Talk:R. L. Hymers, Jr./Archive 1

Merge

This article appears to have been created as a content fork to the Robert L. Hymers article; both are about the same person. This article offers a fairly moderate positive bias to the subject, the other article offers a sharp negative bias at the time of this writing. Most of the negative incidents in the other article are listed here (although without some of the references, which I think should be added), while this article doesn a far superior job of relating the subject's full body of work. I propose using this article as a base, and merging the references and other sourced criticism of the subject here, in the hope of creating a truly neutral point of view article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now this is more what the article should look like. I was concerned about finding this background material to balance out the other article, so its great to find that someone has already gotten in together. I would strongly support a merge, using the material in this article and adding any sources or sourced statements from the other that are missing here. My only question would be - which of the titles is more appropriate? (i.e. which name is he more commonly known by?) Thanks for pointing this out Xymmax! Shell ^babelfish 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax and Shell - I see the reason for the merger and I think it will be allright to do so. Let me give it a shot this evening with the edits. I am fairly green with Wikipedia editing and I am not sure what can be left out or not. Anyway, after I integrate the R. L. Hymers page into this page, you can provide your input Kdl4082 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The two should definitely be merged; it's silly to have two different articles about the same person. Hi, Kyu! Welcome to Wikipedia!Scooge (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax and Shell - As a preliminary: I hope that the name used to designate Hymers' article is called "R. L. Hymers, Jr." Hymers' website books, and articles have used that title for years rather than Robert L. Hymers, Jr. He is virtually unknown publicly other than by the name R. L. Hymers, Jr. Kdl4082 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan unless there are any objections? Either way, the other article will become a redirect so they'll both eventually end up at the same place. Shell ^babelfish 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as if all agree; I will redirect that article here. If anyone needs to access the old article, if you click on the small "Redirected from Robert L. Hymers" link on the upper left corner, you will be able to click on the history tab and see the old reversions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Article structure query

Quick question: is the lede supposed to contain a sort of summary of the subject's career, and an assertion as to why he is notable?Scooge (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead should basically be a short summary of the article. The style guideline goes in to a lot more detail, which you can read at WP:LEAD. Shell ^babelfish 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do a little copy-editing on this (wanted to boldface Hymers' name on first mention, e.g.), but turned out to be working as Kyu was performing his edits, so I'll make sure he's done before I go back in.

FWIW, is it a good idea to mention the names of Hymers' kids? I never do that on biographies of living people. If we do mention Leslie and Wesley, we should give their nicknames, but I don't know whether it's a hot idea to drag the next generation into this sort of thing: I would think that the twins deserve some privacy, and I would lean toward having their names removed. Just my two cents.Scooge (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am finished upgrading the page, as per your suggestions. I have included all of the information given in the other web page, and added their materials to the footnotes. I also added a lead as you suggested. Kdl4082 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited for style; attempted to inject some balance into the article. The Enroth citation will need to be brought inline once again, of course. I continue to be concerned that listing the controversies Hymers has been involved in the existing order has the effect of burying the main allegation against him, which of course has to do with types of discipline he exerted over his congregants (and his fits of temper with them and with his elders). But I feel that we are making progress, FWIW. Scooge (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I did some wikifying, and a bit a light clean up; I also reduced the some the above edits to try an maintain neutral tone. I also a number of "citation needed" tags for potentially contentious points that we should source. I actually think the articles I pulled may address one of them, I'll go back and check. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I now have the transcripts for the local news series on Hymers, so I should be able to use that as a source as well. Still working on finding that old copy of Eternity magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made additional changes, I hope, to Wikipedia NPOV standards. I have not seen any specific additional sources Xymmax and Scooge are mentioning above (additional articles and Eternity magazine). Kdl4082 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kyu:

1) You CANNOT continue to take out references to the other names Hymers' churches have taken (Open Door Community Churches, Fundamentalist Army). These are a matter of public record. For crying out loud: I still have the bulletins from ODCC, and they're available onlne!

2) I persist in my belief that it violates the privacy of Hymers' sons to be named in this article. RLH III has already come by here, complaining about the negative information contained herein, and it serves no good purpose. They should not be held responsible for the actions of their dad; they aren't old enough. They had no choice--they did not ask to be born into that household.

