Talk:Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Balanced Presentation

Though there are many controversies about this religion, I am concerned that the POV of this article is too negative. Academic Challenger 07:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Academic Challenger, what exactly do you find to be inaccurate? I find that the way that the article is written is objective considering the allegations presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.174.88 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Do not undo this edit, but put a new tag and new comments so it will have a current date. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The content of your Wikipedia on this church is seriously incorrect. Not only is the article negative but the sources of information are inacurate to say the least, if not deliberately defamatory. Bethel Church was not founded by John Hibbert or Jean Spademan. It was in fact in existance long before either of them was born. The ministry of Jean Spademan was as a loving mother figure who used her experience of life to be a friend and support to many needy people. She received no benefit for herself through her work, but gave her own time and money for the help of others. She never claimed to hear the voice of God. She never possessed the title of Prophet and her words were never by any regarded as infalible. The church does not believe in faith healing. Bethel is a respecable and highly respected evangelical church which has made enemies by standing for purity, truth and righteousness. The leaders of the church have shown a true Christian spirit by not pursuing legal action against those who can be proved in written lies against them. The church was assured by lawyers of victory in a legal action. It would be good if this spurious information was now deleted from the site. (Church Minister 28/05/09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.10.158 (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Minister, either you are too new to know, or you are part of the problem. Bethel and its sister church in Norwich, CT have ruined lives for decades. There are dozens of us that have escaped your clutches, some in financial ruin, some have not been so lucky. Bethel and the church now known as Peniel are responsible for several suicides, families torn apart, baseless allegations of incest and molestation, LIVES HAVE BEEN SHATTERED! The Wikipedia article as it stands now is far too tame, though I hear the churches have gone through reform recently. Minister, you make me ill with your apologetic denial-filled post. Bethel and Peniel's pastors will pay for what they have done to us. I am not issuing a personal threat. Look into your heart and truly ask yourself if Jesus has smiled upon your every action. Will he honestly welcome you with open arms, when you have contributed to so much pain and heartbreak? This is the hell you brought upon yourselves, by hurting us. I hope you're satisfied.

(Refugee of King's Chapel, 1983-1993) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.33.31 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the presentation is somewhat unbalanced and that sources for church teachings, community problems and legal controversities should be provided. The material below, from the pov of a church believer, was submitted the an anon editor. Perhaps the basic principles involved in church teachings should be researched and presented. Points highlighted in material below. WBardwin (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse is a sound bible-based evangelical church. It has three ministers, John Hibbert, Stephen Jeffs, and Christopher Jenkinson. The church teaches salvation through the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary as God incarnate. The thriving congregation is made up of families and people of every age group. The church encourages its people to form their own personal relationship with God for time and eternity, emphasising the need for sincerity at all times and practical care for others. It has a history of extensive missionary work and has poured help into poor and needy areas of the world. Bethel Church believes that pure religion is to care for the widows and to visit the fatherless in their affliction. Her people voluntarily give themselves to public and private prayer for the needs of people everywhere"

Sourcing problem and BLP

This article cites pratically no sources. That's bad enough, but it becomes acute when the article starts making claims and innuendos about people who, so far as we know, are still alive. See WP:BLP. I have accordingly removed the sections that deal with those materials; if the article is going to cover that material--and perhaps it should, I have no dog in that race--it can do so only to the extent that such coverage can be undergirded with reliable sources.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Rick Ross articles linked at the bottom of the page are archived from newspapers in CT and the UK. The newspaper articles were printed in 2000, and are not available from the actual newspaper websites anymore. But these articles do back up much of the information in the "Instances of Mental Abuse" section that was removed. I was just uncertain how to go about linking them in, especially since some of the information can only be located fairly far down in the articles, and wouldn't be apparent on first clicking on a link.. O0pandora0o (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine (and please disregard my crossed-in-the-mail note on your talk page, I didn't see this before posting it), but please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. A general citation in the "further reading" section isn't a substitute for connecting specific sources to specific claims, particularly if those claims about about living persons. I have no objection in vacuo to putting that material back in, just be sure that it's well-sourced.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do. More citations will be provided from those articles when the block is lifted. I really appreciate all the help!!! O0pandora0o (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're not blocked. Not because of the semi-protect, at any rate: You have a registered account, so all else being equal, you can continue editing. (I'm hedging a little because you might yet be blocked for edit warring: although you have subsequently registered an account, 3rr applies per person not per user account). Nevertheless, although you can currently edit and your opponent can't, my guidance would be to put together what you want and propose it on the talk page first. If no one objects after a reasonable period (I use 48 hours as a default), boldly put it into the article. If someone objects, seek consensus. If consensus can't be found, seek additional input - WP:3O (for bipolar disputes over discrete, concrete issues) WP:RFC (for multipolar or more complex/diffuse disputes). And if someone's being difficult, feel free to flag it with an admin or on one of the admin noticeboards, as you did with WQA. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that because I started my account today, I would be counted as a new user, and the block says that it's on for new and unregistered users. I'll work up the new edit and see if I can apply it, and if not then I'll hang onto it and wait. Or post it here and see what happens. Either way, no problem. O0pandora0o (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this is disputed, proposing the edit here might be a great idea.

