Talk:The Fellowship (Christian organization)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Fellowship's Archives

Has anyone thought to supplement the information in this article with facts derived from the organizations archives, which are referenced in Jeff Sharlet's Harpers article  ??? --Btaylor0000 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

National Prayer Breakfest

Under the section of National Prayer Breakfest, the following statement, In 2008 the Fellowship and its Congressional allies received widespread media attention and public criticism for involving military officers in organizing events surrounding the National Day of Prayer, particularly since no one was allowed to be involved in organizing an event unless they were a "Born Again" Christian (prospective leaders were required to sign contracts to the effect). I would like to know the source or sources for this statement. User Calslib June 24th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calsman (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the information in Sharlet book references original source archives that were available at the Wheaton College library in Wheaton, Illinois. I just spoke with the library. The items have been withdrawn from public review per the request of an unspecified individual. Therefore, it's challenging to provide some sourcing. Since Sharlet did make copies of some of the documents before they were locked away, it might be advantageous if he released them. Jcsamuels (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and secrecy

The following is not NPOV:

The organization, which strives to be "invisible", has been the subject of recent media attention as being overly secretive. This attention though is generally the product of journalists who despite being extremely intelligent, seem completely unable to make the distinction between an organisation which is secretive about its activities, and a group which chooses not to publicise its activities.

The above makes implications about the journalist's intellegence with regard to the secrecy/invisibility issue that are opinion and not NPOV. What is meant by "invisible" needs to be clarified. The alledged secrecy issue is debatable and their are those who claim that the group has a secret plan to create a bible-based goverment, free of the seperation of church and state. This article should address the controversial aspects of this group better. --Cab88 15:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you prefer, we can label it Original Research. Under either label, it is an opinion of the writer, not of a reliable public source.--Cherlin (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that the only documentation on this group anywhere comes from left leaning groups. This comes as no surprise since the membership of the group, overwhelmingly right leaning, maintains a great interest in secrecy. As a result, the available literature on The Family paints them as an extremist, sometimes fascist organization. This fact makes it very difficult to paint an unbiased picture of the group --Nscheibel 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that this complaint completely ignores the evidence of what members and leaders themselves say, and makes elementary errors in logic and character assassination.--Cherlin (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Other "The Family"

Isn't there a cult that calls itself "The Family"?

Yes, the Children of God, also known as the Family of Love, follows a leader called Dave Berg (a.k.a. "Moses David"). --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Throughout the history of the United States there have been several groups of whom have used the term "The Family", including organized crime syndicates dating back to the 1920's Mafia, communal groups such as Charles_Manson Family, and religious organizations with names like Family International, formerly known as the Children of God, The Christian Mafia and sometimes called The New Chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdog09 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

--Watchdog09 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fellowship

You recently re-added some misleading information to the "Fellowship article" that I had removed based on my research of the orgins of this organization (including Vereide's biography) and personal contact with some you are associated with this group. Based on primary sources, that has also been summed up in their archives, Vereide organized breakfast groups "to pray about perceived IWW and Socialist subversion and corruption in Seattle, Washington's municipal government. Group began to meet regularly and expanded to include government officials, labor leaders, etc." To highlight socialism as a primary reason of gathering is misleading and affects the integrity of this article. In fact, just as the information at the archives suggest, labor leaders were also included. In fact, one of the biggest breakthroughs for this group (whose primary focus has been reconciliation) was gathering big business leaders and labor leaders together to pray...and to continue to meet in that spirit of reconciliation. You will also find in the archives evidence that socialist-leaning politicians also participated in some of these prayer groups. The huge success of this movement was because of the reconciliation that brought people together from different beliefs and backgrounds. If you do proper research, you will see that this is one of the biggest criticisms of the current National Prayer Breakfasts by many christian leaders; muslims, jews, buddhists, etc play key roles in the program among christians. I would ask that you remove these statements for the integrity of the article. Thank you Politico777 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence rules the day. Got citations? PRRfan 23:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please read our policy on attribution. Doing your own personal research, based on personal contacts, is an unacceptable source of information (see our policy on original research) and a violation of our guideline on reliable sources. You may not agree with such policies and guidelines; if you do not, please go elsewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of the legends pushed by the Family is that their meetings were "inclusive" because they included both leaders of industry and also "labor leaders". Jeff Sharlet addresses this in his book "The Family", and he considers the story to be bunk, a legend with a tiny kernel of truth. After the big strike of 1934, Vereide led a prayer session with some big captains of industry whom Vereide had organized to break the strike. One "labor leader" named "Jimmy" (no last name given in Vereide's biography) shows up, and basically asks the rich guys and God for forgiveness for his (Jimmy's) "sin" of leading a strike. So Vereide inflates this story to create a picture of his organization including labor leaders. Sharlet (p.112):

In the years to come, Abram [Vereide] would tell polished versions of this story hundreds of times, in dozens of countries, to CEOs and senators and dictators, a parable of "cooperation" between management and labor, the threat of Christ and capital subdued, order restored. That was where it began, he'd say: Jimmy the agitator confessing his sins before a room full of businessmen, God's chosen men.

Note that in Abram's telling, the (single) token labor leader must confess his sin of leading a strike, but the captains of industry do not need to confess to their sins of withholding wages or using horrible violence to break strikes. Sure...they're equal.

So now you tell us, "In fact, just as the information at the archives suggest, labor leaders were also included." Oh yeah? Labor leaders? How many? What percentage? "Jimmy" and who else? And what's "Jimmy's" last name anyway?

You write "To highlight socialism as a primary reason of gathering is misleading and affects the integrity of this article." Actually, to LEAVE OUT anti-socialism/violent opposition to the labor movement as the primary reason for Vereide's organization, that would damage the integrity of the article. The evidence shows the group included dozens of rich men and once tolerated the confession of a labor leader who lead a strike, and will strike no more. So this "reconciliation" you talk about is still anti-labor movement by a different means.

Frankpettit (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Politico777: what is your source for arguing that socialism was not a major factor in Abraham Vereide's organization of the movement that would come to be known as The Family? Vereide was almost literally haunted by the spectre of organized labor's power, which was significant on the West Coast in the early and mid-30s. I'm guessing I'm the only commenter here who owns and has read a copy of "Modern Viking: The Story of Abraham Vereide, Pioneer in Christian Leadership" (Zondervan, 1961), by the revivalist (and Vereide associate) Norman Grubb, and nearly certain that I'm the only one here who has a copy of "Abraham, Abraham," a privately published account by Vereide's son, Warren Vereide, with Claudia Minden Weisz. For the political tenor of the early movement, I refer readers also to a July 24, 1951 letter by Edward Cabannis to Vereide on the involvement in the movement of the American fascist sympathizer Merwin K. Hart, located in Folder 6, Box 166, of Collection 459 of the Billy Graham Center Archives. (For more on Hart, a "field associate" of what was then known as International Christian Leadership, I recommend Max Wallace' "The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich (St. Martin's, 2003). Another useful document is Vereide's 1942 pamphlet on the movement titled "Finding the Better Way," available for public review in the periodicals section of Collection 459 at the BGCA, which declares a coming "age of minority control," which Vereide welcomes as an antidote to America's "present curse of spiritual indifference and moral decadence."JeffSharlet (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton?

What is her purpose of participating in this organization? Did she do so just in order to make her platform more attractive to the conservative side? I've lost all the respect for her.

See Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's professor at Georgetown. A caricature of his work is conspiracy theories, about CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the like, but he was a scholarly professor of history. Quigley warned about elite cliques forming; but the impressionable and ambitious Bill took this as a roadmap, rather than a warning. Hillary's quest for power follows the same path.

Douglas Coe merits a biographical page

Coe was the founder of this group in the 1960s. He is a hero of Al Gore. Who is he? What was his education? His roots? Parents? Upbringing? Siblings? Is he married? Kids? His own beliefs? Career path? Surely this merits more than a redirect to this group.

Fisher-Smith: Who are the people who inspire you? Who have been your heroes?

Al Gore: Jefferson. His essential genius, and his understanding of the human spirit. About heroes I might have right now [...:] Alexei Yablokov is the leading environmentalist in Russia, and a real tower of integrity. Sherwood Rowland, the scientist who alerted us to the problem of ozone depletion, is a hero to me. [...] Wangari Matthai, a woman in Kenya who started a tree-planting movement [...]. Outside the environmental movement, I have a friend named Doug Coe who devotes his life to the message of Christ in a completely nondenominational, noninstitutional way. He just lives it, and is incredibly loving and strong.

DBrnstn (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that, but according to a recent NBC report, very little is known of Coe. However they did obtain exclusive footage showing his rather curious speaking style - he compares devotion to Jesus with the blind allegiance the Nazis had for Hitler. He also compares Jesus to China's Mao.VatoFirme (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I've created a stub article for Douglas Coe. Note that according to the Family article (and other sources) he did not found the Family, Abraham Vereide did. mennonot (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal interpretation

The assertions that The Fellowship is in violation of the United States Constitution is unsubstantiated and unverified. The allegation is completely uncited and the constitutionality of the group's practices is subject to significant debate. I flagged the article for NPOV. Valkyrynele (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Family organization has created a network of politicians throughout American and Foreign governments, they use this organization to force individual politicians to turn towards their own right wing views. For instance, no President has been elected who has refused to attend the groups prayer organization or doesn't have of the governments prayer groups supporting them.

Under the Laws of the United States Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953[1948]) it is a crime to engage in conference with foreign governments on behalf of the United States without authorization.

Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS, which authorized the arrest and deportation of ALIENS and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. [1]

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/8357/Logan-Act.html#ixzz0OH8vvrPi

To this day there has never been a prosecution of any individual or group that has clearly violated this law.

In 1984 Democratic presidential candidate Jesse Jackson met with Cuban president Fidel Castro and later described a ten-point agreement the two had reached. His negotiations with Castro may have violated the Logan Act, but Jackson was not prosecuted.

Former President Bil Clinton's rescue mission to North Korea is the latest example of a violation of the Logan Act.

--Watchdog09 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)watchdog09

to quote, "The Family organization has created a network of politicians throughout American and Foreign governments, they use this organization to force individual politicians to turn towards their own right wing views." The first part of this statement may very well be true...however, to say that they use the organization to force individual politicians to do anything is inflamatory and unverifiable. Since the crux of the argument relies on this the statement falls flat on its face. You are making an assertation that they are involved actively in committing high crime. Therefore, they are not guilty of committing actions against the constitution or any law otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.160.90 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How trustworthy a source?

