Talk:Cooneyites/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  insulted. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  there is EVERY need to insulted. 

message: Gwydion, can we move the Edward Cooney information to his page.  That info says nothing about 'Cooneyites', per se.  A couple of short facts about Cooney and a link to the Edward Cooney page will make this much better.  I tried to add some things to the Cooney page already, but would you mind having a look at it.
: By all means improve the Edward Cooney page.  But I don't see why the information shouldn't be in two places, if it is relevant to both.--GwydionM (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should take this person's views into consideration.  The tone of the article is quite hostile, and it's true that the web sources cited are anti-.  Further the source cited says nothing about 'Cooneyites' today.  She's actually writing about group in Christian Conventions. Indeed, there is nothing on that page after 1928, which is when the Cooneyites as we know them today came to be.  I am curious GwydionM as to what you actually do know about Cooneyites today, and what are your sources?  The only comments from actual Cooneyites (I would guess) are quite at odds with what you've written. Slofstra (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Cooney info 

message: I have rearranged the article to flow in more chronological order without removing facts presented. I also added a citation which was requested to point to the relevant published material, and added some minor clarifications based on that and other sources (newspaper articles of the period). Hopefully, those clarifications will make it seem less hostile to the adherents of this group, since I don't see material which goes beyond that already published by Patricia Roberts (Mr. Cooney's niece).Astynax (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor reorganization and addition