Talk:The Family International/Archive 6

message: Monger, you're making an awful lot of quite meaningless changes, and in some cases, meaningful ones of questionable motivation. I don't have time to catalog them all, but besides the many ones essentially doing nothing to improve the text, you have added a POV change when replacing "Despite this" with "Surprisingly". Additionally removing the reference to Jesus Movement is quite problematic. If you're making changes: please add value, don't just shift the sand around. It's weakening the article more than anything. Also you made a change using relative font size (90%), always a mistake. gcom 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gcom, I will address your complaints in point form below. For the record, I have largely avoided making significant changes to this article in the past, but after several recent accusations of the article being POV both for and against the group, I decided to review the entire article and, where appropriate, improve it as best as I am able. I am largley done with this process, and do not expect to update the article as frequently in the future.
* Regarding "meaningless changes", I think this is a disingenuous accusation. While I have made many relatively small changes (most in attempts to improve the flow of the article, remove POV, reduce redundancy and unnessesary wordiness, etc.), it is not clear to me whether you are simply worried about the frequency and number of edits, or if in fact you think these changes have negatively impacted the article. If the latter is the case, I'd like to ask that you support this claim with examples. As time permits, I will try to address any concerns and explain the reasoning behind changes you disagree with.
** I still don't have time to do this. However I stand by my claim that you're "fixing" what isn't broken (for the most part). If you were a better editor I'd be thankful, I'm a very critical reader, and appreciate a good editor more than anything, but I think you need to slow down since your'e not necessarily showing value added. It's not a personal attack, it's just that if someone is going to shuffle everything as an editor would, on a large scale, I'd sure hope they had some base qualifications that were more apparent. (gcom)
*** I don't take it as a personal attack, but it is subjective, and it probably comes as no surprise that I disagree. Also, I have no idea which edits you disagree with. The one example of POV you cited has proven to be false, and the one example of formatting you disagreed with (relative font sizing) was an implementation in place for less than 5 minutes. Supporting your nebulous complaints would make it easier for other editors (including myself) to judge them on their merits, and address any real concerns. --Monger 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Input from other editors regarding the value, or lack thereof, of recent changes to the article is welcome. Regards, Monger 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless Edits 

message: Firstly, I think this section of the article was too long and somewhat repetitive. 
Secondly, Before my edit this section of the article zig-zagged unnecessarily through time, starting in the early 1980s, then skipping to the early 1990s, then mentioning an event from 1988, then going back to 1982, then skipping forward to 2004, then back to 1989. This makes for very dizzying reading, IMO. I arranged all of this section’s content in chronological order. 
Put differently, I feel there was previously little natural “flow” in this section from one paragraph to the next, and too many “flashbacks” and “flash-forwards”. My edit is an attempt to fix that.
Thirdly, Some of the information regarding Davidito (Ricky Rodriguez) doesn’t belong in the section “The Family (1982-1994)”, because it happened after 1994. Additionally, much of this information is available in a separate article about Ricky Rodriguez, and I think a link to that article is sufficient. IMO Ricky Rodriguez should only be mentioned in the history section in the context that he affected the Family’s overall history.Jered1975 08:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation for my changes to the section "The Family (1982-1994)"