Just wondering if Jeff Sharlet is truly trustworthy as a source. Looking over his books and papers, I sometimes wonder if he has an axe to grind with Christianity. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• His personal opinion of christianity, or any religion, is less important than the substance and veracity of his works. He is viewed as trustworthy by at least one major news channel. Wikipedia is not in the business of independent verification, we must let our citations speak for themselves. One could also very reasonably argue that this group's dogma is quite unchristian.--Eion (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Eion, can you share your reason for claiming that he is viewed as trustworthy by one major news channel? Which channel? Has this news group used his material as a source of reporting or are you referring to the use of him as a interviewee and discussion point. News channels engage sources in a variety of ways, and most often the appearance of a person on a news channel does not indicate their trustworthiness as a source. btaylor0000 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Moreover, I disagree that Wikipedia is not in the business of independent verification. An article that presents itself as encyclopedic content should be reasonably verifiable, which is dependent on the verifiability of its sources. According to what you are proposing, a person could write a blog entry, purporting itself as news, then write a wikipedia article that sources that blog as, all the while everything that has been written has been false. A good editor has a duty in this situation to delete the unverifiable entry. This is why we have an "unreliable source" tag. I maintain that Jeff Sharlet is a dubious source at best and his information would be a hell of a lot more reliable if there were corresponding sources or documents beyond IRS forms to back up many of the claims he has made. btaylor0000 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Why do you maintain that Sharlet is a "dubious source at best"? Do you have any evidence to back that up? His book has tons of references and citations, including lots of citations to specific folders and boxes in the Family's Archives at the BGC. So, following your logic, since there are indeed, "corresponding sources or documents beyond IRS forms to back up many of the claims he has made", it logically follows that he is reliable. Frankpettit (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Seriously. I think the very least this page should do is make the sourcing more transparent. I have a strong feeling 99% of the sources all derive from Jeff Sharlet. If the book is the source, put the book down, not some interview he gives the Las Vegas Sun.
• btaylor- If you actually read the book before eschewing it, you'd know that Sharlet repeatedly points out the disconnect between the teachings of Christ and the belief structure of those in and involved with the Family. He has no axe to grind with Christianity, but is suspicious of a group using the religions leader as an empty signifier (emptied of the very teachings Christians believe in, many of which Sharlet views positively) to destroy the barrier between church and state. Sharlet goes to great lengths in the book to emphasize that the issue is NOT Christianity, but that these men and women are NOT Christians (i.e. not bound by the moral restrictions of those who do follow the teachings of Christ). I'm not going to debate the reliability of Sharlet as a source because your mind seems made up; however, I will point out the irony of questioning the reliability of an established academic who studies religion at a prestigious university, wrote a publicly accessible book, has made himself and his work open to the public while finding nothing dubious about an organization who maintains an insistence on and devotion to secrecy of funding, membership, and global operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.174.157 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As the source under discussion here, I'd like to respectfully respond to some of the queries. 1. Firefly322 wonders if I have an "axe to grind with Christianity." Hardly -- I regularly speak at churches of many different denominations on the subject of this book, and I've been a guest on numerous Christian radio shows, including conservative ones, to discuss it. The Family has come under criticism by many Christians, liberal and conservative. And in my capacity as an editor, I regularly publish work by Christians from across the political and theological spectrum. As I've argued in countless interviews, the most effective analysis of the Family comes from Christians themselves. 2. btaylor0000 asks which major television network used me as a source. In 2008, I collaborated with NBC Nightly News' Andrew Mitchell. In 2009, I discussed the Family on numerous MSNBC programs, CNN, HBO, and Comedy Central's "Daily Show." I've also been a guest on public radio's "Fresh Air," "Marketplace," "Diane Rehm Show," and "Here and Now." I've been a quest on the BBC, the CBC, and ABC, the Australian national radio network. I was the source for Time magazine's inclusion of Family leader Doug Coe in its list of 25 most powerful evangelicals. I've consulted for ABC news and CBS news as well, and written about the Family for numerous national publications that go through the fact checking (and, in some cases, legal vetting) process: Harper's, The New Republic, Rolling Stone, and Mother Jones. Yes, those are liberal publications; yes, I'm on the record as a liberal writer. I make that clear in my analysis. That doesn't change the facts. 3. Those facts are available for independent verification because I've included extensive footnotes in my book. That's the scholarly apparatus. It's worth pointing out that one of the best reviews the book received was from the preeminent journal of academic American historians, The Journal of American History. It's true, as noted above, that I take pains to distinguish the theology of the Family from that of mainline and evangelical Protestantism. You can dispute that analysis if you like. But if I quote a document, I provide the source. JeffSharlet (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Jeff Sharlet

A BOOK to consider

[2] The Family The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power By Jeff Sharlet I heard this guy speak and read his book summary (but have not read the book). It may be a source of good research on this topic. (Author is mentioned above but not the book.) Propkid (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

broken link

The last reference links to a non-existent page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.40 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization: the Family, not The Family

WP:MOS says:

"Use of "The" mid-sentence: The definite article is not normally capitalized in the middle of a sentence; but there are idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of works of art, which should be quoted exactly. Common usage should be followed on a case-by-case basis. As usual, it is a good idea to consult the sources of the article."

It is clear from the context that "the Family" and "the Cedars" refer to the organization that is the subject of the article and to the lodge owned by it and discussed in the article. Adding further capitalization that is contrary to the general rule of WP:MOS, i.e., The Family and The Cedars, does not add any clarity for the reader. Whether or not the Family chooses to capitalize "the" is immaterial: Wikipedia follows its own style guide and not those of organizations or corproations who may be the subjects of articles -- see WP:TRADEMARK. Ground Zero | t 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think WP:TRADEMARK is the correct guideline - I think WP:MOS#Follow the sources is more directly on point, it suggests that whether other sources capitalize the "the" is relevant. However, it appears that you may be right about the capitalization itself - a quick look at a few of the sources suggest that a lower-case "the" is used more often than an upper-case "The".

But before a rename is done, can anyone point me to a source that "the Family" is even the correct name for the article or for the organization? Several sources, including this and this indicate that the correct name for it is "the Fellowship Foundation" and that "the Family" is simply a nickname for the group. This is also suggested (yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a proper source) by the use of "The Fellowship Foundation" at National Prayer Breakfast. Thoughts? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilberforce Foundation != Wiberforce Forum

Hi everyone,

What evidence links Wilberforce Foundation to Wilberforce Forum and Wilberforce Project?

Do they have directors or properties in common?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not being familiar with any of the above, perhaps someone simply heard multiple names in use and just assumed they were different terms for the same group? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, which usage(s) should be used in this article? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should use Wilberforce Foundation.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Associates and Close Friends

United States Presidents of both parties, including Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had connections to the Family.[13]

1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Sharlet, Jeff (May 20, 2008). "Book Excerpt: The Family". Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/book-excerpt-family?page=3. Retrieved on August 3, 2009.

This paragraph leads someone to think that Jeff Sharlet states that Barack Obama has connections with the Family. When reading the article, there is no mention of Obama. I have the book and there is no mention of Obama in the book either.

I think that Obama's name should be removed from this paragraph.

While the article might not cite Obama have having spoken there, the picture on the right seems like pretty good evidence. —jfry3 (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence could be rewritten to be more clear. I agree that the phrase "United States Presidents of both parties, including Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had connections to the Family[13]" sounds like these presidents were possibly members of this organization, or at least supporters. Because the citation immediately follows this sentence, it also gives the impression that the Sharlet citation supports this statement, but the citation never mentions Obama.

As the poster above mentions, the wikipedia article does contain a picture of Obama speaking at a prayer breakfast. However, this picture isn't cited as a reference in the sentence, and the placement of the Sharlet reference at the end of the sentence gives the impression that Sharlet discusses Obama. So I agree that this sentence should be changed.

Also, it may be that the phrase "have had connections" is simply too vague. While some might argue that speaking at a prayer breakfast might be a "connection", others might disagree. I suggest rewriting the sentence to be more specific. Perhaps "President Obama gave an address at a recent prayer breakfast sponsored by the organization," with an appropriate citation. The same could be done with the other presidents: "George H.W. Bush spoke positively of the organization at ____ date", with a citation, or something like that. The phrase "have had connections" could mean anything, so it's probably better if we provided specific examples for each president; then, the reader can make up his/her own mind about the level of each president's involvement. Just my two cents!  :) --74.66.80.186 (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) User:74.66.80.186, you're right, the phrase "has had a connection" (and variants) is sufficiently vague and weasel-word-ish that it should be excised from the article. For that matter, the entire section Associates and close friends could probably be removed or shortened to a sentence or two. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

With reference to Obama, the picture accompanies an official White House blog post and a transcript of Obama's remarks and can be found at whitehouse.gov here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}

Obama's name should definitely be removed. It is only listed as an unverified comment on the book's excerpt. Unless someone can scan in a copy of the book, it is just heresay to make that assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.75.113 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe President Obama's name should be removed. I take your point, however, about adding clarity to the connections of President Obama and other Presidents to this organization and have added detail in each case. In fact, as is now noted, shortly after his inauguration, President Barack Obama was the keynote speaker at The Family's National Prayer Breakfast, at which he stated "I know this breakfast has a long history in Washington, and faith has always been a guiding force in our family's life, so we feel very much at home and look forward to keeping this tradition alive during our time here." Please remember that although this organization operates publicly at times, such as in the case of the National Prayer Breakfast, it also is secretive about some of its activites. Therefore it is not always easy to find sources about its activities and members. I believe that for this reason, among others, it is important to have a section on the organization's members and connections to people. Likesausages (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced stuff

This article is awash with unreferenced statements. I just removed a whole pile of "associated with a dictator" statements that simply had no backup. In view of the controversial nature of the subject I strongly recommend that anything not backed up by a solid reference is removed. We also need to check the sources - I found a whole load of statements that were 'referenced' by the Harpers article, but had nothing in that article to back them up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Christian Mafia"?

The intro claims that the group refers to itself as the "Christian Mafia". This claim is not found in any of the sources given. Instead, it appears that this term was used as a subjective characterization in an independent sociology journal article -- http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/2/390 The group itself does not seem to refer to itself as the "Christian Mafia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.50.81 (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Family leader Doug Coe used the term to refer to the Family, as cited in the article. Source: "Behind the closed doors on C Street". Las Vegas Sun. July 19, 2009. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/19/behind-closed-doors-c-street/. Retrieved July 27, 2009. PRRfan (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Logan Act

Concerns about the Logan Act may belong somewhere in this article, but not in the Secrecy subhead, so I removed this text: "At the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, President George H. W. Bush praised Doug Coe for what he described as 'quiet diplomacy, I wouldn't say secret diplomacy.' Bush was apparently unaware of one of the nation's oldest laws, the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens to influence foreign governments lest foreign policy slip out of democratic control." PRRfan (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quoting directly from the Logan act here: it forbids any intercourse "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government". It is easy to imagine diplomacy that is not intended to influence a foreign government, and that isn't in violation of the Logan act. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Chief problems with this.

1. It is way, way, WAY to big for a single article. Barack Obama is the President and this article is larger than either of those. 2. NPOV- This has been brought up here before. Consider two statements about, lets say, Obama's health care plans.

"Obama's plan has met significant criticism, with scholars stating that the plan would lead to senior citizen death panels, health care rationing, with millions of americans loosing their existing coverage while illegal immigrants gain access to tax payer provided care."

Compared with

""Conservative media figures such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'reilly have attacked Obama's proposal fearing it would lead to coverage for illegal immigrants, death panels for senior citizens and single payer health care."

Which statement is more NPOV? The first uses weasel words to hide the identity of the accusers and state their opinions as fact whereas the second presents their views in a much more balanced manner. There is a whole lot of that going on in this article.

3. The "scandals" sections are completely and totally irrelevant to the organization. It is about a handful of of polticians with moral failings and ethical lapses, Oh and they also happen to be a member of this organization. Their membership here is completely and totally irrelevant to those scandals and should be removed from this article. Those scandals belong on the bio pages of the people that committed them, not here.