3) Please stop removing the references to the Channel 13 News segments. I have transcripts of them, and I'm perfectly happy to post them online if necessary.

4) Please stop removing the references to Enroth's criticisms of Hymers, both in "Churches on the Fringe" and in *Churches That Abuse.* Enroth is a respected religious writer who has an entry in the Wikipedia himself.

5) Your prose continues to read like a press release for RLH Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 04:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there is little reason to mention the names of children. If there's anyone here who hasn't read the policy on biographies of living people, please take a few minutes to look it over. In addition to the general set of policies, the Wikipedia community is particularly careful on articles like these because they can impact living people. Unless his wife or children are notable or important to the article in a way other than just naming them, then the information really doesn't need to be there and their privacy should be respected. Shell ^babelfish 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Scooge -

I urge you to read the Wikipedia policies for biographies of living persons, policy on biographies of living people. It will become obvious once you read it.

The initial hit piece you wrote, before both articles were merged, clearly violated Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. That is the reason those statements were taken out by Xymmax, the Wikipedia editor. In my view, this was apparent when you sought help from Wikipedia after my edits were made. Wikipedia states, “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.” Furthermore, Wikipedia policy states, “It needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.”

The policy on BLP states that “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).” Kdl4082 (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If all you want is a neutral point of view, why is it that you keep deleting material from the L.A. Times book, Enroth's *Churches that Abuse,* Enroth's article in Eternity magazine, and the local news broadcasts in Los Angeles?

You keep attempting to whitewash Hymers' record. Scooge (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And what is this insistence on specifying where, exactly Glendale is in relation to L.A., and removing the link to Glendale, California that tells where the city is? What's that all about? Who doesn't know where Glendale is? Among those who don't know, who cares? Scooge (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay--found the Enroth article in Eternity magazine, so I was able to clarify that quote about the Vitamin C. Scooge (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Article balance

Hello all. Kdl4082 copied his/her note above to my talk page as a courtesy. I'm not here to take sides, but as a reasonably-experienced Wikipedian, I'd like to weigh in on how we attempt to build our articles in general and biographies in particular. 1st - we try to have all information, but especially controversial or negative information, attributed to reliable sources. Negative or controversial information that can't be sourced really shouldn't be in the article. The information may even be true - but our standard is even higher, it must be verifiable as true by the sources. So, for example, a first hand account of someone's experience with a person may be true, but it isn't verifiable. We would therefore exclude such a statement. 2nd - Here's where things get tricky. Our articles, as whole need to paint an accurate picture of the subject, so the information we add should not have undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Here's an example: Say I come across a biography that reads

He was a terrorist, and plotted to overthrow the duly elected government. After escaping conviction on charges of treason, he celebrated his good fortune by engaging in terror bombing campaign killing innocent civilians. He was caught and tried, but somehow escaped the death penalty he so richly deserved. Instead, he was sentenced to life in prision.

I say "hmm, looks like this is unsourced, and violates BLP." So I fix it to something like this

He was aquitted on charges of treason. His organization, which was certified as a terrorist group by the government of the United States, engaged in a variety of protest activities, some of which included detonation of explosives in public areas as a means of protest. There are 8 people who are known to have died in these incidents, although it is unclear that the subject participated directly in those incidents. He was arrested for his offenses, and convicted after a lengthy trial. He was sentenced to life in prision.

Assuming the above is properly referenced, I then walk away, basking in the warm feeling of a job well done. However, if it is made clear that the subject above is Nelson Mandela, even though what I have written may be true, and verifiable, without more the article utterly fails to give proper context, and by omission creates a false impression. Obviously that is an extreme example, but the principle of undue weight remains. Our obligation in writing a neutral biography is merely to insert true material, but to create the most complete, accurate summary of the person's entire life, positive and negative, that the sources permit. Sorry for droning on so long, I hope that helps. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the situation can be helped. One of the people involved here is either (1) a bright colleague of Hymers' who has been with him for decades, or [at this point, more probably] (2) Hymers himself, using this man's account. Either way, there is a huge and persistent attempt to turn this entry into a puff piece that rewrites history (and integrates stylistic errors, redundancies, and the like therein, time after time).