message: Movingon.org is a public web site, and over one hundred specific individuals with their full name and / or photograph attached to their profile have complained of negative experiences in the group on that site. Add to this the number of former second generation members who have complained in court cases and on TV or in newspapers (at least 50 individuals), and there are definitely over one hundred substantial complaints about negative treatment in the group, made by former second-generation members. I will proceed to count the exact number, but in any case, posting the exact number on Wikipedia would not be a good idea because the number is constantly increasing.
I can find less than 20 accounts of positive experiences in the group written by former second-generation members, and there were at but I wrote “less than fifty” to account for possible error.
I changed “Most former second-generation members have chosen to remain publicly silent about their experiences” to “The Family International has asserted that most former second-generation members have chosen to remain publicly silent about their experiences” because, given the number of former second-generation members who have spoken out publicly against the Family, the Family would have to publish statistics of how many second generation members left to prove that “most” of them really have remained silent. Otherwise “many” would be a more accurate word.Jered1975 17:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jered, I think your changes to this section are without merit, and that your annecdotal evidence proves nothing about the accuracy of the numbers. I do agree that it is worthwhile to mention that though "most/many former second-generation members have chosen to remain publicly silent about their experiences", many have indeed spoken out against it, but IMO trying to establish the ratio of those who claim positive v. negative experiences is, for one, irrelevant, and likely impossible to know accurately anyway. --Monger 00:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Monger, I see your point, and you are probably correct because the ratio may well change in the future anyway. I reverted my edit somewhat to make it more similar to the previous text. However, I stand by the fact that it is only an assertion that “most” former second-generation members have chosen to remain publicly silent. The actual number that have spoken out publicly (including on public web sites) is constantly growing and may well be more than half of the former second-generation members by now. --Jered1975 03:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Feldstein, the article does not state or imply that a majority of children who grew up in the group were exposed to abusive situations. Also, I believe you are reading things into the mention of being "publicly silent" that do not exist, when the section is read in context. --Monger 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation for my changes to section “The second generation”

message: Cognomen, you're going to have to drop your rv war. There is nothing POV about the text you're trying to change, and you've ben reverted now by three separate parties. gcom 23:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the Revert Wars

message: This article does seem to be POV. However, on cursory inspection, I thought it was actually biased against the Children of God, not for as Gnevin claims above: I can only assume therefore that the article IS POV, but unnecessarily on both sides of NPOV. This article needs a lot of work. Dev920 22:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more helpful if you would provide specific examples of what you mean. Where, exactly, do you find the text to be "biased against" to COG?--Thorwald 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I felt that the lead and the beliefs section were slightly snarky (as well as unreferenced): no need to be uptight about it. Dev920 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dev920, I've just removed a couple words from and added a bit to the Beliefs section. I have also given the section a cursory reviewed, and while it is far from a comprehensive overview of their beliefs, I do not see any glaring issues. Is there anything in particular you are refering to as "snarky"? I would be happy to review such passages and improve them as best as I am able. Note that current members of the cult have played a major role in that section, as well as the article as a whole. I agree that the article could certainly benefit from more references, but adding references to every passage for which it's appropriate would be a huge undertaking. If you are able to help with this task, some good places to refer to might be the press archive at xFamily.org (which currently contains nearly 350 articles about the cult from newspapers and magazines around the world) and the internal publications archive at Exfamily.org (more here). --Monger 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  This in my opinion is one of the major problems with this articial its has a number of editiors who refuse to listen to other users issues and seem to rv what they wont like (Gnevin 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gnevin, the NPOV template has been added to this article numerous times in the past (usually by Wikipedia editors who are also members of the cult), typically to be removed shorly afterwards when related issues were resolved. Given that the article has been relatively stable recently, I'd like to request that you please provide further information about the parts of the article you consider to be "singing the praises" of the cult (so that others can try to remedy any problems) or attempt to improve the article yourself, rather than simply adding the NPOV template (which at least in my personal experience is more frequently used to imply that an article treats its subject in an overly harsh or negative manner, which seems to be the opposite of your viewpoint in regards to this article). --Monger 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment... comment. 

message: Feldstein
The reason I changed this edit regarding “Don Quixote”:
Spirit Helpers - : These include angels, departed humans, and even famous fictional characters, e.g. Don Quixote, who are sent to give instruction and to fight in the spiritual warfare taking place in the spiritual dimension that Family members believe is coexistent with the physical world that surrounds them.
''
 