I would also encourage digging for the sources in the regular press, rather than (or rather than only) sites with a specific purpose in life, like the Rick Ross Institute site, even though wp:notable.- sinneed (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the Rick Ross site WP:RS? There are a couple of news articles that are no longer available from the original websites that are on his site.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the newspaper clippings from the New London Day articles that are on the Rick Ross site, and they are accurate on the Rick Ross site, except that there are pictures missing. :) O0pandora0o (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The way to handle those then, would be to cite the article... and include the url to the Rick Ross site. That way, even if the Rick Ross site is not reliable, your sourcing is intact. Google News may also have the story... if not the New London Day article then possibly a wire service echo of it.- sinneed (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a proposed new edit for review... Any feedback from editors is appreciated. And the block does include me, I guess I'm just too new. :) O0pandora0o (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would encourage you to go through and kill everything you can't source. Edit to add - but that is just one possibly-foolish editor's suggestion.
• Then go through and kill every name of a living person that you don't have a STRONG source for.
• This won't leave a great deal. I am going to kill the wp:BLP-breakers I see.- sinneed (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I hacked out the chunks I think (yes, PoV) seemed to be covered by wp:BLP and weakly sourced. I claim no great knowledge, but I fear BLP.
• On the "kill if no source" thing... the opponents who haven't quite figured out they need to create accounts so they can be more anonymous are clearly going to oppose you... may as well be prepared.- sinneed (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried searching the CT court system database for info on the Bissonnette v. Wibberley Tire incident, but came up with nothing. It was cited in the article, but far far down the page. Brits working in the shop was also mentioned in the same article, again, far down the page. I was there, I saw them, my mother worked with them, and only received a pittance for the work she did, but it's not like any of them have posted their paychecks from that time period online.. o0pandora0o (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross site - RS?

Rick ross is self published and not a reliable source.Off2riorob (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC) from another wiki talk page. Rick Ross is an ideologue with no academic credentials, in bed with the CCP, and fails RS., and that Rick Ross is a self-employed entrepreneur and former criminal who is singlehandedly rejected by the academic community without any supporting evidence.Off2riorob (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross' site is the only place where the newspaper articles were archived. I have newspaper clippings that I could scan in that would show that the archives are accurate.. What would you have me do? Please, let me know, I want to keep this article alive!! o0pandora0o (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment that Off2riorob quotes about Rick Ross was discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard - and rejected as completely unsourced. The issue is whether the apparently RS news reports available on his or other websites are genuine.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They are genuine. If you go to http://www.theday.com/Archives/ and search for "Wibberley", then scroll all the way to the bottom, you will see three of the articles there that are linked to on Ross' site. But of course, since they are old articles, you can't read them unless you are subscribed to the Day. I need to find a way around this! The articles are genuine! They are only readable on Ross' site, that's the only problem... If I created a whole new site, with the newspaper clippings scanned in, would that be acceptable? Not related to Ross at all? -o0pandora0o (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of books published by an academic publishing house that refer to his website as a cult information website and use it as an RS source. This book describes him as "an internationally recognized cult expert", again by an academic imprint (John Wiley and sons). My gut feeling is that the newspaper stories on his website can be treated as real.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. The major problem at the moment is that Off2riorob has marked the entire article for deletion unless it can be properly cited, which it looks like will happen in 7 days. I think this new proposed edit might be sourced and cited all right, going by what you've just said, but meanwhile, it's also blocked for editing by new users until the 25th. I'm a new user, so I can't get in and edit it.. -o0pandora0o (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is the ross is not a reliable source and the he has a POV that is anti cult therefore his site should not be used as the only source of information regarding this. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, 00pandora0o should be aware of and read the WP:COI page as you are clearly involved in the story. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Involved, yes. Featured in the article, no. Ross is not involved in this, his POV is not involved on the pages included for reference. If the newspaper articles were archived anywhere else, I would certainly link to them there to appease you. -o0pandora0o (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• If the content cannot be sourced to generally wp:reliable sources, it may well belong on the web, but it won't belong on Wikipedia.- sinneed (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not interested in his opinion, but in the third party RS information apparently stored on his website. His own POV does not matter here. Several academic sources treat his website as carrying accurate third party information. Rather like trusting the figures that the Economist quotes, even when they also have a clear POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare ross to the respectability of major papers. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole story seems to have notability issues, it seems to have been reported for a short period of time and then nothing? Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for other opinions at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Third_party_materials_on_rickross.com.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to use Convenience links as suggested by user GRBerry at [1]. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed part of my message. Convenience links are fine, so long as the content at the other end of the link does not violate copyright. Copies of news articles at rickross.com would violate copyright. GRBerry 02:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Information from O0pandora0o