The other is a survivor of the Hymers cult who was raped in it at the age of 14, publicly embarrassed for her "sinfulness" in having been so victimized, and still counts herself lucky to have escaped after losing only two years of her life to this man's evil "church." (Others lost many years, educational opportunities, career choices--and there are hundreds of them.)

No one involved here is close to operating without bias. We are at an impasse. Scooge (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try again, here: Kyu, I've attempted to leave huge swaths of this article alone--including the slightly grandiose language used to describe Hymers' theological beliefs and educational background. And I'm willing to move the biography section back up to the beginning, ahead of controversies. What I do not wish to accept is a complete purging from this page of

• Enroth's criticisms;
• the criticisms of those quoted in the L.A. Times who indicated a persistent pattern of authoritarianism in Hymers' churches;
• the channel 13 news segments.

I also do not with to accept

• the removal of the other names under which Hymers' churches have operated.

I'm certainly willing to accept repositioning the negative material to make it less prominent, but I do not agree with removing entirely from this entry any "dissenting" views of Hymers' churches.

I do not know what is going to happen on this page, but I do know that the truth always comes out, one way or another. Scooge (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, a few things here that might help out. First, edit warring (reverting other editors repeatedly) is frowned on; in fact, there's a policy called the three-revert rule that everyone might want to read - if you revert more than three times in 24-hours you will likely be blocked. Lets try to talk things out here and see if we can't reach a compromise on how to handle things in the article.

Regarding the controversies - it would make a better balanced article and probably go a long way towards compromise if instead of recording negative facts surrounding an incident, more information was given about the incident as a whole. For example, could we make a section about the history of the church that incorporates the name changes over the years, how the church evolved and some of the reactions to the church (positive or negative)? If there are concerns that the controversy information is becoming the focus of the article, creative solutions like that can resolve the problem - deleting sources is not the answer. Shell ^babelfish 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay--I think this brings out a lot of the strengths of Hymers' ministries, to balance some of the negative content. I'm wondering if Kyu or Cagan can live with something along these lines.Scooge (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not available to participate the last couple of days. I'm glad to see that things are continuing to move forward. Re: Scooge's edits - while I think I agree as to including all this sourced material, I would like to try to incorporate it more into the article, along the lines advocated by Shell. I think a worthy goal would be the elimination of the controversies section entirely - not by eliminating the content, but by rendering it unnecessary because the information so well integrated that nothing of it remains. For example, the first point of contention seems to be the prayer against the Supreme Court. We could move that under an account of the activities of the church he pastored at that time, right alongside any verifiable positive information. Did that church experience rapid during that period, or otherwise do something of note? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll check my timeline. The fact is, Hymers got a lot of media attention, from the 70s through at least the mid 1980s, and there were other notable incidents--from the change in philosophy that led to a "real church" (the Tabernacle) to silly little things like his appearance on The Wally George Show "Hotseat." It could all be blended together in a way that blended the praise and the criticism.Scooge (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest Round of Edits

Kyu came in and reverted a bunch of stuff, which made me realize that (1) I hadn't saved my last edits [the ones in which I attempted to be charitable, and discuss the "good aspects" of Maranatha Chapel and ODCC], and (2) I hadn't saved a version with the excellent edits of the guy who edited this after me.

So because of Kyu's reversion, we've lost a lot of ground on this article--it's the usual thing: he's removed all negative sourcing, and gone back to specifying where Glendale is in relation to Los Angeles, rather than linking Glendale, California. Weird. And, you know: we're back to the press-release language in the lead, and the "translated into nine languages" chorus in every paraagraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Scooge Gets Slapped Down

First, please do not call other's good faith edits vandalism, for information on what actually constitutes vandalism, please see WP:VAND. Secondly, given your conflict of interest its unlikely that you or Kyu should be editing this article at all and that explains why we're going back and forth between two extremes as opposed to working towards a neutral article.

