Talk:Exclusive Brethren

message: Ideally I would have archived all the previous talk when I split the page into the Exclusive Brethren and the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren.  But I didn't, sorry about that.  As there haven't been any significant changes on this talk page for a few months, I hope you won't mind that I've finally gotten around to splitting it.  If you felt there was a raging debate on-going; you are welcome to  continue it here, or revert my changes.
Jarich (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 2 

message: A large amount of referenced text (≈38%) was removed from this article on 20-21 January 2010 by anon IPs, (173.87.21.21, 86.176.222.47, as their  only  Wikipedia edits). This included the entire " 'Cult' accusations" & "Political activities" sections. See Diff.
It appears this was done without any Edit Summary or Talk Page discussion to explain it's deletion. ie. was it moved to the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren article? (it appears not, though here is same/similar material placed/moved there much earlier-February 2008)
I am therefore WP:BOLDLY reverting these edits. Any objections please discuss on the talk page. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained removal of Referenced text 

message: It is ludicrous to have the controversies section at the beginning as this only has reference to a subset of E(xclusive)B(rethren)s. It should be moved to the end to allow a shape of the whole movement to be built up. That will allow the controversies thing to be seen more in context. I am afraid that there is little objective material and the quantative statements as to who have more or fewer adherents is rather weak. I think the figure for the Taylorites is about right as it there is photographic evidence of every family in every locality or group of meetings to back this up.
Gregory Morris, Penymynydd, Flintshire (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: There seems to be a lot of POV material on here that sounds informal PR information, perhaps from a website. For example:
:"Whilst the Brethren's teaching has been attacked by a vocal minority, the overwhelming evidence is that the group represents one of the most successful Christian groups with statistically insignificant incidences of family breakdowns."
Perhaps this should be fixed. Jaysonwhelpley (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Material 

message: The article is a mess, and needs massive clean up. The Article should be "very brief" and should avoid great details.
Couldn't agree more. Details, especially ones lacking references, only serve to muddy the waters in this difficult and potentially divisive topic. Dwandelt (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mess

message: How can we have a neutral article if exclusive Brethren don't let their members use the net? 	— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.47.65 (talk) 
:Neutrality is gained by "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (See WP:NPOV). Neutrality does not depend on members of the religion editing, or contributing to, the article. Please note that new comments go at the bottom of th page, not the top. BlackCab (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality doesn't mean balancing "pro" and "anti" contributions. For WP it means getting reliable sources for what is written and should not include personal experiences (see WP:SOURCE). For much of exclusive brethren history these are not hard to come by: Neatby, Noel, Ironside etc. The problem with more recent happenings is that it's mostly newspaper sources and these are rarely objective, thorough or reliable. Even the attempt by Wilson at a more objective appraisal has its limits. One should remember that the Raven/Taylor/Hales faction only accounts for about half the exclusive brethren: there is a large group in Germany which seems to be almost as big but it's hard to get a lot of information about them (www.bruederbewegung.de is a good source). I'll be interested to see what wikipeebia.com produces, but peebs.net already has a lot of useful material (though it's down for maintenance at this moment). Chris55 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Well I have in the meanwhile obtained a copy of Bachelard's book, which significantly modifies my complaint above about reporting, and made a number of changes to this and the Raven-Taylor-Hales Brethren page, including changing it to its current title. I'm sure many people will continue with the old title but I hope both reflect a more informed view of the subject. Is it time to remove the POV tag? Chris55 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The references to Wilton Park School should be deleted from this article. Government agencies found that anonymous allegations made against the school were baseless and dismissed all complaints.  See www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1175581/county-council-police-dismiss-complaints-against-brethren-school/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaffer58 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dismissed does not mean it never happened. I've restored it and will add that it was dismissed.--Auric  talk 15:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaints dismissed 

message: The several small edits by 124.191.28.12 seem particularly good.  MaynardClark (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Edits 

message: I have substantially reorganized the Plymouth Brethren, Exclusive Brethren, and Open Brethren articles.  A great deal of information in the Plymouth Brethren article that pertains to only one of the two major streams of Brethrenism has been moved to the relevant articles and merged with existing information. Undoubtedly, all three are still messy, and require cleanup.  It's now 2.30 AM where I am, so I'm going to bed, but will get around to it within the next 24 hours.  Please bear with me, everybody! David Cannon (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganized - part one 

message: I have substantially rearranged the Plymouth Brethren, Open Brethren, and Exclusive Brethren articles.  The first two have been significantly cleaned up, though there are still areas that need improvement (especially with citations — please be patient with me on this). The Exclusive Brethren article still needs to be cleaned up, and part of it needs to be spun off into the separate Plymouth Brethren Christian Church article. 
The list of prominent "Open" Brethren needs to be edited; many need to be moved to the Exclusive list. I will get around to this in a few days — it will take a little while to determine just what list each individual belongs in. David Cannon (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization — progress report 

message: I feel that this article is correct and very in depth, I only feel some lacking in the mention of the Renton subset of the EB. I understand this may be due to lack of understanding of the group due to their secretive nature. Being an Ex Member of this group who is now an aethiest with a thirst for knowledge I feel that I could contribute to some understanding of this group. They have never treated me with human respect and this was a large contributor to me being withdrawn from. The belief that a demon had possessed my person by the brethren caused them to fear me before my exclusion, i would love to communicate more on this matter. I will Fill more information as I find possible
Anonymous Ex Member.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.102.130 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renton subset 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Exclusive Brethren. 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/20120114103730/http://peebs.net/ to http://peebs.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130624215305/http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dbreth.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dbreth.htm
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) 03:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Exclusive Brethren. 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/20101116205245/http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=288 to http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=288
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518150855/http://brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm to http://www.brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122153735/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.thorns/resources/EDX_anthology/EDXL_1950-present_poets.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.thorns/resources/EDX_anthology/EDXL_1950-present_poets.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312073246/http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=460 to http://www.reachouttrust.org/articleView.php?id=460
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) 17:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After reverting a recent edit, I noticed that there was some editorialising and uncited references to scandalous behaviour. I removed these. Please let me know if you wish to revert these and if you have citations. Thanks
AussieWikiDan (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of uncited remarks 

message: In this article, the "closed brethren" and the "exclusive brethren" are treated together and sometimes mixed up. 
It might make more sense to have one article about the "Closed Brethren" and one about the "Plymouth Brethren Christian Church". 
From my own experience, I think the differences between the "Closed Brethren" and the "Exclusive Brethren" are greater than the differences between the "Closed Brethren" and the "Open Brethren". 79.140.182.57 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed vs. exclusive Brethren