I learned that after the articles came out, the churches went through a "reform" period. Some of the children went wild with the freedoms they suddenly had (sexual promiscuity, drug abuse). But with the same pastors in place, and the rumor of one of Syro's granddaughters being groomed to be the next Prophet, I can't help but be concerned that the mind control and all will just creep on back in. Just because it's not constantly in the news, doesn't mean it's not important to warn people about. -o0pandora0o (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• You are wandering from the purpose of this page. Please focus on content for the article.

I wandered when Off2riorob wandered. He said that The whole story seems to have notability issues, it seems to have been reported for a short period of time and then nothing? I was trying to point out that it didn't have to be in the news constantly to still be relevant. o0pandora0o (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

• Please give wp:Conflict of interest and wp:talk a read.

I can show, in some way (different colored text?), the parts that I specifically had a hand in writing, if you like. You can decide if they are Far too COI to be included and we can weed them out, but I think it's fairly dry... -o0pandora0o (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• You don't need to convince me, at all, I am just an ordinary editor.- sinneed (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Just because it's not constantly in the news, doesn't mean it's not important to warn people about." - There are very many ways to warn people about whatever you feel they need to be warned about (Blogs, social networking sites, web pages). And if the warnings don't make it into the wp:RS, they won't make it into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is wp:NOT a soapbox.

- sinneed (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I give up. Please delete the entire article. Better nothing be here at all. -o0pandora0o (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

new links

I don't think you can do that with the links to the rick ross site. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) ross site is not a place where the articles are archived it is a anti cult site. Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just an observation: O0pandora0o's edits cite an article in a well-known newspaper, providing the title, date, and publication. If that was the entire citation--if there wasn't any kind of URL at all--would that meet WP:RS, in your view? The answer must be yes. We routinely cite books, law review articles, peiodicals - any number of things that aren't available online. So the question isn't the validity of the citations, per se (I assume for present purposes that the stories support the points they're cited in support of). Rather, it's a question of whether the Rick Ross site accurately reproduces the cited story. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. If I just took the links out of the References, would that make you happy, Off2riorob?? Because the website does reproduce the articles accurately, I have the actual physical newspaper clippings as proof. - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The rick ross site is a clear anti cult site and whether the articles are produced in their entirity there and no taken out of context is a matter of question. No one has seen the actual article to know if ross has archived them correctly, links to his site should be removed, imo. I have re-asked the rs board for information, here . It looks to me that wiki rs policy is being skirted around somehow, lets see. I think I will remove the ross links.Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Claims of, "I have the actual clipping," well could you scan them for us to peruse? Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Which would you like? I actually have the entire newspaper, pics and all, which is rather wider than my scanner, so it will end up chopped up a bit.. But whatever you want so we can put this to bed. I even found that I do have an article printed off the internet in 2000 from the Mansfield Chad. Your choice. Pick an article. Pick two. Pick three. Please don't pick all of them, it'll take all day! *lol* :) - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Take your time, just start with one. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