Its not really very helpful to simply revert all of someone's changes - for example, what was the concern about moving the biography section up? I believe you mentioned that yourself earlier, so I don't think that needed to be changed back. Also, the lead paragraph that you reverted to needs quite a bit of work - it does not give a good overview of the article and instead, only covers controversies about the subject. Some of the information clearly does not belong in the lead, such as "he was mentioned in Ronald Enroth's 'Churches that Abuse.'"

And regarding that subject, could you please be more specific about where in "Churches that Abuse" he is mentioned (page numbers would be particularly helpful)? I've looked through the book and I can't seem to find him mentioned. Hopefully I'll be able to get a few more of the sources being used here shortly and see if I can't help sort this out a bit. In the meantime, it would be very helpful if you would read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interests and one of our key polices, neutral point of view and see if that might help give some ideas on what additional changes need to be made to the article. Shell ^babelfish 12:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Scooge Apologizes

I had a long apology here before, but the system timed me out, since a family crisis erupted in the middle therein. So the long version was lost.

I'm really sorry I lost my temper before. I apologize to Kyu, and to those who have been trying to get this situation adjudicated.

Shell: Enroth names names in the "Churches on the Fringe" article for Eternity magazine. In Churches That Abuse, he does not mention Open Door Community Churches or Hymers by name--but on page 115 (paperback edition) there are several passages that are clearly about Hymers' group--right down to the restrictions on dating, the insistence on vitamins, the constant reference to clearing even very personal matters with the "authorities" in the church.

I do regret my temper tantrum the other day, and won't work on this in future unless I'm in a clear-headed place and feeling more serene than I was the other day.

Kyu, I specifically apologize for referring to your edits as "vandalism." That was especially nasty of me, and entirely uncalled-for. I'm sorry.Scooge (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kyu Annotates His Edits

Scooge: I accept your apology for calling "weird" and committed "vandalism." However, I am taking out the reference to "Churches that Abuse" in the headline, since a book neither names Dr. Hymers nor his church certainly is not significant enough to be placed in the headline, as one of of the things that makes him noteworthy! How can a book that neither names him nor his church be significant enough to be included in a paragraph concerning what is noteworthy about him? Kdl4082 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have given the two times that Dr. Hymers has received media attention regarding a demonstration against abortion, and another against "The Last Temptation of Christ", rather than leaving it with your implication that this is something continual. Kdl4082 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Then, too, I have placed the biography section as number one, as it is in other Wikipedia biographies of noted pastors. I do not think it should be called "Personal Life," since other Wikipedia articles use the word "Biography." Kdl4082 (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the "Controversies" section I put back in the reference to Psalm 109. I see no reason that this should be removed. I also reworded the last few sentences, since I can see no reason for your edit. It seems perfectly reasonable and factual the way it is given.Kdl4082 (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In "The Last Temptation" paragraph I deleted "and spat in his face," because Shell said, "citation needed." The only citation we have are the people who saw it. It has not been written down anywhere yet.Kdl4082 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the next paragraph I explained the Los Angeles Times' quotation, of Hymers using the word "kike" and showed that this was not serious racism, since the words were used informally by a bunch of kids horsing around. There was no racism. I also pointed that Hymers still has members in his church who are from a Jewish background, including his colleague Dr. Christopher Cagan. Kdl4082 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the "King James Only Debate" back to "King James Onlyism" because this is the very term used by those discussing the question. No one calls it the "King James Only Debate." "King James Onlyism" is the term that everyone uses in the fundamental Baptist community. Kdl4082 (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave the correct source for the word "decisionism." Dr. Hymers did not coin this word. It is commonly used by Reformed British evangelicals. Kdl4082 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the "colleagues" was taken out, since they are not Dr. Hymers' colleagues. They are independent Baptist preachers living in various parts of the country. They are not connected to Dr. Hymers in any way. Kdl4082 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last three paragraphs because they were obviously put together to form an extremely negative ending to the article and imply that Hymers is leading a cult. I also removed the external link to Enroth's book, "Churches that Abuse," because this book never mentions Dr. Hymers' name or the name of his church. Kdl4082 (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Scooge Acts Like a Human Being

I'm totally amenable to taking out *Churches that Abuse* [too vague a reference] but I do feel strongly that some mention appear somewhere of the Vitamin C edict and Enroth's "Churches on the Fringe" article from Eternity Magazine. It needn't be prominent.

