability ranks).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrines and beliefs

message: I have not complained with your major edits being done without discussion. Again you move before anyone can respond. If you are
concerned about Wik policies please be concerned with all of them.
I tried to work with you here. Hardly any thing was change in your
personal edits. Please allow some time to discuss. You are beginning to appear as if you have an agenda. You don't have to attack before listening. Once again I'm trying to work with you
here. PLEASE discuss.Fctedt (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have an agenda? You are an SPA with an apperent WP:COI whereas I never heard of this church/sect/whatever until a week ago. I invite any uninvolved editor to review the changes i've made and see if they've improved this article or not. Do not attack my motives again. As for cuts, there have been very little -- just a cut down in redundant puffery like bullet points for "conducts ministerial outreach."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have any specific complaints? Any specific ideas to improve the article? Any specific reliable sources (read WP:RS) that we could use? If your intent here is to create an unvarnished reflection of what this church says and broadcasts, why bother? Their websites and broadcasts serve that function better then we ever could. As for you you are definitionally an WP:SPA and as i said you "appear" to have a conflict of interest WP:COI. If my presumption that you are affailiated in some way with this church is wrong, please correct me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: You should be more specific about what is at issue.  Eventually this will be archived and vague sections are of little help.  I'm guessing it's about this dispute over its membership size.  If so, let's rename the section heading and see what sources are there on its size. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's all slow down and think gentle thoughts about how to proceed. It has been true that this article has contained some material that is more promotional than informational, but let's move slowly in major cuts.  Wikipedia needs an article about this group, but the usual call for outside sources will be hard to fulfill. And let's all check our grammar & spelling. Pete unseth (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent edits 

message: A Proposal. A Discussion. I propose to delete some statistical information that was taken from a newspaper article that is now 2 years old. Numbers such as this change at least yearly. It is known that they are different now. I can provide no reliable sources for any updates at this time. The information is minor and takes nothing away from the main thrust of the article. In order to remove this from one of the sentences, the beginning of the sentence will have to be slightly re-worded for grammar without changing the rest of the sentence. A minor spelling correction will be made. The indicator PA will be inserted by the place name Bethel 
to clarify as Bethel PA. This location is indicated by at least 2 
outside source references currently in the article. Nothing else will be changed with the article at this time. I'm not saying the newspaper article referenced is out of date, only statistical numbers that understandably change after a couple of years. The main story is relevant. I will leave ths discussion here for at least 2 days as of this posting before making any changes. If there is a consensus that the change is agreeable feel free to change it to my proposal. (the change will be back to the last fctedt change in the history) Thank you.
Fctedt (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is the only reliable secondary source your church has -- and the single most relevant fact to a user with no knowledge of this church is an indicator of how big or small it is. Relevance, notability and verifiability should determine the thrust of the article. A user named ricky has specified the article was written in 2006 in the text, which seems reasonable. I don't see any controversy in explaining they're in Bethel "PA." Feel free to do any minor grammar or spelling fixes without seeking consensus (if they really are such). Do NOT remove the only reliable source this article has giving an indicator of this churche's size.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Look, I would rather have newer information but I cannot even find information on the church's website.  We should have something.  We typically follow a cycle of WP:BRD, which encourages people to be bold first and then discuss afterwards if there's an issue.  Feel free to edit but if someone else reverts, then discussion makes sense.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed minor edit 

message: Would like to start a new section of discussion - "proposed references". Here is a reference for consideration -http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/USA/N_Carolina/DOC/NC_DOC_Religious_Practices_Reference_Manual.pdf  Here is the home address of this document  http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/USA/N_Carolina/links_NorthCarolinaCorrectionsInfo.htm  It could be used as an additional reference for 
doctrines of the AOY in article. Possibly could add a line or two in the article to use this, but I personally do not want to add any more at this time. Would prefer to incorporate it in to support existent material. Any way, could/should it be used? (do a doc word search of "Yahweh" for ease of finding the material in manual.)  Fctedt (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A North Carolina manual on what religions are allowed in prison? It will have to do. What text would you like to write that is supported by this citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Fct -- Do not be concerned that this article needs more citations to save it from deletion. This article will persist in some form, and it should. No reasonable person would contest that the Assemblies exist, so there's no need for sources that only mention the group trivially (and so confirm nothing more than its existence). Now, what form this article will take, what weight is given to various items, its length and general tone etc... are another matter and I believe many changes are needed. I think I now understand what the assemblies are -- they're a subset of a broader religious trend called the Sacred Name Movement; i would like to be able to frame the article in this way, but unfortunately my understanding at the moment amounts to original research which can't be used. Are there any reliable secondary sources that have addressed the nature of the Assemblies of Yahweh? If we can find them, those are the sorts of references that would help in improving this article.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed references 