o0pandora0o, it would be great if you could. It would help get past this rickross problem. The RS noticeboard debate wasn't much help (I had people suggesting I check libraries in Japan for access to back issues of the Daily Express!) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Even so if the articles are all from the daily express and not reported in a couple more publications then there are notability issues as well. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Rob removed the citations whole, which is exactly the kind of overreaction I was hoping to head off by separating out concerns about the citations themselves and the reproductions. The citations themselves are presumptively sound; no one has challenged them, and they are verifiable. Rob's stated objection (both above and in edit summary) was to linking to reproductions of those articles on the Rick Ross website. I have accordingly replaced the citations themselves, but without the "archived at" links to Rick Ross. I agree with user:VsevolodKrolikov that it would be helpful to have those scans - perhaps upload them, if WP:COPYVIO permits - but even without that, the citations meet WP:V. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Simon Dodd. Okay. From "Lives Crippled in God's Name", we have: The top of the newspaper and beginning of articles, showing date and name of newspaper. Moving down, for continuity, and the beginning of the article. Bottom of this page of the article. Continued.. Continued upper left Continued upper right Continued lower left Continued lower right Sorry it's all chopped up like that, but that last bit extended across the entire page and my scanner isn't that big. Oh wait, there's more! It goes onto another page... Shall I scan that in, as well? It's across the entire page as well and will be chopped up again.. :( I picked a bad article as an example, I guess.. *lol* - o0pandora0o (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is be very careful with this, the article is clearly attacking living people and is very poorly cited with notability issues. I for one am totally in favour of deleting the whole thing, it is being written and supported by one person who has a clear conflict of interest. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't write most of the wikipedia article. I've tweaked it, sure, added the references, finally, but my main beef is that the current members kept coming in and replacing everything you see here with bland benign drivel about how it's just a nice-nice church that never did anything. If it does get deleted, that might be for the best. As long as they don't start a brand-new page... - o0pandora0o (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

pandora, well done for getting hold of the physical articles. Do you have any from the Daily Express? That would really help.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't. I do have 14 pages that I printed from the Mansfield Chad, which are also archived at Rick Ross. They're from Britain. I'm in the US, and was only able to buy the Day newspapers when they came out.

Speaking of which, Off2riorob claimed on the deletion page that he can't see the scanned article to read it. So I have scanned another article for him. This one is waay shorter. :) But still accurate. From "A Follower's Confession" on Rick Ross, I give you A nice large clear scan of the article. If you can't read that, please use This site to help you use Windows Magnifier to enlarge it enough to see. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New London Day citations are accurate

The rickross.com archives of the New London Day are accurate. It's a subscription site for an article that old, but if you use the search function (found on the home page for any phrase in the rickross version (in quotation marks), the phrase turns up in snippet form on the website. I tested several of them. I can see no reason not to assume it's a faithful copy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Snippets indeed, why are people here asserting the reliability of these claims is beyond me, these are living people with excessive accusations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's an excessive accusation? The article is clearly accurately reproduced.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is not at all clearly reproduced as you claim, it has a lot of issues. Excessive accusation's would be ..well..have a read of the article in the state it is now and with the weakness of the citations and the weakness of it's notability and you will perhaps understand. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Shall I find more of the dead people, Rob? I'm sure there are more suicides, if you like... - o0pandora0o (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob, what exactly does "a lot of issues" mean? Could you specify these "issues"? Or do you want someone else to go through every single sentence in the article and provide links?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wibberley

I unintentionally undid Rob's removal of this link, and on going back to redo Rob's removal, I took a closer look. On the one hand, I don't agree with the edit summary theory that "this could be any willerby"; it isn't any Willerby, it's a (Wayne) Willerby--Wibberley, actually--who is a convicted sex offender and who was born in 1964. That is at least consonant with the story of a Wayne Wibberley who was twenty in 1984 and sexually assaulted someone at that time. Nevertheless, something is amiss. If the Wibberley of the story pled guilty to sexual assault in 1984, why is the Wibberley of the profile listed as having first been convicted in 1987? Perhaps there is some explanation, but given the sensitivity due in the BLP context, given that I have some OR/SYN concerns about connecting this flyer to this person, and given the discrepancy noted above, I tend to agree with Rob's conclusion, and I have accordingly redone his removal of the link.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Simon, I wanted to leave them all there but once I started looking it was like a snowball rolling downhill, a good one was the perhaps poor innocent wibberly with the tyre company? Does he need the advertising? Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That section originally had to do with the British church members being forced to work for no pay, the American church members working for very little money, a court case filed for three years' back pay, and church members being asked to donate "love offerings" when Wibberley told them that the business was having a rough month, where the church people would donate grocery money, rent and mortgage money, even wedding rings to help keep the business afloat. But user Sinneed decided it wasn't good enough to keep, and so blanked that bit. Not intended as advertising, in any way. - o0pandora0o (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's too bad. Wayne was in the newspaper article that was also cited there. I knew him (I know, I know, COI!), he was adopted by Sam, and that whole bit was to show what lengths these people go to in their mind control. That these accusational mind games were repeated years later with Josh K shows a trend, also. But if that's the final word, then so be it. - o0pandora0o (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Edited to add: I thought that the entire section about Wayne had been taken out. I had linked to his flyer to bring validity to the claims of progressive deviancy after the initial incident. Sorry, I misunderstood. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mansfield chad citations