I've seen "The King James Only Debate," but I tend to frequent Roman Catholic-dominated bookstores these days, so that might explain the discrepancy. Perhaps they are less well-versed (pun not intended).

I really liked the idea of integrating the controversies into either Hymers' bio, or the history of the churches he's led, so that the media attention flows more organically from the history of these groups themselves. Even before you came on board, Kyu, there was still a lot of media attention--both for Maranatha Chapel and for ODCC.

Carl, BTW, says you are whip-smart.Scooge (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scooge:

Thank you for writing a reasonable post. I think the Vitamin C should be kept out. It was only for the leadership of the church in the first place (stewards and helpers), and it was only done in the interest of keeping them from having a series of colds and flu during a particularly bad flu season. It should have been just said verbally, "hey, you kids, take Vitamin C!" It was a short of period of time when this was done, not something even worthy of note. If it hadn't been written down, no one would have thought about it. Don't you agree that Vitamin C is a good thing to take when you are threatened with a cold? That does not seem very strange to me that Dr. Hymers told these leaders to take Vitamin C.

I do not think that Enroth's article from Eternity Magazine should be cited for two reasons. First, because he backed off these accusations after he was contacted by our attorney, John Warwick Montgomery, then head of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law and a noted evangelical attorney. Second, because the magazine itself is no longer in existence this would be a quotation from a now defunct magazine about a subject that Enroth backed away from himself later. I don't think that a "shadowy" article from a defunct magazine is worthy of mention.

The point, regarding the demonstrations, is that they were mostly focused on the 1986 demonstration against abortion and the 1988 demonstration against "The Last Temptation of Christ." There has been virtually no secular media attention since 1988. That's why I feel that media attention is not the central thing in Dr. Hymers' 50 years of ministry. It reflects a relatively small part of his overall ministry. The fact that his sermons go out worlwide in nine languages is of far greater impact and importance, as are his books.

I hope this is the end of our debate. I wish you well. Live in peace!

CC: Jeremy Osher, Attorney at Law Kdl4082 (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lead Paragraph

I was hoping we could talk about how to improve the lead paragraph. Right now, it focuses only on controversies, which ignores better than half of the article. Unless a controversy is long standing and covered by a number of reliable sources its very unlikely that its suitable material for the lead paragraph of the article. Does anyone have suggestions for what the most important points of Dr. Hymers life would be? Those are the things that we'll want to have in the lead and make sure that they are expanded on later in the article. Shell ^babelfish 10:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the lead paragraph to try to make it meet Wikipedia standards, as per your request to improve it. Kdl4082 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Shell:

Evolution from being more charismatic-Evangelical to more Fundamentalist? Has claimed to be one of the most "media-savvy" pastors in SoCal? (That's from the Channel 13 news series.) Has garnered an unusual amount of media attention? Has experienced particularly sharp reversals in his thinking about such matters as whether Catholics are saved, and the acceptability of drinking alcohol (and the advisability of using it liberally)?Scooge (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Osher:

Thanks for your input. I do not agree to a whitewashing of the Hymers article. I'm willing to take out the Enroth book, but not the Enroth article. And Hymers got enough media attention in the 1970s and 1980s to last anyone a lifetime. I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of big public brouhaha, with all those "Anti-Hymers" groups coming back out of the woodwork.

I wish you and your family well. If you have any further concerns, please let me know.

Best,

ScoogeScooge (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Enroth article was later retracted then it has no business being in the article. The article is not a place to toss in anything negative you can find, nor is it a place to toss in everything positive you can find. The goal here is to write a neutral (WP:NPOV) overview of the notable parts of the subject's life and career. If either of you cannot put aside your bias and do that, please stop editing the article any let other editors who can write neutrally do so.