message: The AOY is notable: 
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&q=assemblies%20of%20yahweh&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by In Citer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a point to this or are you going to put up google links without a thought at all?  Can you point to a comment here by me that this is in response to?  Otherwise, is there a reason for all the hostility?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: There has been a call to merge the Obadiah School article with this article.  I would like to see both articles continuing separately.  The Obadiah School article is still longer on persuasion than information, but I would like to see it improved rather than deleted. Pete unseth (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with fct that here is the appropriate place. I've brought in the salient details already.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merger of Obadiah School article 

message: Now, in a word, is long, out of sorts with policy, breathlessly advertorial in tone. Long, advertorial, painful. I'll chop into shape in the morning. This is just a heads up.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The lede

message: There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others,  here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone else interested in this? If so, how can we categorize groups that overlap? In Citer (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed work group 

message: I've decided to merge the AOY articles I have created to the main page. After all, most of the AOY pages I created have been merged or deleted anyway. Might as way put all the references on one page so everyone can easily reference. That's my opinion. I'll get rid of the bad sources and try to stick with good ones that way.  In Citer (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I've changed the heading so it matches all the merger links.  I disagree with mergers.  Dalet School, WMLK and Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition seem fine as independent articles and probably could stay that way.  Combining them would also make a complete mess of the categories (we'd have religious categories, school categories, radio categories and biblical categories all in one article).  In fact, I really don't see why we should merge Jacob O. Meyer here.  He is a separate individual and his biography is fine on its own.  The problem is poor sources and that's just it.  No need to combine references, just improve them.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the truth is we've listing everything and those articles have stayed.  Obadiah didn't survive because we couldn't find a source for it.  What can we add if we didn't have a source at all before?  Dalet school is sourced.  WMLK has the FCC source (the rest I admit is a mess) and the Bible I cannot even figure out how it managed to survive AFD but it did.  I don't see a reason to be concerned it's going to fall from 4 even less.  Now, the main AOY does need to be rewritten so that it better includes the others, but I still don't think there's a need for a merger.  We can however work on summarizing every other article in the main  AOY one and then see if merger just simplifies things.  I think we can all agree to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be nice, thank you. I would appreciate your help on summarizing the other articles on the AOY. Could we try to keep the summaries as brief as possible? I don't want to be accused of WP:NOTE again :) In Citer (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Propose removing the "christianity portal" tag on this talk page.
The Assemblies of Yahweh is not a christian organization. The article states this with third party reference. The AOY's own
statement of doctrine that is referenced shows this to be the case.
A brief search will show that christian groups reject the AOY for
not holding core christian beliefs.
Also propose removing the other tag as it is out of date and no longer relevant. (Tidy up the place!) Fctedt (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed removal of tags on talk page 

message: What does the O stand for in Elder Jacob O. Meyers middle name?I always wondered why he never mentioned that.Peace  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.156.215 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  middle name  

message: Will be reverting the AOY article back to it's last "verifiable" form.
As it was, there where verifiable third party reffs from available published
books. There is absolutely no record of Elder Jacob O. Meyer ever having any
involvement with the Jehovah's Wittnesses. 
The insertion of this inacurate information does not even make any sense with
the previous surrounding text. It certainly does not match the reffs given.
It seems like some personal agenda and is without any discernible merit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fctedt (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The AOY, Elder Jacob O. Meyer and the JW's 

message: There has been some speculation and discussion about the SNM merging with or under the Assemblies of Yahweh. I don't know if this is worth mentioning. I have a blog here from 2009 which addresses the issue dated Thursday, 14 May 2009. There have been a few discussions on the subject in the SNM (SNMovement) 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNM merging with the AOY 