4. Way too many section headings. Discuss away EricLeFevre (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted point five, please do not edit my discussion sections, if you want to discuss this, please sign them rather than pretend your thoughts were written by me. EricLeFevre (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe both are equally NPOV. It is a matter of fact that the people named did attack Obama's plans with those awful, idiotic arguments. It would be POV to try and hide that here. Also, I think the "scandals" section is completely fine as is because a connection can be made between the scandals and the organisation. --77.180.180.15 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I fervently disagree. In the scandals sections, The Family organization is not even listed in those sections aside from the fact that the people who committed those scandals were associated with The Family. Should I include a scandals section on the Teamsters page every time one of its members commits and unrelated crime? Guilt by association is one of the chief logical fallacies. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An argument can be made that the scandals are a direct outgrowth of the Family's ideology, the belief that it's members are chosen by God and are thus infallible. Furthermore, those scandals brought a new level of attention to the Family's activities and it's secretive nature. I think that the scandals section should be modified, but it shouldn't be removed altogether. --Strannik (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There is one problem with that statement: it is not true at all. Lisa Miller in her most recent Newsweek article bluntly states that Jeff Sharlet's book (which happens to be the source of ~three-fourths of this article's overheated rhetoric) serves no other purpose than to "confirm the darkest fears of the secular left." She goes on to describe it as "alarmist." This whole article is nothing more than one giant coatracks article designed to expose the evil tentacles of some vile Christian conspiracy. EricLeFevre (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not what Lisa Miller wrote; did you read her article? Her words were "Though Sharlet raises real questions about the Fellowship's methods and mission, his book's tone, overall, is alarmist: it confirms all the darkest fears of the secular left." She is complaining about his tone, not the accuracy of his facts, which she does not contradict. Moreover, Miller gives little indication of having read past the first chapter of the book. Many commenters don't read past the first chapter. Why should we trust Lisa Miller, who is judging Sharlet's book SUBJECTIVELY and does not cite evidence of any inaccuracies on Sharlet's part? Frankpettit (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A contributor dost protest too much, methinks :). In seriousness, though, the article is a bit alarmist in it's present form and far too overly detailed for my taste, but many of the facts stated stated in this article are backed by sources other than Sharlet's book. This includes evidence of some the more... dubious aspects of the Family's ideology. --Strannik (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Eric LeFevre suggests that Lisa Miller's Newsweek article is a more reliable source than my reporting for Harper's, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, and The New Republic, all of which went into my book, The Family, published by a reputable publisher (HarperCollins) and reviewed positively in the preeminent (and peer-reviewed) academic journal for American historians, The Journal of American Historians. What's LeFevre's basis? Feature writers for the magazines I mention above are fact-checked; columnists for Newsweek are not. How do I know? Because I've been a source for Miller in the past, and no fact-checkers contacted me. Moreover, my book is based on extensive -- and footnoted -- archival research. Miller's assertions are based primarily on the statements of politicians defending their reputations. I don't say that to cast aspersions on Lisa, whom I know a bit; I'm quite certain she'd readily agree that my book is far more researched than her opinion column. I raise these points to question LeFevre's repeated denunciations of my work despite not having read it (as evidenced by his multiple queries on this page about where I got my information. It's in the footnotes, Eric -- in the book.) As for Lisa's assertions that my book "confirms all the darkest fears of the secular left": I can't speak to that, since I'm not really part of the secular left. As an editor, I frequently publish work by religious believers of every denomination. As a public speaker, I frequently visit churches and speak on radio programs hosted by Christians from across the political and theological spectrum. The book was endorsed not just by figures on the secular left but by Frank Schaeffer, once a leading figure of the Christian Right and still a very devout man, who wrote: "I was once an insider’s insider within fundamentalism. Unequivocally: Sharlet knows what he’s talking about. He writes: ‘Our refusal to recognize the theocratic strand running throughout American history is as self-deceiving as fundamentalism’s insistence that the United States was created a Christian nation.’ Those who want to be un-deceived (and wildly entertained) must read this disturbing tour de force.” Brian McLaren, named by Time magazine one of the "25 most influential evangelicals" in the U.S., said of my work: “Jeff Sharlet [is] a confessed non-evangelical whom top evangelical organizations might be wise to hire—and quick—as a consultant. As an outsider, Sharlet sees what a lot of us insiders need to see.” Lisa Miller is a fine columnist, but in this case, I have to wonder how far her research went. The final two chapters of my book directly challenge secular leftist assumptions. I don't think she read them. I'm quite sure Eric LeFevre didn't. JeffSharlet (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Just about every single one of them is original research. 173.30.135.162 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

People outside Wikipedia can do original research; it's only inside Wikipedia that the policy applies... AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. [[3]] as wiki defines it means that regardless of whether an accusation is "true" that the statement must be verified by a reputable source. Consider this statement from wiki's policy "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". What about the citations from major news networks about this? I have read some (not all) of those and all of the citations I have sampled are just Jeff Sharlet plugging his own book on some news show with little or no fact checking. Once again, original research. EricLeFevre (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Until this is resolved, I am tagging this article with the factual accuracy and poor citations. EricLeFevre (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed "one source" tag; citations include far more than Sharlet and Sharlet-citing works. PRRfan (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed "factual accuracy" tag pending listing of disputed statements and reasons for doubting them. PRRfan (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Affiliations

No one cares what other groups are affiliated with this, so the fellowship owns some property out somewhere, why should people care? I propose deleting that whole section, its just not notable. EricLeFevre (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I care. I want to know who is networking with whom, if they have political power, in Washington. You have THREE TIMES NOW deleted information showing the association between the Family and Traditional Values Coalition. Considering that the TVC is one of the strongest anti-gay, anti-hate crime legislation, anti-evolution organizations in the US, it is important for Americans to know the TVC uses the Family's C Street House for "private diplomacy." Who exactly are Brownback and Inhofe bumping into on their way in and out of C Street?

You claim organizations cannot be affiliated unless they're so listed on IRS forms. Fine, I won't argue the definition of "affiliated." We can change the name of the section to "affiliated or Associated Organizations." Or you suggest a word if you don't like "associated." "Connected"? Whatever you call it, the info should be in there. Frankpettit (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Factual problems

As per request, here are the factual problems with the article. Including false claims and falsifying sources. 1. The group is called "The Fellowship" not The Family.

2. It is not a "political organization, its IRS fillings specifically list it as non partisan. The group employs no lobbyists, and includes members as diverse as the Clintons, Al Gore, Sen BoB Graham, and barak obama just to name a few of the dozens of Democrats who meet there.

3. "Coe has said that the Family aims to create a worldwide "family of friends" by spreading the words of Jesus Christ to powerful men and women through "cell" leadership groups." False. The citation is the Lisa Miller Newsweek article, and nowhere in that does she say anything to that effect.

4. "The Family has drawn criticism for its dominionist theology, including efforts to inject religious principles into every branch of the U.S. Government" False Don't misrepresent what sources say. The citation is the Lisa Miller Newsweek article, and nowhere in that does she say anything to that effect

5. "Other criticism has centered on its ties to oppressive regimes and dictators" False Don't misrepresent what sources say. The citation is the Lisa Miller Newsweek article, and nowhere in that does she say anything to that effect

6. "its concealment of associates' secrets, including the extramarital affairs of several U.S. elected officials" Here is what the source actually says.

7. "At the heart of the Family's spiritual advice for its proxies in Congress is the conviction that the market's invisible hand represents the guidance of God..." false, nowhere in the citation is that claim ever made.

8. "Coe, who has referred to the Fellowship as the "Christian Mafia", has said he tries to make the group act like the Mafia because invisibility bestows influence." See #7. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding #2 "Not a political organization". Right - one can imagine a plausible case being made that the group is overly involved in politics, but it nonetheless is primarily a religious group. Along with #1 (wrong name being used), seems like the title of the article should be changed to "The Fellowship | (Christian organization)". I'm a wikinoob, though: how does one go about changing the title of an article without breaking links to it? ScholarCrow 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no way to change an article title without breaking the links, so a whole new article would have to be created and all the internal links referencing this one would need to be changed. As for political organization, it is not. A political organization is a group that seeks to alter or maintain political vectors by A: electing officials favorable to the groups viewpoint B: lobbying existing political figures to take the positions of the group and/or C: increasing voter turnout for targeted groups of society.

The Fellowship does none of those things. It simply provides a clearing-house for members of our political establishment to pray and practice their faith in private, nothing more, nothing less. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ted Haggard says he is not gay. Therefore, he is not. OJ Simpson says he is not a killer. Therefore, he is not. Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman. Therefore, he did not. The fact that the Family/Fellowship denies (to outsiders) being political does not mean that it is not a political organization. Family members in the US Congress have been joining together for 50 years to push legislation and facilitate military aid for pro-US dictators. But, you say it's not political because they say they're not political. The Family has, in fact, done B. on your list, and then some.Frankpettit (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fellowship Foundation is one of several nonprofit entities linked in a movement that has for the last 30 some years used the label "the Family" as an umbrella. A group that organizes politicians and encourages them to build relationships with other politicians is political, regardless of whether or not it is partisan. Here's Family associate Senator James Inhofe describing the group and its approach to "political philosophy" in a video clip (transcription via Rachel Maddow Show): "Doug has always been kind of behind the scenes and very quiet. He talked me into going to Africa. I had no interest in going to Africa. At the same day, after 10 years of saying no to him, I said, “All right, I will.” I never will understand why I said it, but I did. But I felt the political philosophy of Jesus was something that had kind of been put together by Doug and this is my interpretation." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32202372/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/) JeffSharlet (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Citations

Jeff Sharlet's Book. Every single remark here with that as its citation needs to be removed, as it flatly violates Wiki's Original Research policy. That aside, here are the list dubiously cited claims 1. The Fellowship ... is comprised of about 350 "core members," or "new chosen," not true, the house in question employs 12 people who basically clean, mow, cook and mop.

2. The Family's "reach into governments around the world is almost impossible to overstate or even grasp," according to David Kuo, a former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. That quotation is cropped and out of context, meant to imply a massive conspiracy. Here is what Kuo really thinks about the Fellowship.

For all the hysteria about Christian organizations, the irony that the Fellowship is being targeted as a bad egg is jaw-dropping. This is so not Focus on the Family, this is so not the Christian Coalition. There are other Christian groups that are truly insane. Who purport to follow Jesus Christ and who I would submit do not. The Fellowship is a loosely banded group of people who have an affinity for Jesus.

Until I see that full quotation uncropped, physically see it, these two statements are totally contradictory, and unlike the one in the article, I have a verifiable citation for it.

3. "...and for officials' approving references to the Mafia, Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden and Pol Pot." Here is what the source says, while listing that Jeff Sharlet alleges Doug Coe said that, with the following caveat "But a close friend told NBC News that Doug Coe invokes Hitler only to show the power of small groups -- for good and bad." That hardly supports the blanket accusation of "approving" of stalin, Mao, and Hitler.

4. "Fellowship leader Doug Coe urges a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that he compares to the blind devotion that Adolf Hitler demanded from his followers." See above.

5. "The Family's attempts to influence government policies and politicians raises questions regarding the separation of church and state. Senator Mark Pryor said that the group had taught him that the separation of church and state was a sort of secular exaggeration: “Jesus did not come to bring peace. Jesus came to take over." Original Research, it is not a news article, just Jeff Sharlet plugging his own book with no fact checking.

That is all I have done so far, and that is only the first three sections. I am placing the tags back up until these issues are resolved. EricLeFevre (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You have no evidentiary basis for claiming his book is an unreliable source, no evidence at all. You have not demonstrated any inaccuracies in Sharlet's book whatsoever. You have no basis for flagging his book as Original Research. Sharlet's book is full of references and citations, including to the Family's archives at the BGC. Your claim that every bit of info here that is cited to Sharlet's book must be removed, is a wildly overbroad, totally unsubstantiated claim. You have to show that specific info in Sharlet's book is contradicted by other evidence elsewhere. You have not given a single example of that.

I can't vouch for every newspaper article written about Sharlet's book. Maybe some of the articles about Sharlet's book got some facts wrong. This is no proof whatsoever that Sharlet's book itself is inaccurate. You haven't read his book, right? Frankpettit (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Massive Re-Write

Over the coming weeks I will be doing a massive rewrite of this article. For now, I will work on the lede, after that is done, the next part will be to remove non-relevant materials such as

• Most of its affiliates
• financing for Congressional travel
• its property holdings

None of that material is notable at all, and it just bloats the article. Its not like the Coca Cola article has exact listings of all its properties. It is way too long for an article of this type. Congressional travel I plan on rolling into a future "Notable Activities" section (since that is where that information belongs imo).

The financing section got gutted because it was a pretty boring read and irrelevant material. EricLeFevre (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Blanked Sections

Format Section Name - Reason

Press coverage - The information in this section is covered in other sections already.

Affiliations with dictators and oppressive regimes - None, I mean, *none* of the citations supported the claims in that section. That happening once or twice is totally forgivable. But ALL of the claims in that section failed to show up in their citations.EricLeFevre (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Associates and close friends - The lede section simply makes a general statement that a lot of powerful people are in this group. That is enough detail, lists of members is just redundant info. EricLeFevre (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Shortened Sections

Affiliated organizations Only groups that directly appear on The Fellowship's IRS filling maintained their spot on the list. Removed groups include: organizations run by former fellowship members, groups that are unrelated but fulfill a similar purpose, groups that have recieved some funding from the fellowship in the past.

Sticking only to groups that appear on its IRS filling, I think, is a reasonable standard.