Scooge, your comment about "I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of big public brouhaha" really sounds like a threat to bring in the anti-hymers groups if you don't get your way. I assure you, were that to happen, the article and possibly even the talk page would simply be protected to prevent damage to the subject. I would suggest you retract the threat and avoid making any similar statements in the future. Shell ^babelfish 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

More edits

I have taken out the external link called, "The Hymerica Archives" for three reasons: (1) The title of the section is sophomoric, unworthy of representation on Wikipedia; (2) The photograph of Hymers with President Reagan has a subtitle, "Who paid for this?" It was paid for by President Reagan himself! (3) The material in the archives is based almost entirely on documents that were amended and/or discarded over 20 years ago. Kdl4082 (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken out "Supreme Court Judge" from the lead paragraph, because Hymers did more than one demonstration against abortion, and because they are not Supreme Court "Judges." They are called "Justices." It seems to me that Scooge is writing these things without giving what she writes sufficient thought. Kdl4082 (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hate to see anything "sophomoric" appear in an article about a man who once went on The Wally George Show to exchange potty humor with George from "the hot seat." I could probably get a transcript of that, too.Scooge (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Shell:

I tried to upgrade the article tonight, as per your instructions, but Scooge changed everything as soon as I put it up. Scooge flips everything as soon as I try to upgrade it according to your standards. Kdl4082 (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok folks, I've taken a stab at making the changes that I keep suggesting, namely removing any fluff, incorporating controversies into the flow of the article and in general, trying to come up with a neutral presentation of the notable information about the subject's life. You'll probably notice that I put {{citation needed}} marks in several places where I think we should be mentioning the source of the information. Its ok if it the same source that's used elsewhere (in fact, if that's the case, I'd be happy to show you how to do that quickly an easily without having to repeat the entire source). So the question now is - is there anything missing from the article? Are there any concerns over the changes or anything you might have done differently? Are there an any words or statements that are still unnecessary to the article? Shell ^babelfish 16:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Eternity Magazine Article, Etc.

1) For the record, I have no intention of bringing any outsiders into this wiki-dispute in any way, shape, or form. I'm only saying that if the final product has too much of a puff-piece feel to it, that may anger some of the others survivors of the Hymers cult. And I'm not actually one of the passionate former Hymerites--the others feel more strongly than I, and other web sites could crop up. I don't mean it as a threat, because for all I know the other guys are all working lots of overtime right now and won't get overexcited. They do have jobs and stuff. But Hymers is very publicity-sensitive, and I felt he should account for that in his calculations.

The way I worded it may have sounded threatening, and for that I apologize. I would hope that the Wikipedia is not a place for threats of any kind--legal or otherwise. Though if Hymers and his legal team want to send me any more threats, I'd be happy to send them my real name and current address; I hate to see them hassling people here who are trying to help.

He might want to sign the letter, though: he sent the last one out anonymously, and it looked pretty silly, because several of us got the same silly anonymous threat.

2) I've played it pretty straight, here. I've admitted to my bias, and I've requested help from neutral parties time and time again. The one time I did lose my temper and drastically revise the article--because I felt that I'd worked very hard on it, and Kyu had undone everything I'd tried to accomplish, despite my being very generous about what I felt to be the merits of Maranatha Chapel and ODCC--I apologized.

3) Enroth did not retract his article about the Vitamin C issue, to my knowledge. If Hymers' colleagues and legal representation are going to claim that, I would like to see a citation for it/documentation of it. In fact, Enroth repeated and expanded the scope of his assertions about Hymers' churches when he alluded to the Hymers' group in *Churches that Abuse.* To my knowledge, the only reason he did NOT name Hymers' group in the book was that Hymers' church had been disbanded by that point--though I am certainly aware that Hymers pulled every string he could to silence Enroth, and years later, fatigued by legal (and other) hassles from Hymers and other cult leaders, Enroth swore off naming names altogether.