Where are these from? Are they notable people that are commenting, or what? Can they be access on line? Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are they quoted from the rick ross site and not noteworthy commentators? Or are you referencing them from elsewhere?here Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chad is a newspaper in England. More than likely, quoted from the Ross site, once again, from actual articles that appeared in the newspaper in England in 2000. I have 14 pages of articles from the Chad that I printed out in 2000, with the date stamp from the computer at the bottom of each page... You want that, too? - o0pandora0o (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict,It looks to me like, an unknown person telling an unknown person something, and that is being reported on the riss ross site, and as such is not notable or verifiable enough to be included here in wikipedia Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're an unknown person, and seemingly no one else has any problem here. Cirt is an admin. I wouldn't go against the article as it is.. Even if Cirt decided to say Bethel is all sunshine and freaking roses. - o0pandora0o (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The mansfield chad? this is very local news to say the least. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be about facts

There are no actual facts in this article - I live in Mansfield Woodhouse & have attended Bethel Church for over 28 years. I know the ministers and the church extremely well. Point 1 .The church was not founded by either John Hibbert or Jean Spademan. The church was here long before the before mentioned even lived in the area. Point 2. The Section on Founders therefore has no foundation to even be in the article. Jean Spademan who is deceased has never "ruled" the church & neither has John Hibbert or neither does he. The article & newspapers articles are written by people who have never put a foot into Bethel church & in a "press like way" have destorted & fabricated stories. In fact most of the people commenting on this article seem to be at the other side of the atlantic ocean and probably would not know where Mansfield Woodhouse is. Point 3. Section on England - no actual facts here again - all church members do not give 10% of their earnings, church members are not pressured into giving anything and all offerings are free will and private as in most churches Point 4. Section on Connecticut - not actual facts here again Point 5. Section on British M.P. and Analysis both are generalising on articles they have read, once again no facts

If there can't be a non-biased section on Bethel Church Mansfield Woodhouse, for example on the village history, history of the church building, what Bethel Church goers actually believe, community projects, outreaches (currently to children in Zambia) then the whole article should be deleted. Any doubters please come and see for yourself, all are welcome. [member of the church]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bethel_Church,_Mansfield_Woodhouse" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.31.240 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is facts. I knew the ministers and the church well, myself. Maybe the word "founded" is incorrect, but Hibbert & Syro were surely the backbone of both churches for decades. The articles cited were written by talking to former members who *had* been in the churches and had their lives destroyed. Tell me, you've never been pressured to give and give and give for love offerings for Syro and her multitude of children and grandchildren? To fund her trips overseas? You've never heard that your sins were keeping her ill? You've never been conscripted to clean her house, or the church, or other members' houses? You've never worked for Righteous & Co. for a pittance? Because it would be "a blessing"? You've never had other church members or members from the States come live in your home? Yes, you're doing it "out of love". This isn't a "happy-clappy" church. Even Jesus said, "Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani!", right?

Let the article stand. Let the truth be heard. Go check out the articles at Rick Ross, Just read them. They won't bite. Doubt is not a sin. See what you see. I have been where you are. Well, not actually, I was never deemed sinful enough to be punished by being sent to England. But I have been a member. Just check out the articles. See what they say. Listen to that still, small voice. - o0pandora0o (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

@82.2.31.240 (talk · contribs) - Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

He said that, yes, but he was reminding those present to read Psalm 22.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This was a phrase that was exclaimed from the pulpit many, many, many times by Sam Wibberley, John Hibbert, Kevin Hamel.. I don't recall it being brought up in connection to Psalm 22, that's rather interesting. - o0pandora0o (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

St John's Gospel explicitly links the two! (Jn 19:24) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember it being specifically only ever coming from Jesus, speaking to God, preached in that context. - o0pandora0o (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's a difficulty inherent in rejecting the Magisterium and saying that anyone - no matter how actually unqualified - is qualified to be an exegete. Once you've, you know, struck off across the blasted heath on your own, it's very easy to get lost.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a forum