Is that it does not accurately portray “The Family’s” belief on spirit helpers. I researched this in archives of all the old letters from David Berg and all the current periodicals from The Family leadership and have found no support for the belief that Don Quixote is a “spirit helper” who gives instruction and helps fight in the spirit world. I might add, though, whoever put that text in can’t be blamed for coming to that conclusion because of the numerous references to “Don Quixote” in the “Mo letters” and possibly if they grew up in the family heard many references to the “spirit of Don Quioxte”. 
But a careful study on the topic of “Don Quixote” in family publications will reveal that generally the fictional character is used in reference to his crazy, happy, wild and free character, personage, and spirit (as in: a pervading animating principle, essential or characteristic quality, or prevailing tendency or attitude; frame of mind; disposition) these qualities from the character of Cervantes Don Quixote are greatly espoused and mimicked by many family members. Sometimes you will hear or read of different terms or phrases, used by members of the family such as:
“having Don Quixote faith”
“they were kind of a Don Quixote type”
“more of a "Don Quixote" spirit” 
“kind of crazy “Don Quixote” type faith”
“have lost the spirit of Don Quixote”
But this usage of “Don Quixote” is a type of family lingo which generally refers to the qualities, characteristics, attitudes and frame of mind that come from the fictional person of “Don Quixote”. And as far as I know there are neither current Family members nor recent periodicals which have communicated and/or received messages from “Don Quixote” in the spirit world.
Here are some extracts I found that refer to Don Quixote with the “Mo Letter” title they come from:
	