At Shell's suggestion, I'm taking a break. I may or may not be back. Scooge (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if Enroth retracted the statement, then we need some verification of it, otherwise without that verification, if its appropriate for the article, it can go back in. However, this works both ways - please don't make statements like "pulled every string...to silence" or "fatigued by legal...hassles" without some kind of verification either. Shell ^babelfish 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One other thing - were there still areas of the article you felt were written in a "puff piece" manner? I tried to take out anything that wasn't relevant and change the wording to be more neutral over all. I didn't mean to suggest that you take a break from editing Wikipedia (we'd love your help), but just that you, and anyone else with a strong conflict on this particular subject consider using the talk page of the article to discuss your concerns, but leaving the editing of the article to editors without a conflict. Shell ^babelfish 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As previously noted, I have aesthetic issues with (1) repeating "nine languages" in the "biography" section when it's in the lead. I would think it would be stylistically better to specify the "nine" only in one place, to avoid redundancy. (2) The specifying where Glendale is in relation to Los Angeles. I'm writing this from Glendale right now: anyone in SoCal knows exactly where this city is. Anyone outside SoCal probably doesn't care. It just strikes me as incredibly awkward, and I do not know why Hymers insists on doing it. (In point of fact, though, I don't believe Glendale and Los Angeles share a border at all, unless it's in the Griffith Park area. There are many towns in between L.A. and Glendale: Los Feliz, Silverlake, etc.)Scooge (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Graph 5 under "theological"--need to name Last Temptation of Christ in actual text.Scooge (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - the way it was linked resulted in it showing "book" instead of the actual name - I've fixed that. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Have we determined that Hymers has publicly expressed regret for the "Death-prayer"? What was the source on that?Scooge (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing "became concerned as he saw . . . " (graph on the abortion demonstration) still seems to be taking Hymers' POV.Scooge (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I added quite a few requests for references into the article - as Scooge mentions, there are a quite a few areas where the article makes assertions about what Hymers thinks or feels - we need a source that backs up those claims. I also removed some sources - for example, when talking about Hymers being upset over millions of abortions, the source given was the report commissioned by Regan on abortion which can only back up the statement "millions of abortions" but does not mention Hymers or Hymers beliefs in any way. What we need there is a source that verifies that Hymers was upset about the abortions and this led to his protest - sources need to verify what's actually in the statement their supposed to support.

I notice that the allegations of physical abuse documented in the L.A. Times story have been removed. Physical abuse was one of the tools that Hymers used to maintain control over cult members, so I would recommend that it be reinstated in the article.Scooge (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added part of the information on this - the section also had information about a news cast that supposedly covered the church as a "cult of personality" but since it didn't give a full source I wasn't able to verify it so I did not re-insert it. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement that Glendale borders on Los Angeles appears to hinge on which towns/neighborhoods are actually PARTS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, versus which are either cities on their own, or UNINCORPORATED PARTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. It's very difficult to get accurate information from maps on this, as the label "Los Angeles" is often applied, without making it clear whether the name refers to L.A. City or L.A. County.

The last map I looked at appear to have a piece of Los Angeles CITY just a bit north of Glendale, but it's terribly difficult to keep track of the city of L.A.--it's worse than an octopus--it has tentacles everywhere. Nonetheless, the Hymerians' assertions that Glendale borders Los Angeles city on the North rests on Atwater Village, Eagle Rock, Highland Park, Glassell Park, and Silverlake being parts of Los Angeles CITY, rather than unincorporated parts of Los Angeles COUNTY.

Hard to establish. Anyway, I think the phrasing still sounds lame, whether it's technically true or not. Certainly Glendale is within the metropolitan L.A. Area--though it's a good deal closer to Pasadena than it is to L.A. (Glendale and Pasadena ABSOLUTELY share a border--the two towns are right next door to each other.)

When I'm asked where Glendale is, I say "right next to Pasadena." Scooge (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I just double-checked a number of other biographies on Wikipedia and we don't use this kind of wording anywhere. I've changed it back to just indicate Glendale and leave it at that. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Should Ban All Copyeditors, Right Now

1) On the first mention of Hymers' name (in boldface), there should be a space after "Dr." (If, in face, the title "Dr." should be there at all: the article does state that he has a doctorate. I can see leaving the title there for "Dr. Christopher Cagan," since little bio info is given on CC, but I do not recall what our style is on titles / first mention. Strictly speaking, if the Dr. stays in, the Jr. should come out, unless his father also held a doctorate.) But at least can we insert the space, please?