Finances and funding - The old section contained detailed lists of salaried employees, names of donors and the exact amounts that they donated which is not very relevant to an encyclopedia. It bloated the article and was quite frankly, really boring. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

More updates

History section got massively shortened, beliefs and secrecy got rolled in together and secrecy got blanked. More to come later. I apparently messed with a lot of citations, whoops. It is getting late here, so I will have to leave the article as is. Thankfully this is a low traffic one, but help would be appreciated. EricLeFevre (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Family vs. The Fellowship

From a reading of this article and some of the sources, it seems to me that this article probably should be titled "The Fellowship," with "The Family" being mentioned as an alternate name in the lede. The Fellowship currently redirects to The Fellowship (Australia), which, humorously enough, is also a secretive Christian organization. Thus, I propose that this article be moved to The Fellowship (United States), and that The Fellowship be made into a disambiguation page that would link to both the Australian article and here, as well as other organizations with this name. I'll be cross-posting this to Talk:Douglas Coe, Talk:The Fellowship (Australia), and the talk page of the admin who move-protected this article. If no one objects, I'll make the move in a few days. Thanks in advance for any comments. GlassCobra 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here in the United States, it is known mainly as "The Family", and I think it should remain where it is. Thank you for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) P.S., I do not feel strongly about it, so I would !vote for weak keep. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, every single source in the references section, as well as the groups IRS filing list the group as "The Fellowship", just read the sources. Jeff Sharlet refers to the group as "The Family", why I do not know. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not trying to suggest the two Fellowship groups were related; they appear to be two very separate organizations that just happen to share the same vague name. Unfortunately, the vagueness of the name makes Google searches to determine which name is more common very tough, but as I mentioned above, a scan of this article and sources, as well as reading Douglas Coe, seems to indicate that "The Fellowship" is the more common name. GlassCobra 18:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

International Foundation

Hi everyone,

I have replaced the redirect page for International Foundation with a disambiguation page. I believe that there are more organizations than The Family who could legitimately have their names abbreviated to International Foundation.

Please take a look.