Please read Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM, and also {{Notaforum}}. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cirt's Work in Progress remodel

Coming along rather well so far. :) I hope, when it's all said and done, that the current members can leave it alone... - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, i'm glad you like it, now you have your own article writer. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we have two citations for the information, the express in the uk and the New London Day for america, I wouldn't call reporting in one daily publication notable, would you? Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for it. I don't know why Cirt took it upon him/herself to do it. It's not like you were adding anything, only taking away. Why are you so intent on the destruction of this article, anyway? Do you have a COI here yourself? Were you involved in a cult, or in a church that was accused of being one, or something? - o0pandora0o (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am for delete, I have said many times now why, please accept the reasons I have given, I thought it was an attacvk piece, I thought that there were issues with BLP protection for the living people and I think there is notability issues and a lack of quatily citations. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cirts going to sort it out and lets have a look at what is there.m Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

rob, give it a rest. You've accused unnamed editors of a COI, and of pandora of having a patsy in cirt. You've refused to accept any evidence of sourcing even when it's scanned in and - let's be honest - clearly legible. And now, when cirt is clearly in mid-edit, you decide to jump in and claim only two sources. If you actually believed what you write, you would have already reverted Cirt's version for using non-RS sources, rather than complaining about there being only two so far.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to go after the page on Sun Myung Moon next? How about the Jehovah's Witnesses? The Mormons? Scientology? I'm sure there are "attack" pieces on their pages that you could pull down.. I'm sorry it's just a two-church cult, I'm sorry there were only three newspapers willing to report on them (but to be fair, another newspaper in CT was in Norwich and "on their side" and still has one of the pastors on its staff of writers..)... I'm sorry it's not as big a deal as Jonestown or Waco. But these people in the articles, they are my family, my friends. Some of them are dead because of what happened in this church. Crap, now I'm going all COI and wonky again... I'm glad Cirt's doing this. I hope it's acceptable all around... - o0pandora0o (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lets see what is what is there after cirt is finished. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Rob's concerns about the article becoming an WP:ATP problem (or, worse yet, a coatrack for an WP:ATP directed against a living person) are entirely valid. Those are real problems for any article, and we have to be careful and watchfull. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with the others they aren't intractable problems with this article. The putative sourcing problem isn't too troubling; with or without their being available online, citations are given to newspaper articles that could be verified, and I don't think anyone disputes their existence or content. Lastly, WP:COI. That policy is more often cited than read, I suspect; it should be read. A conflict of interest, especially when admitted openly, is not a per se bar to contributing. Doing so requires delicacy and collegiality; Pandora's initial edit warring was not good. What s/he has done since, however, has been exemplary of how one can edit productively even with a COI. S/he's sought outside input, worked collegially and productively with other editors, discussed concerns on the talk page, and I think the article is clearly better for it today than it was before all this started or the version that the other side of the edit war was pushing. Just my tuppenyworth.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I plan to continue to do a bit more work on the article. Cirt (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a current article in the Chad about charity work in Zambia, if you'd like to use that.. - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that source has been added as well. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw, thanks for adding it in! It's looking great, really professional and way better than what I was trying to keep up there. :) - o0pandora0o (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

redirecting redlinks

User Cirt has redirected redlinks back to this page, that is not the purpose of links, the redirects should be removed and left as red to show people that there is no article about this person and that if the person is notable enough an article should be written about them, the people that this article is about are not notable enough for an article about them at all. The redlinks show people that the people that the story is about are not notable and should be replaced, the redirecting of such links hides the fact that these people are not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ALso this link Lincoln Theological Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, redirects to the university of manchester where there is no mention of it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stated above the redirects should be removed and left as red to show people that there is no article about this person and that if the person is notable enough an article should be written about them, the people that this article is about are not notable enough for an article about them at all - it thus appears that Off2riorob added the redlinks in the first place to push a point that he feels certain topics are not notable. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't understand Rob's logic at all. He seems to be arguing either that wikipedia has a duty to illustrate what topics are not notable by having red links all over the (which is certainly an innovation), or that a topic is not notable if individual people involved in it are not notable enough to justify an separate article. If it's the second, then the red links are very WP:POINTY. The correct course of action if an editor feels an article topic is not notable would be to take the article to an AfD... except that it's undergoing AfD at the moment, and the vote has been overwhelmingly for keep, and the move for deletion withdrawn. What Cirt has been doing is generally correct: redirecting a variety of search terms based on this topic to this page. If someone develops enough notability for a separate page about them, then the redirect can be undone and a separate article can be written about them. If rob is concerned about the lincoln redirect, then he can at the very least set up a stub for the Lincoln Theological Institute. It's probably notable enough, as it's not simply a department.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, VsevolodKrolikov, my thoughts exactly. And to answer your last point, I have already begun to do some research on some of these topics: and guess what - some of them are independently worth having their own articles. For example, new article Twisted Scriptures. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another one: New England Institute of Religious Research. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tyre/Tire?