message: The AOY article is in a stable condition but it could do with improving. I plan on attempting to improve this article in the near future. If anyone has anything to say about my edits, or have suggestions to how we can improve the page, please write it below. In Citer (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some edits to the AOY article. I hope that the edits have improved the article. Before the edits, the article just seemed like a block of text with no formatting whatsoever. I was thinking of adding a quote box to the article with the first 10 points of the Statement of Doctrine included in it. Would like to hear other people's opinions on that, and the edits that I've done so far.  In Citer (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi Editor2020, just wondering why you deleted the 'doctrines exclude' section, and left the 'doctrines include' section. Thanks In Citer (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the "Doctrines include" section has references. Editor2020, Talk 15:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But looking at the references provided, they seem to be of very poor quality. I would probably mark for improvement, and delete if not provided in a reasonable time. Editor2020, Talk 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would like to improve page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Assemblies of Yahweh. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614220205/http://sacrednamebroadcaster.com/ to http://sacrednamebroadcaster.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617102226/http://assembliesofyahweh.com:80/missionstatement.htm to http://assembliesofyahweh.com/missionstatement.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133459/http://www.sacrednamebroadcaster.com/ to http://sacrednamebroadcaster.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150612130103/http://wmlkradio.net:80/ to http://wmlkradio.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730221339/http://assembliesofyahweh.com/radio2.htm to http://assembliesofyahweh.com/radio2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730221339/http://assembliesofyahweh.com/radio2.htm to http://assembliesofyahweh.com/radio2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Assemblies of Yahweh. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302040401/http://activearchive.readingeagle.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=UkVHLzIwMDYvMTAvMDgjQXIwMDEwMQ%3D%3D&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom to http://activearchive.readingeagle.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=UkVHLzIwMDYvMTAvMDgjQXIwMDEwMQ%3D%3D&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014132424/http://www.assembliesofyahweh.com/SOD.htm to http://assembliesofyahweh.com/sod.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133459/http://www.sacrednamebroadcaster.com/ to http://sacrednamebroadcaster.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://wmlkradio.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So we have a big problem with this article. I know people would like to believe the Assemblies of Yahweh is a Chr-stian denomination, but it isn't. When you go to Wikipedia.org and type in the 'Assemblies of Yahweh' before you type enter it says 'Christian denomination headquartered in Bethel'. I don't know who put in this definition but it needs to be changed. The Assemblies of Yahweh are not Chr-stians. In Citer (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone remove this article from the Chr-stian denomination list 

message: Hi Editor2020. Thanks for making the changes to the article. I disagree with the changes though. I feel what you have called Eschatology should rather be Outlook as it touches on just the two points: The Beast System and the Kingdom of Yahweh. Eschatology refers to the part of theology concerned with death, judgement, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind. It makes sense then that this should conclude the article and be rather kept at Outlook which as defined in the dictionary is 'the view or prospect from a particular place'. I think this much better describes that section. I might re-edit what you have done and put it at the end of the article as is the case for other Wikipedia articles such as the one on Mormonism etc. In Citer (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Editor2020 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Well I've moved it to the end of the article. Maybe if the section was longer and concentrated on other points like non-belief in an eternal hell etc, then it would make sense to call it Eschatology. I thought I should add the 'witnessing' heading and the 'outlook' heading because without it this page looked like a group from the  SNM i.e. completely stationary and not actively seeking to bring in others or fulfil end time prophesy In Citer (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Hi Editor2020. Just looked through other articles like that of Jehovah Witnesses and I think Eshatology would be a better heading in the 'beliefs' section as per your edit, but I've reduced the paragraph down to only that which is supported by the references. Any problems with that, let me know. Thanks In Citer (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eshatology 

message: I intend on going through this article and adding proper reference templates to especially the links. If I get time to do this, or someone else has time, feel free. Just having the link for a reference could be problematical. In Citer (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do list 

message: I was able update several external links in the Witnessing section, but several of them are still nonfunctional. Please check and update them if you can. Editor2020 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in the "Witnessing" section