Thank you.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

Consensus has found that book is reliable
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As has been stated here before, Jeff Sharlet's book is not a reliable source and has not been verified by anyone else. As such, it should not be used as a source citation unless preceded by a statement that the claim is made by his book. Right now, all of the controversial claims state his book as fact, when there is significant doubt as to the factual accuracy of his statements EricLeFevre (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC) On what grounds do you make that accusation, Eric? [comment removed and responded to on user talk page] JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Who says Sharlet's book is not reliable? You? You say. OK fine, you insert a comment in the article saying that Eric LeFevre asserts without evidence that Sharlet's book is not reliable. Fair enough, put that in and cite it to you. Who says the material has not been verified by anyone else? Which material? He interviewed a bunch of evangelists. Are they saying they've been misquoted? You're employing a double standard here. You assert positive things about the family without citation or verification, e.g. David Kuo said a good thing about Doug Coe. Has that material been verified by two or three sources? No. But with negative things, you require two or three or more sources. Bias! You have two different standards of evidence, total credulity for positive things and incredulity for negative things. Sharlet did intensive research into the Family's archives. Sharlet's book is 400 pages long and he cites specific folders and boxes in the Family's archives at the BGC. Very, very few other sources have even peeped in the Family's archives. I think the writers of the LA Times article did, and they DO NOT CONTRADICT what Sharlet wrote. If the Family re-opens their archives, more people can double-check Sharlet's work. If you want to facilitate this, then you go and tell your leader to open his archives. You say "there is significant doubt as to the factual accuracy of his statements." From who? You? This statement is meaningless--doubt from whom? Tell me, who doubts, and why? What is the evidence behind their doubt? Is it doubt based on fact, or bias? You'd doubt a videotape. In fact there IS A VIDEOTAPE of Doug Coe giving the speech about Hitlerian leadership models, a videotape made by an evanglical, who gave it to Doug Coe! If you want to put the speech in context, i.e. Doug Coe is talking about the power of leadership and loyalty and is not a fascist, fine. Context is good. But you're not talking about context. You're asserting a blanket incredulity--everything he writes is doubtful, because why? Because he's Sharlet? Secondly, when a book is 400 pages long, and well-cited, some stuff in his book is better cited than other stuff. Most of the stuff I put in, with page numbers, from Sharlet's book, is stuff known from other sources-- the members of the organization, and quotes from various Family members. The Hitler speech has appeared elsewhere. If there are SPECIFIC items from Sharlet's book contradicted by SPECIFIC evidence elsewhere, let's see it! Cough it up! But you CANNOT assert his whole book is unreliable, doubtful etc. without evidence! And I'm putting the membership list BACK! Frankpettit (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Case point 1: Jeff Sharlet got the name of the organization wrong in his book. The organization is called "The Fellowship" not "The Family". His book is the only piece of literature I have ever seen call it, "The Family." Every other source I have ever seen and read list the group as "The Fellowship." If he really spent all that time researching the group, why would he get the name wrong? One would think at the very least, he would get the organization's name correct. Doesn't sound like you read the book, Eric, in which I discuss the history of the movement's self-identification, from International Christian Leadership to the Fellowship to the Family. The Fellowship Foundation is one non-profit entity within the movement, which also includes, for instance, the International Foundation. At least one other reported source calls the group the Family: World magazine, a leading Christian Right publication which can hardly be accused of having an axe to grind with Christianity: "Other regulars say associates reprimand them for using the term "the Fellowship," and tell them to call the group "the Family."" World also quotes longtime associate Chris Halverson as confirming the usage of "Christian mafia": "In fact, said Halverson, "they used to call themselves the Christian mafia—and they would laugh. Meaning one family is in strong power and then other families around that family have some power. . . . I would have been considered one of the families that have power.""http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15778 JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Case point 2: Look over the WP:OR page. Here are the relevant sections. ""No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three." "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material" "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable" Eric: My work then qualifies. HarperCollins is a respected publication, as are Harper's, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and Mother Jones, all fact-checked national magazines in which I originally published much of the book. In addition, the book was favorably reviewed in The Journal of American History, a peer-reviewed journal. JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The next one is the WP:V policy. Verifiable sources. Relevant sections. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article." Read the bolded part, read it again. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." I am challenging the credibility of Jeff Sharlet's book. He made a rather large mistake, one that throws a lot of doubt into his fact checking ability. I won't hide my personal bias here: I don't believe anything he says. When I re-edited the article, I removed every single claim that used his book as a citation, except those claims that appeared in reliable sources. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds or restores material. You're then disputing the fact-checking of Harper's, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, and The New Republic as well, and casting serious aspersions against the other publications for which I've written, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Washington Post, New York magazine, Oxford American, Jewish Quarterly, and others; not to mention the media organizations that have checked my work and found it sufficiently reliable to feature, including NBC Nightly News. What is the "large mistake"? And if there was one mistake, why would it throw doubt on material that is easily verifiable? [comment removed and responded to on user talk page] JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I am not trying to "white wash" the article, What I am trying to do is ensure that claims made in the article are supported by reliable, verifiable third party sources. Oh and the list of members was removed for another reason, it is completely pointless information, really boring, and just serves to bloat the article. The lede section has a simple statement that many powerful people are members of the fellowship, that statement will suffice. EricLeFevre (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I am challenging the credibility of Jeff Sharlet's book. With all due respect, What you think is irrelevant. It is the academic and journalistic community which determines whether a source is reliable, not your personal opinion. — goethean ॐ 01:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Ok, go out and find sources for the claims made in his book in reputable third party sources. Link them here and I will happily concede the issue. The issue is not what I think, the issue here is that the book is not a good source of factual information. Forgot my sig, whoops. One last point before bed time, you haven't ever refuted any of the claims against the contribution, merely dismissed it out right. I really want to see you try to defend the citations that were removed, I really do. EricLeFevre (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) You have provided no evidence that Sharlet's book is "questionable." The very policy text you quote says that "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books...and books published by respected publishing houses". Sharlet's book (paperback) is from Simon & Shuster. My copy of the paperback is published by HarperCollins Publishers, not Simon & Shuster. Fortunately, it has the same page numbers as the hardback, so I can look up references in this article. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I am supposed to refute "any of the claims against the contribution"? What claims? Your claim is that you don't believe anything Sharlet writes. That is not a factual issue. It's your personal issue. OK, I refute it: the fact that you don't believe what Sharlet writes is irrelevant under Wiki policy. Interestingly enough, NONE of the people quoted in Sharlet's book, have said they were misquoted! I put in quotes from G.H.W. Bush, Brownback, Colson, Kuo, evangelicals, Family seminars... and you deleted all those quotes! But none of those people, still alive, have complained that Sharlet misquoted them. ONLY YOU have a problem with the info I put it, not the people quoted; ONLY YOU keep deleting this info! Every quote, you deleted them three times, reverted twice, not by me! Forgive me if I'm not entering my responses correctly; I'm learning as I go here [comment removed and responded to on user talk page] I'd like to emphasize that all quotes in the book are fact-checked. This idea that I "allege" to have interviewed Senator Brownback, for instance, is absurd: I have multiple tapes of Brownback, made with his consent, for a feature that originally appeared in Rolling Stone, which, of course, fact checks everything I assert. Senator Brownback has never said that I didn't speak to him. Same goes for Colson and Kuo. Most of my Colson and Kuo quotes, however, are from their own books, which I've footnoted. The vast bulk of the book, meanwhile, is historical; all quotes are verifiable with a trip to the archive from which I took them, footnoted in the book. If Eric LeFevre wants to do the basic scholarly work necessary to challenge those notes, fine; otherwise, this are extremely inappropriate and serious accusations. JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Further, I did include links to Family audiotapes and specific document boxes in the BGCA archives. You deleted those too. So don't say you want a third party source. You want only positive info. Only positive info is reliable. Again I assert, you have two standards of evidence: one for the positive (I heard somebody say, I know) and one for the negative (never let it in!) So your complaint is that supposedly, the title of his book is wrong? Literally judging a book by its cover, eh? Page 3: "They call themselves the Family, or the Fellowship, and they consider themselves a core of men responsible for changing the world." Sharlet doesn't say that it's the official name, he says that's what Coe calls it. Often in the book Sharlet calls it by both names. Doug Coe himself called it the Family is his sermon from 1989, the one where he goes on about Hitler, Stalin, the Red Guard etc. It was the Fellowship only in 1968, then after that Doug Coe started calling it the Family (Page 239). The name changes have been numerous over the decades, but Sharlet tries to keep track of the changes. As for Original Research, the policy says: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material...To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." So citing Sharlet's book is not OR. Your whole argument, logically, depends on your subjective claim that Sharlet's book is unreliable...and you haven't even read it, have you? Tell the truth. I did link to reputable, third party sources. I linked to audiotapes and documents in the BGCA, LA Times, and Sharlet, all reliable, before you deleted them. Therefore, I satisfied your demand. I accept your concession! Bye. Frankpettit (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC) User:Frankpettit has it. User:EricLeFevre has failed to present evidence that, in terms of Wikipedia policy, Sharlet's book is of questionable reliability. EricLeFevre's removal of well-sourced content should be reverted until he presents such evidence. — goethean ॐ 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC) He got the name of the organization wrong, besides, read the policies, the burden of proof is on the editors who add or restore deleted material. The Laws of Logic state that you cannot prove a negative, IE being asked to provide proof that something doesn't exist, isn't credible, ect. The request I made here was very, very simple, provide evidence outside of his book that supports the claims he made. You won't find any. EricLeFevre (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) He got the name of the organization wrong If it were true that a book published by Simon and Schuster got the name of the organization wrong about which the entire book was written, it would be headline news. If your claims are true, then it should be an extremely simple matter for you to produce book reviews from mainstream publications which back up your personal opinions. Otherwise, your claims are unactionable. You have not proved that the book is unreliable. Do not removed well-sourced content from the article. Maybe the organization has more than one name, like Jefferson Airplane, The Mormons, or ISKCON. — goethean ॐ 15:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I am going to pose some thought provoking questions for you. Rush Limbaugh has written many books about modern liberalism, the democratic party, and its politicians. Now lets suppose that I were to use those books as sources on Wikipedia, those claims would be up for less than a half a second before they would get removed, and removed for good reason. Not every claim made by Limbaugh and his cohorts is false or misleading. With those claims, reliable third-party sources can be found to support them. Now Limbaugh's books have wiki pages (at least some of them do), and on those pages, the overheated claims he makes are on full display. This is because according to Wiki policy, books like that can only be used as sources on themselves. On the various pages dealing with the debates in which Limbaugh weighs in, his claims are nowhere to be found because they are not from a reliable source. Now back to Sharlett, here are the questions you must answer. 1. Where is his evidence, if he has documents proving that he says, where are they. 2. He claims to have viewed their archives (given the secrecy of the organization, a claim that is dubious at best), where is the evidence for this. 3. How did he obtain this evidence and under what circumstances, Gotcha journalism is also not reliable. 4. Context is important, all of his direct quotations are cropped, so where were these controversial statements made, to whom were they speaking, and what was said before and after. Now here is the evidence for my claim, that he got the name of the organization wrong. Do you want to see their IRS filing? Or would you like to see A newsweek piece describing them? Perhaps an article from the Washington post? If you are still not convinced, perhaps The Atlantic can help? Three words for you: Sharlet is wrong. This begs the question, if his research was as intensive as he claims, how could he get something so fundamental as the name of the group incorrect? EricLeFevre (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Eric LeFevre: I'm going to answer your assertions here. First, my name is Sharlet, not Sharlett. Check your facts. Next: You write: "1. Where is his evidence, if he has documents proving that he says, where are they." Answer: The documents are identified in the footnotes. They're from many sources, but the bulk are from Collection 459 of the Billy Graham Center Archives. In most cases I provide box and folder number. While some restrictions have been placed on the most recent documents, the documents I used to write my book are available for public review. So, for instance, if you'd like to see the document backing up my assertion that movement found Abraham Vereide wrote to a German associate on November 2, 1949 reassuring him that he was unconcerned by questions raised by the Federal Council of Churches about the possible Nazi backgrounds of Vereide's German allies, you need only consult footnote 32 of chapter 6, which directs you to folder 4 in box 218 in collection 459 of the Billy Graham Center Archives. If you're wondering where I got my quotation of Billy Graham, in chapter 7, asserting that Eisenhower "did not want to set a precedent" with his attendance at the Presidential Prayer Breakfast," look to note 20, in which I refer you to chapter 12 of Graham's autobiography, Just As I Am. If you're wondering about my quotation of Chuck Colson asserting that "Had I fought [the charges] I would have won," see note 42 of chapter 8, which identifies the source as page 151 of Paul Apostolidis's peer-reviewed study Stations of the Cross (Duke University Press, 2000). 2. You write: "He claims to have viewed their archives (given the secrecy of the organization, a claim that is dubious at best), where is the evidence for this." ANSWER: The evidence is in the footnotes, which identify folder, box, and collection number for the archives at the Billy Graham Center Archives. If you'd like to dispute that, you'll need to provide evidence that this well-established archive doesn't exist. 3. You write: "3. How did he obtain this evidence and under what circumstances, Gotcha journalism is also not reliable." ANSWER: Archival research may not be glamorous, but at least it is not "gotcha journalism. As for, say, the chapter based on Sam Brownback: I spent quite a bit of time with Brownback in his Washington office, at his church in Topeka, at his home, at his kids' soccer game, at his various public events, over a period of months, all with his permission and invitation. I visited with his parents and his Sunday school teacher and his high school classmates. I checked my understanding with Kansas journalists of the left and the right with long affiliation with Brownback. I extensively interviewed multiple members of his staff. I consulted with organizations and businesspeople who worked with him. I read as much of what he's written as I could get my hands on. I spoke to other politicians about their work with him. I interviewed his interns. I took calls from the senator late at night. I wrote a very lengthy profile, in which I quoted him a great length, and then submitted it to professional magazine fact checking. That ain't gotcha journalism. 