Which should it be? I understand that the article starts out about Bethel Church in Mansfield Woodhouse, but when the section about Connecticut comes up, should talk about the Tire shop say "tire shop", or "tyre shop"? Because the shop exists in Danielson, Connecticut, and is owned and operated by Sam Wibberley, a US citizen.. Rather than just edit it back and forth, I'd like to hash this out here. I believe Cirt originally wrote it as "tire".. What's the general consensus? - o0pandora0o (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think that under the circumstances the spelling used in the location where the shop is located would be preferable, which in this case would mean that "tire" might be the preferable word. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but it has been changed to "tyre" twice.. - o0pandora0o (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: [2]. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! :) - o0pandora0o (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Proposed new edit with sources, better referenced.

Bethel Church is a Christian religious organization based in Mansfield Woodhouse, England, once headed by John Hibbert and Jean Spademan. Spademan, known as “Syro” to church members, claimed to have the "gift of prophecy"; her words were infallible and believed to be directly from God. Jean Spademan died in England in 2007. It is unclear who has taken over the role of "prophet" of this controversial group.

Bethel is currently headed by John Hibbert, Stephen Jeffs, and Spademan’s grandson, Christopher Jenkinson.

There are dozens of churches around the world known as Bethel churches. They are known for their emphasis on faith healing.

Distinctive Teachings

Murmuring

Murmuring is to air some sort of grievance with another person, either within the church or even worse, outside. The grievance itself could be something very minor, or some resentment about treatment by the ministry. It supposedly has the effect of poisoning the heart of the other person, which if they are an outsider is particularly bad since it could stumble them and thus prevent them receiving salvation. It is often preached against, and held up as one of the reasons the church does not reach its potential in the world. From a control point of view, those leaving the church have often eventually seen this teaching as a control mechanism. This alone is one of the main reasons many in the church do not see the depth of control being used. Those disciplined behind the scenes in harsh ways are often reluctant do discuss what has happened to them, seeing it as murmuring to do so.

God's Perfect/Permissive Will

This is an important teaching in the church. Basically, God has a perfect will for a Christian's life. The Devil constantly tries to hamper that plan. Each time a Christian commits sin, the Devil has an automatic right to contest God's will for that person's life. God is absolutely just, so the Devil gets what he's after. This is where God's permissive will comes in. God will turn the mistake around to something good in the end, but the result will never be as good as God's original plan for that person's life. The same happens in the church as a whole. Each time a church member commits some sin, the Devil gains entrance into the church and is able to hamper what God wanted the church to do. The result is that the congregation will frequently be 'blasted' in a message from the platform. They will be told God wants to work miracles within the church, but he cannot until sin is removed. Murmuring (see above) will often be mentioned here, and held up as one of the reasons God cannot do what he wishes to do.

King's Chapel

A sister church, originally known as King's Chapel, is located in Norwich, Connecticut, in the United States. King's Chapel, led by Sam J. Wibberley, under the guidance of John Hibbert and Jean Spademan, is a controversial organization that incites strong reactions from those affected by the church and those who are participants. While anyone is free to leave the church, many ex-members describe practices rampant with mental abuse, charlatanry, and dominance. Detractors claim that those who leave the church spread lies out of revenge or misguidance. Parishioners are discouraged from speaking to those who have left, so as not to catch a spirit of doubt. To doubt is a major sin, obedience is a must. The church in Norwich has changed its name to the Peniel Church.

Alleged Instances of Mental Abuse

• May 31, 1984, Wayne Wibberley, aged 20, pled guilty to second-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. This was after Syro accused him of inappropriate conduct while babysitting, and all-night “counseling” sessions with church pastors, which pressured him to confess. His criminal record shows that the arrest occurred almost three months after two alleged assaults, yet there is no warrant in his court record to explain the charges. No name is given for Wayne’s attorney, and there is no description of any crimes. After these accusations having been taken to heart, Wayne went to live in Florida with his biological mother, where he was convicted of sexual assault and battery in 1987, and again in 1998 for lewd and lascivious behavior in the presence of a child.