5. WE WERE USING DON QUIXOTE AT THAT TIME AS A CONCEPTION OF ME, because at that time they were forbidden to make me look like a Prophet. It was sort of a toss-up between Don Quixote & the Old Lion, & I think the Old Lion finally won out. But then when we began to allow them to show me as the bearded Prophet, they got into a more realistic conception that fit better than the Old Lion. The kids liked the Old Lion, but just the same, it's better that they get a little more realistic conception.VISIONS OF THE TRUTH! DO 1872
22. I SAW LOTS OF MOVIES OF THE LIVES OF GREAT CHARACTERS, & whether they were missionaries or just great men or women, they were always a great inspiration. I think that a number of those can be counted as having been an inspiration to me, such as "Don Quixote," "Joan of Arc," particularly the ones who were sort of non-conformists, anti-System & iconoclast, even "Henry the Eighth."--The guys who had the guts to defy the traditions & the System, the rebels who changed the World, usually for the better, like St. Francis, etc.
INFLUENCES!--In My Life!DFO 1357''
40. WHEREAS OUR CENTER IS JESUS CHRIST, HE IS THE CENTER! He is what should be normal & right, & anything that's outside of that charmed circle of the Spirit of God, that's what's eccentric! We're the ones who are sane! All those people out there are the ones who are crazy. That was the whole theme of the little poem the Lord gave me about "Don Quixote." (See No.198.) If this is insanity I'd rather have it! If that is sanity, God deliver us from it!
WEE WORDS OF WISDOM! DFO 1239''
35. AND DEAR MARIA, SHE HAS A LOT OF FAITH IN ME! No matter how crazy I am, her dear old Don Quixote, she is my little Sancho Panza & she trots right along behind me on her little donkey, her poor little donkey Peter who has to go whichever way she goes!--And with our dear Dulcineas & our whole retinue of knights in armour & ladies!
THE LANDS OF THE RISING SUN!	DFO 1283''
"DON QUIXOTE"--MO	No.198 GP
He lived in a world of fantasy
Where all were mad but he.
He lived in a world of madness
Where he alone was free!
He lived in a world of madness
Where only he was sane
He brought them joy and gladness
They only brought him pain!
He lived in a world of madness
Where only he was wise.
They lived in a world of sadness
'Twas folly in disguise!
How crazy are the words of David!--
They'll say he has gone insane!
But I'd rather be mad and be saved
Than lost in their darkness and sane!
They live in a world full of madness
It was he that was really sane!
For our Don Quixote had gladness
In spite of their sorrow and pain.
This world full of violence and madness
So violent and mad and insane!
Would you rather my joy, or their sadness?
Would you rather my bliss, or their pain?
I'd rather be old Don Quixote
Than the pompous wise sane King of Spain!
For though he's a little bit dotey
Quixote was happy, 'tis plain!
For he lived in his mind on a rancho
A great knight was he in his brain!
He had his old faithful dear Sancho
And thus he was freed from the strain.
So give me this Man of La Mancha!
And sing me his happy refrain!
Oh can you all see it, or can'tcha?
That he was the one who was sane!
They call me Pied Piper of Hamelin:
"He's old Don Quixote again!"
They say that on Heaven I'm gamblin'
While they wreak their Hell amongst men!
So let's sing a song for Quixote!
Let's sing a song for the free!
Let's sing a song though we're dotey
For we're bound for Eternity!
So let's sing a song for Pied Piper
And a song for his Children so free!
For I'd rather be mad than a sniper
Who only brings sad misery.
Let's sing for the Mad Monk Rasputin
Who loved, drank, healed and swayed kings!
For while they were madly disputin',
He made off with all of their things!
So here's to dear Alice's Mad Hatter!
And the Walrus's cabbage and kings!
So what if it's mad, does it matter
If to children it happiness brings?
So here's to the "Light in the Plaza"!
So here's to the madness that sings!
Would you rather have shooting in Gaza
Than a girl who is happy with rings?
So give us the mad Don Quixotes!
Pied Pipers that make us to sing!
And let us be madness devotees
With the joy our insanity brings!
Your world may be sane but temporal--
While mine is unseen but more real!
You call me insane and immoral
In this madness of gladness I feel.
For only in realms of the spirit
Can you enjoy Heavenly scenes
That Heavenly sound, can you hear it?
Do you know what such ecstasy means?
It's you who are living in madness!
It's you who are really insane!
It's we who have Jesus and gladness,
And we'll have it again and again!
So here's to our dear Don Quixote,
Pied Piper, Rasputin and MO!
I'd rather be their blest devotee
Than have your insane world of woe!
I'd rather have dear Simple Simon
Who tasted the Pieman's wares
Or the "Idiot" who dared to defy men
With the love, truth and mercy he bears!
Give me Alices and Don Quixotes
Pied Pipers, Rasputins and MOs!
I'd rather have all of these doties
Than all of your world full of woes!
So here's to our dear Don Quixote
And all of our Heavenly tours!
I'd rather have rice in my roti
Than bats in my belfry like yours!
(Shortened for everyones sake :D)
Feldstein
:Feldstein, Don Quixote is directly implied to be a spirit helper through his listing in Many are the Helpers of David [Berg], among other publications. Don Quixote is widely thought to be a spirit helper within the Family, and many Family children are not aware that Don Quixote is a fictional character. --Monger 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Monger thanks for pointing that out. I forgot to include that in my initial post, but I am aware that there are a few pictures here and there with Don Quixote drawn in some of the old TK’s and other such children’s stories.  If something is “implied” even if it is directly—though that might be personal opinion--it isn’t completely sure or a fact and definitely not a mainstream belief. It’s a bit of a stretch to add that as a belief. And how do you know “many Family children are not aware that Don Quixote is a fictional character”? Possibly when you were younger but this notion as with the belief of Don Quixote spiritual status is a bit redundant. I think whoever drew that TK comic might have helped spread that idea of Don Quixote’s spiritual status. Again I want to point out that nowhere in the Mo letters (the actually authority on beliefs in TF) have I found anything the clearly states “Don Quixote as an actual figure in the spirit world or any messages from beyond given by “Don Quixote”. I’m changing it again. Remember I don’t know how objective you are as an editor but I hope you don’t put it back unless you have some compelling current reason to. It isn’t very accurate, esp. to put something like that under “recent teachings”. I feel it isn’t helpful to artificially graft distant recollections of the past on the present.--Feldstein 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feldstein, while I do not think the meaning behind listing Don Quixote as one of David Berg's spirit helpers is all that subjective (and contrary to what you seem to be trying to imply, that list was not decided upon by the artist, but rather by WS and possibly Berg himself), I'll admit that most references to Don Quixote in Family publications do not describe him as a spirit helper. Hence, I'll go ahead and substitute Don Quixote with Aphrodite. Although I doubt you'll disagree with the fact that the Greek goddess is believed to be a spirit helper within The Family, I'll note for reference that she is described as a spirit helper as recently as June 2005 in GN 1145, December 2003 in GN 1062, and more prominently in locations such as GN 1032 (where she is described as a personal spirit helper for Karen Zerby) and ML 1412, among numerous other publications. --Monger 17:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Quixote--a spirit helper?