4. You write: "4. Context is important, all of his direct quotations are cropped, so where were these controversial statements made, to whom were they speaking, and what was said before and after." ANSWER: See all of the above. You want to know where the quotations come from? Look at the footnotes. Of course, that would require you to read the author [comment removed and responded to on user talk page]. AS for the idea that quotations are cropped: that's what quotations ARE. 5. You write: "Now here is the evidence for my claim, that he got the name of the organization wrong. Do you want to see their IRS filing? Or would you like to see A newsweek piece describing them? Perhaps an article from the Washington post? If you are still not convinced, perhaps The Atlantic can help?" ANSWER: That's the IRS filing of the Fellowship Foundation, which I point out in my book. That does not include the International Foundation or, for instance, International Christian Leadership, which overlapped it. The umbrella term used by many within the group is the Family. See my citation to World magazine above. As for Newsweek, Washington Post, and The Atlantic: None of these reporters did archival research. Green's account of the Family appears to be taken directly from my 2003 Harper's article (which is fine; Harper's is a reliable source). But, most importantly, you really need to read the book: the title is the Family, and that is the most general umbrella term for a movement that has had many names. But the Fellowship (though not Fellowship Foundation) is also sometimes used as an umbrella term, a point I make in the book. JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) " Do any of the linked articles, (or any other mainstream articles) specifically say that Jeff Sharlet got the name of the group wrong? If so, please quote the text in which the article says that. — goethean ॐ 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC) There are three possibilities here. 1. The articles I listed and Sharlet's book talk about two different organizations. If that is the case, then we need to create a separate page on this organization called "The Family" and move all his claims there. 2. Five different newspapers, as well as dozens of politicians have been mistaken for over 70 years. The group was known the whole time as "The Family" but for some strange reason they kept referring to it as "The Fellowship." If this is the case, then we need to alert the government because the group has falsified their IRS filing for decades. 3. Sharlet did not do very good research, was mistaken about his claims, and/or lied in his book. Logical deduction can refute point 2. That many people, newspaper editors cannot be deluded as to something that basic for that long. Premise 1 is also highly suspect, since the book and articles refer to similar people and similar events, during similar times. Logically, they must be talking about the same group. That leaves possibility 3 as the only logical explanation. Unfortunately for Mr. Sharlet, #3 does not bode very well for his credibility. EricLeFevre (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I believe you just crossed the line, Eric. [comment removed and responded to on user talk page] JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) When you get your claims regarding Mr. Sharlet's alleged incompetence are published by a mainstream publisher, it will be permissible to use your logic to remove content from this article. Until then, your edits constitute simple vandalism and can be reverted by any editor. — goethean ॐ 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Why? Another question you have to answer. I have raised substantive issues with the proposed additions, issues that have yet to be addressed. I think it is telling that the editor that keeps reverting it has yet to address any of them. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC) You think that Mr. Sharlet is incompetant and perhaps illiterate. Fabulous. However, Simon and Schuster and the entire journalistic and academic community apparently disagree with you. This article will reflect the views of the academic and journalistic community regarding Mr Sharlet's competance, instead of reflecting your very personal, very idiosyncratic opinions. Your edits constitute vandalism. Your general claim is that Sharlet's book is unreliable. You have not presented any evidence for that claim. Your personal belief that "The Fellowship" is never referred to as "The Family" is a long, long, long way away from proving that Sharlet's book is unreliable. Please stop vandalizing this article. — goethean ॐ 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I would like to ask that you read the following articles with an open mind, no you won't like their source. The first is a review from amazon.com. The writer is from Sydney, and an american national associated with the Republican Party. Jeff Sharlet is given a chance to make a rebuttal, so I like this one the best, as it presents both sides to the reader. [4] The second review is from an evangelical magazine, so you can imagine they didn't like the book on face value. The review notes other factual accuracy problems with the book (the chapter highlighting connections to the movie the blob). [5] Once again, read them with an open mind. I will give you others as I find them. I stand by the edits and request and point by point rebuttal to the issues. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "Reviews" on Amazon.com are notoriously among the least reliable sources on the Internet (and that's saying quite a lot). That aside: you will really have to provide a more substantial criticism than "He used a different name than I usually hear used" to impeach an author whose work was published by one of the oldest, most solid mainstream publishers in the U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I understand that, anyone on the internet can write a review on Amazon.com. I included it there because Jeff Sharlet (author of the book in question) took the time to personally respond to it (or at least someone claiming to be him did). I felt that was notable enough to be included. I am still scouring the net for other reviews, busy schedule and such. I don't imagine I won't find many negative reviews outside of religious sources though. As for the second review, have you had a chance to read it and if so what are your thoughts there? Oh and one final comment, I am not trying to bleach or whitewash the article of negative material, I am just trying to ensure that those claims are backed up by reliable third party sources outside of Mr. Sharlet's book, if you compare the two versions that this article gets reverted two. As a third party, could you perchance read over the two versions and state your opinion here? EricLeFevre (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC) What that second reference says to me is that somebody needs to look up the Michael Lindsay article and incorporate its findings into the article. Secondarily, somebody needs to make it clear when Sharlet is the sole source for a given assertion or interpretation. His inaccuracies about The Blob to me simply indicate what I already knew, which is that "serious" writers writing about pop-culture phenomena tend not to care about getting their facts straight as long as they believe their conclusions are plausible (sort of Derrida gone wild) and they have a plausible excuse to drag in a "hip" pop-culture reference. That is not sufficient to make his book not a reliable source on the more important matters with which he is primarily concerned. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Orangemike's got it right. Thanks to Google Books, I just read what Sharlet has to say about The Blob, and it isn't much - just a couple of paragraphs. The chapter is called "The Blob", but it isn't about the film, it merely uses the film as a metaphorical hook to introduce the chapter, and I could see how such a hook would be irresistible for a writer. Sharlet is relying on a book of interviews called Science Fiction Confidential and the Nelson article may contradict the SFC interview. I say "may" because while the film may have started as a religiously-sponsored anti-communist polemic - which Nelson disputes - it may have become something else. Plan 9 from Outer Space was funded by a church, and that's no religious tract. And many SF films of the 50s and 60s, intentionally or not, internalized anti-communist fervor and turned it into pop culture. Sharlet and SFC may be seeing these themes and assuming they were purposeful, or Nelson and the other filmmakers may have internalized their beliefs and not realize that they're putting them up on screen. Or both. Regardless of whether this is an error or a one-sided account, it's hardly enough to write off the whole book. It's not a book about The Blob, it's about The Family, and errors in a couple of paragraphs about pop culture in a book about a religious movement isn't a damning sin. Would I use him as a source for the article The Blob? Not without crosschecking first? Would I use him here? Without hesitation. Religious movements, not movies, is his area of expertise. Gamaliel (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC) No. Just no. The book is from a reliable author - a well established and respect journalist with many years of writing for mainstream publications on these kinds of topics - and a reliable publisher and is well reviewed. This isn't some one-off article full of flaws that somebody googled up. This is the very definition of a reliable source, the best and most researched source on this topic, exactly the kind of source that WP wants us to use for articles. To claim that this is unsuitable under WP rules is to claim that up is down and black is white. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Indeed, Gamaliel, indeed. Now as for EricLeFevre, he has a long list of questions that he says I "must answer", I "have to answer." I asked him more than once if he read Sharlet's book or not. He does not answer. How much chutzpah does he take to make a long list of questions I "must answer" when he weasels out of every single question I ask? I give up, he will never answer any of my direct questions. I know this "argument" style, no evidence, all rhetorical tricks posing as logic. I read the reviews in question (the Blob one is not really a review.) They both contain FACTUAL ERRRORS about Sharlet's book. Yes, they claim Sharlet has made factual errors-- but they do so by MISREPRESENTING what Sharlet actually wrote! In short, it is the reviewers EricLeFevre links to who are making the factual errors! First, the review by Coffman on Amazon. I had to dig to find that one. He makes numerous factual errors about Sharlet's book, so many that I question whether he read it, or skimmed it, at all. Just to mention two here (my longer error list is posted as a comment on Amazon): 1. Coffman says: Sharlet writes that Chaplain Dick Halverson was head of an anti-Semitic, totalitarian organization (the Family). Sharlet does not say any such thing. He does not call the Family anti-Semitic, although (like all organizations of the era) it has had a few anti-Semites in the past. Nor does he call the Family totalitarian, but Sharlet accurately points out that Family leaders have frequently talked about "the totalitarianism of God", "the totalitarianism of Christ", yadda yadda. Sharlet, and the Family members themselves, say that's a metaphor. Fine, but a metaphor for what? Sharlet wants to know. He provides evidence they're elitist and imperialist, but he doesn't call them totalitarian. 2. Coffman knew Halverson personally, and he says Halverson was a nice guy. So what? Who cares if Halverson patted the neighbor kids on the head and gave them candy at Halloween? This is not factual contradiction. Sharlet describes facts regarding Halverson's actions in the political sphere, not his interpersonal skills. Sharlet acknowledges that some prominent people in the Family are very nice folks, one on one. The question is: what are the effects of their public acts, not private niceness? I emphasize that Coffman DOES NOT FIND ANY REAL FACTUAL INACCURACIES in Sharlet's book at all! In fact Coffman makes many more errors regarding the content of Sharlet's book. Which I have listed in a long comment I posted on Coffman's review, go read that on Amazon. Did Coffman even read Sharlet's book? Or just make things up? Second, the semi-review of "the Blob" chapter, by Rudy Nelson. This is less egregious than Coffman's, but Nelson also makes factual errors in describing what Sharlet supposedly wrote. For example: 1. Nelson writes: Like the interview, [Sharlet's] book pinpoints the 1957 National Prayer Breakfast as the time and place of the film's birth. Strike one. The film had been under discussion for over a year... I attended an exploratory conference...in the spring of 1956 when...Irv Millgate...had with him a small container with a gelatinous mass of silicone. His goal was to see whether he could interest the company in doing a film that would, so to speak, have this stuff as its main character." Wrong. Sharlet makes it clear that, at the Prayer Breakfast when filmmaker Irvin Yeaworth met Kate Phillips, he, Yeaworth, already had the idea for the movie, already had financial backing, and already had a sample of the silicone "blob" stuff. Sharlet actually wrote (p.182), regarding the NPB meeting: Shorty [Yeaworth] had backing for a full-length science fiction flick..."I would like you to be part of the picture," Shorty declared [to Phillips] and a few days later he...show[ed] off a two-pound can full of the blob stuff... OK, it is true that Sharlet calls the NPB meeting the time when the film was "born", but it depends on what you mean by "born." Sharlet considers the film to be "born" due to the collaboration of Yeaworth and Phillips. Nelson thinks it was "born" with the writing of Simonson's screenplay. This is a subjective question of when a movie is "born." Sharlet clearly states that the screenplay was written by Ted Simonson (p.181). Objectively, Sharlet got the facts right. Nelson did not get the objective facts right and misrepresents what Sharlet wrote. In Nelson's terminology, this is "Strike One"...against Nelson. 2. Nelson writes: Strike two: The film's director, Irvin "Shorty" Yeaworth, is identified as an "evangelical minister." An understandable mistake. Shorty was a junior. It was his father, the Reverend Irvin Shortess Yeaworth, who was a Presbyterian clergyman in West Philadelphia. Wrong. Nowhere in the book does Sharlet call Yeaworth a minister. He is called an "evangelical filmmaker" Also: "...Yeaworth [was]...a director of "Christian education" films..." (Both p.181). Where does the book say "minister"? "Strike Two"...against Nelson. 3. Nelson writes: Both the interview and the book claim that a woman named Kate Phillips was the writer. Wrong. Her contribution to the film was minimal. Ted Simonson was the writer, and by the time Kate Phillips was brought on the scene, supposedly to add some professional polishing, the screenplay was well underway. But this too is an understandable error. With her experience as both a Hollywood actress and screenwriter, Ms. Phillips was named writer in the finished film credits along with Simonson...So Sharlet gets a pass on this one. Again, Nelson is wrong. Sharlet clearly states that the screenplay was written by Ted Simonson (p.181). Sharlet calls Phillips A screenwriter. Nowhere does Sharlet call her THE screenwriter of this movie. Sharlet wrote: The Blob was the result of an unlikely collaboration between A SCREENWRITER NAMED KATE PHILLIPS AND AN EVANGELICAL FILMMAKER NAMED IRVIN "SHORTY" YEAWORTH, working FROM A SCREENPLAY BY A LESSER-KNOWN WRITER NAMED TED SIMONSON. (caps mine) "Strike Three"...against Nelson. Nelson's main beef is that Sharlet claims "The Blob" was meant as metaphor for the unstoppable growth of communism. Nelson says, not so. OK, I grant him that one. Like Sharlet, I saw the movie on TV years ago, and barely remember it, but probably it was not a metaphor for communism. However, I will point out that it is popular to interpret ALL sci-fi and horror movies of the 1950's as signifying either fear of communism, or sexual anxiety, or nuclear anxiety. e.g. "I Married a Monster from Outer Space" really IS a metaphor for the fear of communism, and homosexuality. But "The Blob"...probably not. So I will grant you, Sharlet is not a good film critic. That is subjective. I promise not to post his film reviews on Wikipedia. As far as objective facts are concerned, none of Sharlet's critics have shown him making any factual mistakes. On the contrary, his critics have not read his book carefully and really DON'T know what's in it! And for the last time, enough about the name of the organization not being the Family! As I wrote last time, and everyone ignores, DOUG COE CALLED IT THE FAMILY! In the speech he gave in 1989 about Hitler, the Red Guard, etc., Coe himself calls his organization the Family! Now EricLeFevre claims, via his illogical "trilemma" above, that he's proven Sharlet is a liar for calling it "the Family." You want logic? Logically, if Sharlet is a liar for calling it that, then so must Doug Coe be! For the last time, THIS ORGANIZATION HAS MANY NAMES, AND NONE OF THEM ARE "OFFICIAL." The organization was known as The Order, then something else, then for years as the International Christian Leadership, then the Family, yadda yadda. It has no official name! Sharlet uses the term "the Family" to describe a network of groups that were under the control of Abrhaam Vereide, and are now under the control of Doug Coe. The Fellowship Foundation is a SUBGROUP of the Family. They are not the same! From p.21-22: ...the Family has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, National Leadership Council, the Fellowship Foundation, the International Foundation. The Fellowship Foundation alone has a budget of nearly $14 million...but that represents only a fraction of the network's finances. Each group connected to the Family raises funds independently. Ivanwald, for example, was financed in part by an entity called the Wilberforce Foundation. So logically, when Sharlet says "the Family", he means NOT JUST THE FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION, but also the whole network of groups which used to be on the Wikipedia list of "Affiliated Organizations" (assuming LeFevre has not deleted that list too)! The terms Fellowship and Family do not mean the same thing! Doug Coe called the network itself the Family as late as 1989, so Sharlet is using Coe's terminology. EricLeFevre calls Sharlet a liar, for what? Because Sharlet believed what Doug Coe said. Frankpettit (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Now this is really the last time, members of the Family are taught to say "Family" not "Fellowship." This from WorldMag, where Chris Halverson (Dick's son) confirms much of what Sharlet wrote: Other regulars [of the Family] say associates reprimand them for using the term "the Fellowship," and tell them to call the group "the Family." In fact, said [Chris] Halverson, "they used to call themselves the Christian mafia—and they would laugh. Meaning one family is in strong power and then other families around that family have some power. . . . I would have been considered one of the families that have power." In the early days, the core families included Vereide, the Coes, and the Halversons. Coe "became the godfather . . . but for good, not for bad," said Halverson. [WorldMag, Aug. 29 2009: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15778] Frankpettit (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the reference to Worldmag article. I will be adding facts from that article into this entry. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Interesting: When I enter the URL for the article in by hand, I get a short version of the article with an option to pay $5 to see the entire article. When I click on the link, http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15778 , I see the entire thing. I wonder how Worldmag did that.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC) You saw fit to restore the entire deleted section without any consensus. Firstly, you haven't proven anything. But lets go over your line-by-line. Point a: None of the people have come forward to say they were misquoted. Good reason: this is a fairly little known, minor book. Secondly, I never said they were misquoted, what I said is that as per Wiki Policy claims about third parties must be backed up by verifiable mainstream sources. Sources such as Mr. Sharlet's book can be used, but only as a source on themselves User:OrangeMike has said something very similar here, that is one reason why it keeps getting reverted. Further, I did include links to Family audiotapes and specific document boxes in the BGCA archives. You deleted those too. So don't say you want a third party source. You want only positive info. Only positive info is reliable. Again I assert, you have two standards of evidence: one for the positive (I heard somebody say, I know) and one for the negative (never let it in!) This is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what I am saying. If you had noticed, negative material on the fellowship consistently appears on the page i keep reverting too. The difference is the version I favor has a NPOV tone, treats both sides fairly, and only uses citations from major media outlets that check their facts. So your complaint is that supposedly, the title of his book is wrong? Literally judging a book by its cover, eh? No. Jeff Sharlet got the title wrong. You haven't even come close to disproving that. Find me another source (one that does not involve Jeff Sharlet) that mentions this group as "The Family" and I will happily conceed that. and No, I am not "judging a book by its cover." When Jeff Sharlet uses the title "The Family" and a statement right under neath that uses loaded words like "Secret", "Power", "fundamentalism", ect, the image he is trying to conjure up is the one of the Mafia families like Don Giovanni, the Corleone crime family, ect. That is why him getting the group's name wrong is such a big deal, as it points to a fairly dishonest attempt to mischaractarize the organization by Poisoning the well, a logical fallacy. That is why the group's name is such a big deal. After that, you launch into a massive line by line, dear I say, tear into a straw man, while completely and totally missing the point. This essay is not meant to be a full-scale review of the book. That would demand an insider's knowledge of how religion and politics operate not only in this country but on the international scene as well, given the connections of Fellowship members around the globe. However, an adult lifetime teaching composition and literature has taught me a little about the way the many decisions necessary in the writing process—matters of style, diction, syntax, figures of speech, all of which add up to the tone of the book—convey a writer's attitude toward both the reader and the subject. I will hazard a few thoughts along those lines. In his book Islam Observed, Clifford Geertz uses a striking analogy: He points out that "the events through which we live are forever outrunning the power of our everyday moral, emotional, and intellectual concepts to construe them, leaving us, as a Javanese image has it, like a water buffalo listening to an orchestra." [5] The buffalo hears all the sound, but none of it translates into music. Sharlet has collected a dazzling array of data concerning the actions and statements of dozens of people over a span of half a century—all of them arguably connected in some way to the Fellowship. But in attempting to tease out interpretations of that data, he appears not to hear any music. Or if he does, it's the repetitive strain of a single motif, carrying with it the implication of something vaguely unsavory. For example, there are countless examples in the book of people praying—individually, in pairs, in small groups, in large gatherings like a prayer breakfast. In Sharlet's portrayal, these prayer times are always suspected of having a political agenda. Who can doubt that he's right at least some of the time? But I found myself often reverting to a sort of mantra: Just as Freud needed to be reminded that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, so should Sharlet realize that often a prayer meeting is just a prayer meeting. i will contend that by launching that massive barrage against what amounted to a small part of the article, you didn't get the point she was trying to make. Here is her conclusion. As for tone that colors the author's presentation, here is one fairly obvious example. Before the reader even cracks the cover of the book, there's the title. Surely Sharlet discovered during his research that the organization much prefers the name "Fellowship." Then why choose The Family as the title? When the mind starts playing with this question, it isn't long before The Godfather and the Corleone family rise to the surface. And can anyone doubt the effort to lure a certain kind of reader with that string of loaded terms in the subtitle? The word "secret" and the phrase "the heart of American power" need no comment, but I would like to say something about Sharlet's choice of the term "fundamentalism." It's been used for so long, by so many writers, in so many situations, that at this point it does little more than point a finger at the benighted Others. What it also does in this book is immediately plug into popular distortions and latent fears and suspicions. Sharlet takes a stab at defining it: American fundamentalism is "a movement that recasts theology in the language of empire." Historically, it has moved "from liberation to authoritarianism." It is "a creed that is both fearful and proud even as it proclaims itself joyous and humble." He wonders whether fundamentalism is "too limited a word for such utopian dreams." I should rather wonder, given the kaleidoscopic array of people and groups he ranges through, whether it is too unlimited a word. In an endnote to his introduction, Sharlet commends Nancy Ammerman's essay in Fundamentalisms Observed, the massive study sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. [6] Ammerman's essay takes us to a realm of discourse vividly different from Sharlet's. Her picture of fundamentalism is inscribed with a calligrapher's pen. Sharlet's—quite purposely, I should think—is spread in broad strokes with a four-inch paint brush. In a recent online column, Martin Marty comments on the confusion that results "if the term [fundamentalism] is always used pejoratively and polemically to cluster everyone, especially the religious, whom one does not like. There are real threats out there, without question, but we do societies no service if we lump all movements to the Right together, homogenize them, and mis-label some of them." [7] Earlier I raised the question why Sharlet would title a 23-page chapter "The Blob" when the film is mentioned only in the first two pages and the last sentence. On one level, the answer is obvious. Having declared that the blob metaphorically stood for communism in the collective mind of the Fellowship and that the film's idea was born at a National Prayer Breakfast, what better title could there be for the chapter which chronicles the anti-communist activities of the Fellowship? The basic problem with that decision, as we have seen, is that the Fellowship and The Blob share no common DNA. I have a hunch that Sharlet sensed the weakness of his theory. He tries to make sure the reader's mind will hang onto the alleged Fellowship/Blob/communism connection throughout the chapter by gratuitously inflating the metaphor into instant historical analysis: "Between the rebirth of fundamentalism in the 1930s and the '40s and its emergence as a physical force during the Reagan years sits the historical blob of the Cold War, an era as bewildering to modern minds as any in American history"(emphasis added). But it's not enough. By the end of the chapter, having made no further mention of the film, Sharlet has to bring The Blob back onstage to justify the title. He finds an apparently perfect solution in an awards ceremony at the Freedoms Foundation in Valley Forge on February 22, 1957. There's nothing bush league about this occasion. The keynote speaker is J. Edgar Hoover, still riding high as director of the fbi. Other honored guests are Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson and Senator Frank Carlson, representing the Fellowship. The recipient of the "Spiritual Values Award" is John Broger, a World War II veteran at the time jointly employed by both the Fellowship and the Pentagon. On this day he is being honored for a film on which he was the creative visionary. The subject of the film is the dangers of communism and how it can best be opposed. Reading this part of the chapter, I recall that Sharlet, in his response to my email, had pointed out that "Yeaworth was indisputably also involved with explicitly anti-communist films, including Militant Liberty, a fundamentalist film by any definition." The film to which he referred in that email is the one being honored at the ceremony. I don't find much to argue with in his statement, though he got the title wrong. It's Liberty Militant. Yeaworth did indeed direct it for Broger. As for the content, I haven't seen the film, but, as Sharlet acknowledges, neither has he. Then Sharlet springs his big surprise. He has come across a photograph commemorating the occasion. After pointing out that Broger and Secretary of Defense Wilson are the central figures, he concludes the chapter with these words: "Standing with them are Carlson and the two producers of the film, an assistant to Abram [Vereide], and a handsome, sandy-haired man, visibly proud to be counted among such august company: Irvin 'Shorty' Yeaworth, just months away from the Prayer Breakfast at which The Blob will be born." I can well believe that Shorty was proud. The film his company had produced for a client had just been given a prestigious award. But "visibly proud"? I have a copy of that photograph in front of me as I write. I'm no more of a mind reader than Sharlet is, but if I had to choose an adjective to describe Shorty's expression, I think I'd settle on "distracted." He appears to be speaking to someone off camera. Not that it matters. Another, more serious discrepancy undercuts the eloquence that brings the chapter circling around to its neat conclusion. Sharlet has the time sequence all wrong. The Valley Forge ceremony is on February 22. The Prayer Breakfast isn't "months away." It's history. It took place in the first week of February. But that doesn't matter either. The real problem is that there was absolutely no reason to bring The Blob into the book at all. [8] But why end on a downer? Let's briefly visit one more time the closing words of the chapter: "just months away from the Prayer Breakfast at which The Blob will be born." Leaving behind the realm of mere fact or error, I choose to focus instead on the gift that Jeff Sharlet has given to The Blob in his eloquent conclusion—a cachet of cultural class that it hasn't ever enjoyed in the half century of its life, a magic touch of William Butler Yeats, no less, as the blob, rough beast though it may be, rises to a new mythic level, its hour come round at last, and slouches toward Washington to be born. Last point, you said, "Now EricLeFevre claims, via his illogical "trilemma" above, that he's proven Sharlet is a liar for calling it "the Family." You want logic? Logically, if Sharlet is a liar for calling it that, then so must Doug Coe be!" Wrong. I have watched that sermon in question, it was a METAPHOR with a specific context. Douglas Coe's group is named on their IRS filing. That name is "The Fellowship." Period. I am going to revert that one more time, this time, here is what you need to do to justify why such content should be in the article: Find sources for this information outside of Sharlet's book to justify his claims. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) By the Way, why do you keep changing the section heading name? That had me most curious. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I changed the section header because your title is POV. Please read up on Wikipedia policy. Sharlet's book is a reliable source. Your claims to the contrary are specious at best and have been rejected by every other editor on this page. Please stop edit warring over the section header. — goethean ॐ 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC) That is the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in my entire life. You did read that page right? You should know that NPOV deals with content on articles, not on discussion pages............... EricLeFevre (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC) As I pointed out above, the article in WorldMag says that associates tell lower-ranking members to call it "the Family." You have not shown factual errors in Sharlet's book. Including the title "the Family", where WorldMag says you're wrong. As for the Blob, I already showed above that Nelson's quasi-book review of Sharlet's book is full of factual errors, Nelson's. I cross-referenced specific pages. Look up those specific pages, or else do not bring up the Blob review again. I don't care if Sharlet got "the music" wrong. We're not putting his "music" into this page. We're putting in quotes from still-living people. Sharlet is a reliable source, and he was well-reviewed in the Journal of American History. You haven't even read the book! The Journal of American History reviewer read it! You didn't! Your opinion is of zero value. You have now deleted the same text SEVEN TIMES according to my count, reverted six times, twice by me, four times by others. Frankpettit (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I am not opposed to including that material. Read that again, you keep blinding reverting without understanding why each section keeps getting reverted. The threshold is simple, material can be included so long as it comes from verifiable sources. For example, the statement about Coe comparing the Fellowship to Stalin, Mao and Polpot is consistently included. Why might that be? Hint, check the citations, there is a piece from MSNBC detailing that statement. In that piece, Jeff Sharlet is interviewed, and features quite prominently. His quotations and research are rightly included in the article because MSNBC fact-checked that statement. There can be no doubt that the original research on the Hitler statement came from his book, his book is actually used as one of the two citations for that statement in this very article because it is backed up by an independent source. Most importantly, it does not rely on unverifiable claims, like most of the stuff he purports to cherry pick out of the now closed Billy Graham archives. I will say again, I am not now, nor have I ever been opposed to including or removing any school of thought here. My beef is that school of thought must be reliable and verifiable. EricLeFevre (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Really? So, by your logic, you're saying we should discount The Jungle as a source on the deplorable condition of the meat-packing industry in the early 20th century because it was 'original research', right? Or delete every new scientific theory that pops up because it hasn't been verified by two or three sources? By this logic, every new piece of information that comes out is 'original research'. I'm not sure what you have against Sharlet, but the book (which is well known enough- the man's been interviewed dozens of times on major news networks) is a reliable source- reliable enough for MSNBC to quote him and interview him. If we start saying a book that is well-known and generally accepted by the journalistic community (as well as EVERYONE ELSE HERE) is unreliable due to research deemed original by some guy on the internet, next thing you know, we'll be taking all references of Ida M. Tarbell out of the article on the Standard Oil Company. Mezzomaybe (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC) The majority are against EricLeFevre's blanket rejection of all facts in Sharlet's book. By majority I mean myself, Goethean, Orangemike, Gamaliel, and Mezzomaybe. That's 5 to 1. As are the majority of professional reviewers from respectable media outlets. Sharlet gets positive reviews from major newspapers and magazines: The Atlantic: "Sharlet has an incredibly rare double talent: the instincts of an investigative reporter coupled with the soul of a historian...The MOST ASTUTE AND ORIGINAL EXPLANATION of fundamentalism I've ever read." Washington Post: "An engaging writer with a keen eye" The New Republic: "I can't recommend the [Harper's article] or the book strongly enough." The American Prospect "One of the most important accounts of the intersection of fundamentalist religion and politics in recent memory...exhaustive historical research...riveting account..." The Oregonian: "Sharlet is a fine writer and researcher" Minnesota Independent "...may be the best book anyone has written about the politics of the Christian Right." Chattanooga Times Free Press "Simply outstanding" In These Times: "To crib Upton Sinclair: 'This is no fairy tale and no joke.'" The Public Eye "In the best tradition of American investigative journalism" Sharlet also gets positive reviews from those in the publishing industry: Publisher's Weekly: "Sharlet has done extensive research, and his thorough account of the Family's life and times is a chilling expose." BookForum "Passionate, principled, and powerful." LibraryJournal (starred review) "...his evocation of the mood of theologian John Edward's work is one of the most compelling this reviewer has ever read....Highly recommended for public and academic libraries." Sharlet also gets positive reviews from fellow scholars: Journal of American History: "Jeff Sharlet's prodigiously researched text reminds us of conservatism's abiding power. The book does for conservative Christianity what Greil Marcus did for