• December 19, 1987, Ronald Allen of Preston, CT committed suicide through carbon monoxide poisoning in his car. Allen had begun counseling shortly before his death but had been discouraged from seeking help with 'outsiders'. The church had been pressuring him to sell his home on Amos Lake in order to move closer to other church members and to donate profits from the sale to the church.

• December, 1994, Martha Davis attempted to commit suicide by an overdose of painkillers. She had been forced by the church to take care of the M. family, including providing shelter, food, and cleaning for them. Martha felt controlled and abused and as though she had no control over her life. Her son was sent on a trip to England to stay with members of the Bethel Church, which eventually led her into a deep depression, coming to a head as an attempted suicide. After she was released from the hospital, she asked church elders and Sam Wibberley for time off of caring for the M.s and for her son to come home so she could be with him. Wibberley responded by saying that she should apologize to the M.s for scaring them and that her son could not come home as her suicide attempt had ruined much of what they had accomplished with him. In the year 2000, Martha successfully committed suicide.

• September 14, 1996, Joshua K age 21, confessed to allegations of child abuse to local authorities, after an all night session of "counseling" by Sam Wibberley and other church elders. Josh recanted his story 48 hours later after two full days of constant pressuring and harassment from church members: he stated that brainwashing and suggestion had compelled him to tell such a story to the local police.

Wibberley Tire

Sam J. Wibberley owns a tire shop in Danielson, Connecticut.

Further reading

Rick A. Ross website, archive of New London Day newspaper articles, Daily Express newspaper articles, Mansfield Chad newspaper articles

Apologetics Index page on Bethel Interdenominational Church

Freedom Of Mind Center - Kings Chapel

New info.. Relevant??

I was Googling, trying to see if I could find out when exactly King's Chapel was changed to Peniel. I found this site that said a "Peniel, Inc" had been founded in 1983 and was based in Jewett City. I didn't recognize the address, so I put it into a reverse address lookup, and got this result, which is interesting for two reasons. One, that the man is listed as being a pastor for the Dayspring Church of God (!), and two, I never heard of him when Dayspring was still up and running independently. I also found this document from a Norwich Zoning Board meeting that details "Peniel, Inc" looking to change their parking spaces at the exact address of King's Chapel/Peniel. I think this fairly ties Dayspring to King's Chapel to Peniel, Inc to Peniel. Not sure if the Charitable Organization 501(c)(3) status is relevant. - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Any info on this in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I found other sites that stated the charitable info, and a construction site that claimed to have done the new addition (with no pictures), but no, nothing like a newspaper article. Interestingly, Righteous & Co in Mansfield Woodhouse has a new art department, Juste Art, and if you look into the Original Art page, there are 4 paintings by Wikipedia user Jjburt, who was one of the people in the original edit war.. - o0pandora0o (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Best to wait on adding this stuff until it has appeared in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Groovy groovy. - o0pandora0o (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tyre/Tire Revisited

This issue has already been discussed in the Archives. Please to stop bringing it back in. It had been dealt with in a manner to make everyone happy, and yet people continue to bring back the word Tyre. Cease and Desist!!! o0pandora0o (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for full protection

I have put in a request for Full Protection for this article, as it can't seem to stay in its original condition. -o0pandora0o (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What's with the Tyre thing?

Honestly, I am wondering what is up with so many people's obsession with putting that one single word into the article. It was worded in this way so that the word Tyre or Tire didn't have to be in there, it was all hashed out in the archives. After all the problems with the rest of the content, so many people coming back just for the one word? Why? When it doesn't even need to be there? o0pandora0o (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple accounts pursuing the same edit doesn't necessarily mean there was more than one person pushing to include "tyre". That said, I don't think the edit was intrinsically a bad thing; the problem was in edit-warring rather than trying to establish a new consensus via the talk page.

Maybe the recently-raised protection level will provoke a more reasoned approach from any discontented with the current phrasing. We can but hope. --Ibn (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I get it, they may all be the same person. I'm just wondering what their obsession is. I do hope they come discuss it here. If it's a personal vendetta against me, that's one thing, but jeez, leave the article alone. o0pandora0o (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)