punk in Lipstick Traces (1989): it establishes connections between disparate phenomena, thereby enabling fresh thinking about religious conservatism." Diane Winston, Knight Chair in Media and Religion, USC: "One of the year's best and most important books about religion and politics." Debby Applegate, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for biography: "A brilliant marriage of investigative journalism and history...Anyone interested in circles of power will love this book." Michael Kazin, author of a biography of William Jennings Bryan: "a gripping, utterly original narrative" Sharlet also gets positive reviews from Christian authors: Brian McLaren, on of Time's "25 Most Influential Evanglicals": "As an outsider, Sharlet sees what a lot of us insiders need to see." ReligionandSpirituality.com "...may be the most important book written in a very long time about the intersection of religion and politics in America." Frank Schaeffer, author of "Crazy for God": "I was once an insider's insider withing fundamentalism. Unequivocally: Sharlet knows what he's talking about." The reviewers above read the book. LeFevre has not read the book. Against the above list, LeFevre offers a couple commenters on Amazon and random internet guys. LeFevre is adamantly opposed to the Wikipedia rules, policies, and spirit. EricLeFevre is applying a double standard in rejecting all facts in Sharlet's book without providing any evidence to the contrary. He is welcome to go elsewhere, where rules like his apply. Sharlet refences and cites specific folders and boxes in the Family archives at the BGC. I double-checked these from the archive box list online at the BGC. They match up. Check it yourself. I repeat: The majority are against EricLeFevre's blanket rejection of all facts in Sharlet's book. By majority I mean myself, Goethean, Orangemike, Gamaliel, and Mezzomaybe. That's 5 to 1. Frankpettit (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC) You keep repeating yourself, but not making any substantive arguments. I will keep repeating myself as well. I am not opposed to the inclusion of negative material about this group. Notice that criticisms are included in the version I keep referring too. The threshold is simple, produce evidence backing up what Sharlet says. In the case of the hitler remarks, MSNBC backed up what Sharlet said, so it gets included. Your last makes little or no attempt to refute that statement. The statement about The Jungle I found highly amusing, because if you check the relevant wiki articles, the book is not used as a source on any material other than itself. Claims made by that particular book are in those articles, but only because they are backed up by reliable, verifiable sources. The book itself is not used as a reference, regardless of how right or wrong it is, the only subject area in which it can be used as a reference is itself. By stating this point, you apparently agree with this standard, and as such I am happy to apply that precedent here. The next point I also found highly amusing. I happen to be an Engineer and am thoroughly familiar with the workings of scientific journals, I read a few of them on a weekly basis. The vast majority of scientific theories are not controversial, though someone can get that impression simply because controversial theories get disproportionate news coverage. Controversial theories tend to be backed up by extensive evidence, repeatable experiments, and verifiable original sources. I recommend that you peruse some of the science based articles here on wikipedia. In there you will notice that those controversies are backed up by multiple, third party sources. Go ahead and check for yourself. Articles that disproportionately use a single source have the One Source tag if the material is not controversial or obscure. Those articles with controversial theories using one source typically get deleted if the article's author cannot produce reliable, verifiable sources backing what his claims say. By stating this point, I will assume that you want to apply a similar precedent here, a precedent I am happy to accept. The next point brought up is a whole laundry list of sources purportedly supporting what Jeff Sharlet said in his book, but one should keep the following in mind. There is absolutely no doubt that the National Review, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, The Weekly Standard, and Bill O'Reilly have raving reviews of what Rush Limbaugh and Jonah Goldberg say in their books. Using your third standard, an editor could plausibly claim grounds to use their works as authoritative sources. After all, respectable firms publish those books, so they must be true. Wrong. The only subject that highly books like that can be used on is themselves, not the subject on which they are arguing. I have particular beef with the following statements LeFevre is adamantly opposed to the Wikipedia rules, policies, and spirit. EricLeFevre is applying a double standard in rejecting all facts in Sharlet's book without providing any evidence to the contrary. He is welcome to go elsewhere, where rules like his apply. ... I repeat: The majority are against EricLeFevre's blanket rejection of all facts in Sharlet's book. By majority I mean myself, Goethean, Orangemike, Gamaliel, and Mezzomaybe. That's 5 to 1. Firstly, that is patently incorrect. User:Orangemike never said what you claimed he said. Here is what he actually said, "What that second reference says to me is that somebody needs to look up the Michael Lindsay article and incorporate its findings into the article. Secondarily, somebody needs to make it clear when Sharlet is the sole source for a given assertion or interpretation." source: right on this talk page. This is the position I have been largely keeping two since User:Orangemike weighed in here. Your repeated edit warring has damaged the process by which this article gets improved, I am going to revert the change one more time and work towards a compromise offered by User:Orangemike, if you revert one more time, I will report you, and given your talk page, this is something you have been repeatedly warned about in the past. Of your post, the last few arguments are the best, in particular when you say, "Sharlet refences and cites specific folders and boxes in the Family archives at the BGC. I double-checked these from the archive box list online at the BGC. They match up. Check it yourself." Please post this evidence, those are exactly the kind of sources I have been asking you to provide since the very beginning, a verifiable statement backing up what Jeff Sharlet says in his book.EricLeFevre (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Sharlet is a reliable source, period. There is no rule that requires us to back up an already reliable source. We don't have one rule for certain reliable sources and another rule for sources that a particular editor disapproves of. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Do you look at the revision history? Ever? You've been reverted for the same set of edits eight times. Twice by me, more often by Goethean, and automatically by Gamaliel via Twinkle. Now you think I'm your only problem, and you're going to report me? I will simply point out that others have done the same reversion for the same edits. Firstly, I accurately represented what Orange Mike wrote, and EricLeFevre didn't. We 5 are in agreement against your assertion that Sharlet's book is unreliable. On this question, Orange Mike wrote "[EricLeFevre] will really have to provide a more substantial criticism than 'He used a different name than I usually hear used' to impeach an author whose work was published by one of the oldest, most solid mainstream publishers in the U.S." We are against your position: blanket rejection of all facts in his book--quotes, names, dates, etc. (unless they are reported elsewhere). This does not mean a blanket agreement to everything in Sharlet's book--tone, generalizations, judgements, etc. Here is Orange Mike's other quote, which you misrepresented by just quoting the part you like: Secondarily, somebody needs to make it clear when Sharlet is the sole source for a given assertion or interpretation. His inaccuracies about The Blob to me simply indicate what I already knew, which is that "serious" writers writing about pop-culture phenomena tend not to care about getting their facts straight as long as they believe their conclusions are plausible... That is not sufficient to make his book not a reliable source on the more important matters with which he is primarily concerned. (BTW I showed previously that Sharlet's "inaccuracies" about "the Blob" were due to mistakes of the reviewer you cited.) But Mike's point is: he distinguishes between assertions or interpretations (must be attributed to Sharlet) vs. more important matters with which Sharlet is primarily concerned (need not be). I almost totally agree, except that would more precisely distinguish between: A. Generalizations, moral judgements, qualitative statements that are unique to Sharlet (e.g. Sharlet is the only source who says the Family is elitist, power-worshipping, etc.) should not be copied into the article without identifying them as Sharlet's conclusions. B. Objective facts e.g. names, dates, quotes as long as they are presented as verbatim and enclosed in double quotes, do not have to be attributed to the reporter. Regarding B., to write "Jeff Sharlet alleges to have interviewed Senator Brownback and alleges that Brownback said 'X...'" is a form that implicitly accuses Sharlet of being a liar, less trustworthy than other scholars, without evidence for such an accusation. Here is an example of the difference between A and B: many scholars think Daniel Goldhagen's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" was biased and unbalanced, and they don't agree with his generalizations about the Holocaust. BUT scholars still cite names, dates, interviews, documents, and quotes from that book. There is a difference between criticizing someone's conclusions, and accusing them of making up facts or fabricating quotes! In the scholarly world, that is a serious accusation and you better have proof! You keep comparing Sharlet's book to books by Coulter, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk. Now I have to point out the OBVIOUS. Their books are not scholarly, and consist almost entirely of generalizations. e.g. Coulter says liberals are godless, hate America, and enjoy sex with animals. If copied into a Wiki page without being sourced, their generalizations would stand out, because by their very style generalizations sound different from objective facts. Their books include very few, if any citations. e.g. Coulter is anti-evolution, so she simply asserts that the fossil Archaeopteryx didn't evolve from anything nor did it evolve into anything. No details as to how she figured that out, she just says it. Not a scientific statement. They're not scholars nor journalists (Limbaugh calls himself an entertainer, Coulter calls herself a polemicist, Glenn Beck calls himself a rodeo clown). In contrast, Sharlet is employed as a scholar, and his book includes hundreds of citations, and was reviewed positively by scholarly journals. Now before I said you want only positive things in the article. OK I exaggerated, you do let some negative things through. However, you're still insanely biased because you apply a double standard for determining "reliablity" that is not applied to other books of history or journalism. If we apply your threshold "produce evidence backing up what Sharlet says", every quote, every document, every historical event would have to appear in multiple books of history or journalism before it could be included in Wikipedia. With your standard, almost all quotes famous people give in interviews have to be thrown out. That is not the policy of Wikipedia. You don't understand Wiki policies. You are opposed to Wikipedia policies, even if you don't know it! Maybe you think you're for Wiki policies. How can you know if you're for or against Wiki policy when you don't even understand the basic standards of scholarship!? Lastly, you bring up the issue of scientific writing. You don't understand the standards of scientific argument. The #1 Rule of scientific argument is: If you don't know or are not familiar with a complicated field, you must admit you don't know! In science, this rule is strictly enforced! You didn't read Sharlet's book, which means you don't know anything about whether it's reliable or not! If this were a scientific argument, your only contribution would be to say "I didn't read the book" and then you would recuse yourself from the discussion, THE END! It is infuriating that you say you're using scientific standards, when you are flagrantly violating the #1 Rule of scientific argument! If you did this in an oral exam in any hard science, the professors would cut out your heart and eat it! You would literally flunk. Since you want evidence that Sharlet's data is backed up by external sources, here are five examples of external confirmation: 1. Sharlet calls the organization the Family, which is what it is called by WorldMag, a conservative Christian magazine. 2. Sharlet's transcription of Doug Coe's "Hitler/Mao/Jesus" lecture matches, word for word, the transcription provided by NBC News. 3. Cited in Jeff Sharlet, The Family, p.228: “Young Men’s Seminar,” dated February 5, 1970, tape 107, "Family Archives--Collection 459", BGCA. http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/459.htm#602. In the Family online archives this audiotape is listed as: "T104 - Reel-to-reel, 3-3/4 ips, 60 minutes. 1 side only. February 5, 1970." 4. Cited in Jeff Sharlet, The Family, p.420 note: Boxes 184-185, "Family Archives-Collection 459", BGCA. http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/459.htm#702. . In the archives these boxes are listed as: "Bermuda 1987--Brazil 1967; 1962-1987 (36) Brazil 1968--Burma 1984; 1968-1987 (31)" 5. Cited in Jeff Sharlet, The Family, p.21: Memo, James F. Bell to Ross Main, May 19, 1975. Folder 25, Box 254, "Family Archives-Collection 459", BGCA. http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/459.htm#702. Main to Doug Coe, June 19, 1975, Ibid. In the archives this box is listed as: "Singapore 1981--South Africa 1979; 1974-1987 (30)" And what is this crap about "if you revert one more time, I will report you, and given your talk page, this is something you have been repeatedly warned about in the past." Who are you addressing with that? I have no talk page and I've never been warned about anything. What are you going to report me for? "I reverted his well-cited edits, I was the only one who reverted him, he and others complained to me?" Ooh, scary. I repeat: do you look at the revision history? Ever? You've been reverted for the same set of edits eight times. Twice by me, more often by Goethean and Gamaliel. Now you think I'm your main problem, and you're going to report me? I will simply point out that others have done the same reversion for the same edits. So go report everybody. Frankpettit (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Above, Eric LeFevre writes: "Point a: None of the people have come forward to say they were misquoted. Good reason: this is a fairly little known, minor book." Actually, it's a national bestseller, featured on NBC Nightly News, CNN, MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," "Hardball," and the "Big Picture," the "Daily Show," HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," cited in the New York Times, reviewed in the preeminent peer-reviewed academic journal for American historians, the Journal of American History. I'm not saying that makes it a good book, but in the world of publishing, it is not "little known." Indeed, Senator Mark Pryor, Senator Tom Coburn, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, Rep. Frank Wolf, and former Rep. Tony Hall have all responded. Eric writes: "Secondly, I never said they were misquoted, what I said is that as per Wiki Policy claims about third parties must be backed up by verifiable mainstream sources." Books published by HarperCollins and journalism published in (and fact checked by) Harper's, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and Mother Jones are mainstream sources. Eric, you write that you allow only material from "from major media outlets that check their facts." Actually, Newsweek columnists and Washington Post reporters aren't fact checked. But contributors to Harper's, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and Mother Jones are. So it looks like it's time for you to abandon that argument. JeffSharlet (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved to The Fellowship (Christian organization) @harej 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The Family (Christian political organization) → Fellowship Foundation — - per WP:NCCN, "using the most common English-language name of the ... thing that is the subject of the article." In the event that this can't be verifiably established, wouldn't it make sense to default to how the organization is officially named, per WP:NCCORP? Redirects can take care of International Christian Leadership, National Committee for Christian Leadership, Christian Mafia, C Street, the Family (Christian political organization), etc. - :Ἀλήθεια 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• According to their 2001 Tax Records the official name is Fellowship Foundation. According to the Records of the Fellowship Foundation, the last official name change was in 1972. Ἀλήθεια 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• If it can't be agreed that Fellowship Foundation is a suitable name, then The Fellowship (Christian organization) makes the most sense, as that is how it is referred to in the majority of the article, including the lead sentence. Reliable sources for this name include: "House of Worship". Newsweek. 2009-09-08., "All in the family". World Magazine. 2009-08-29., and "Political ties to a secretive religious group". NBC News. 2008-04-03. Ἀλήθεια 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• MOVE to The Fellowship (Christian organization). As of 20 October 2009 03:55 UTC, the term "The Fellowship" was used 47 times, while "The Family" was used 41 times in this article. "Fellowship Foundation" was used 15 times. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would vote a mild "No" on this move, but that is due to conservatism on my part...because I think it sucks for everyone's external links to have to change. I do not feel strongly about it.Frankpettit (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Fellowship (Christian organization)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Reduced number of sections, added cites, removed unsubstantiated statements, and improved the balance in tone. I think this article no longer merits the comment that sections need to be condensed or merged. For future editors, use of tables may be preferable in places where there are long bulleted lists.

Last edited at 01:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)