2) We need a period at the end of the last sentence that discusses his celebration of the 50-year anniversary of "his call to the ministry." Though I have mixed feelings about whether that should be in there at all. Is it notable? Is it a rarity for ministers to reach 50 years in the ministry? (Or, wait: when was he "called to the ministry"? Does that 50 years simply designate the anniversary of the moment that he decided he wanted to be a preacher? In either event, the whole segment has that press-releasey feel. But may I at least have a period at the end?)

3) Under "theological views," we find ourselves inside Hymers' head again: "Hymers considers himself . . ." (And: what do OTHER evangelicals/charismatics/fundamentalists consider Hymers? Mightn't they be a bit more objective?)

4) Perhaps I missed this, but I haven't yet seen support for the contention that RLH "regrets" praying for Brennan's death. I seem to remember asking Kyu whether this statement was in "Puritan Speaks," but I do not recall getting an answer. I would like to see some documentation for this claim.

5) Worth noting: the gentleman whom Hymers repeatedly called a "kike" was one of his church elders--in fact, the pastor of one of his "house churches" (kind of a sub-church). Not just a "member." One of RLH's right-hand men.

6) I do not recall hearing why it was that Hymers' appearance in Diane Keaton's *Heaven* was deleted from the article.Scooge (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Shell has given me approval on going ahead and making the purely mechanical changes among the ones I mentioned above.Scooge (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my spelling and punctuation errors; I have a much harder time catching them when writing on-screen. I think that covers point 1 and 2.

For point 3, the idea that Hymers considers himself to be "old school" appears to come from "Iain H. Murray, The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening (The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), pp. 3-18." - I do not have access to this book at the time being, though my local church librarian is trying to locate it for me. I don't believe there is any harm in reporting Hymers theological views as stated by Hymers; one's beliefs tend to be strongly personal, so while others may disagree with his interpretation (and we can report that to the article if it appears to be notable), I think its important to include his thoughts on his beliefs and to attribute those thoughts to him so that there is no ambiguity.

For point 4, the reference given is "Hymers, A Puritan Speaks to Our Dying Nation, ibid., pp. 10-11." - unfortunately I don't have this material at the moment either, so I cannot specifically verify what the source says, but I am trying to locate a copy of Dr. Hymers works that are being used as sources for the article.

For point 5, I checked the Times article being used as a source for that statement, it specifically says "Koenig, 32, who was a top lieutenant for Hymers before quitting the organization in 1981", so perhaps we should be more specific with the statement as well instead of just saying "a member"?

I concur; I think something along the lines of "'a top lieutenant' of Hymers', who left the church in 1981, repeatedly called him a 'kike' . . ." Scooge (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For point 6, I'm not sure when this was removed, though it wasn't in the version I worked with when trying to fix some of the problems in the article. I looked through the history of the article and wasn't readily able to find a version that included information about Hymers' appearance in Diane Keaton's *Heaven*. Would you happen to know what version of the article this was in, or could you recap what you believe should be in the article in regards to this information? Shell ^babelfish 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We might hold off a bit longer; I intend to watch the movie so I can vouch for its content more thoroughly. As I understand it, Hymers is brought in to represent the fundamentalist viewpoint on the afterlife. The original phrasing I used might have been in my original "Robert L. Hymers" article, and simply removed when Kyu merged his new article (R.L. Hymers) with mine.

Other Little Factoids

Some more details on the confrontation between Wasserman and Hymers that might be candidates for inclusion in the "Last Temptation" segment:

• Hymers offering the National Enquirer an exclusive if he pinned Wasserman down in a verbal confrontation at his (W's) favorite restaurant;
• a plane flying overhead with a banner that accused Wasserman of fanning the flames of anti-Semitism;
• the fact that Hymers' followers were chanting about "Jewish money," and that Hymers used this phrase at other times during the controversy;
• the fact that in the meeting between Hymers and the head of the JDL that was supposed to heal the rift between RLH and the Jewish community; the head of the JDL concluded that Hymers was "crazy," and walked out;
• the details I kept putting in that kept coming out--that this whole episode ended RLH's relationship with Moishe Rosen of Jews for Jesus.

Hymers as leader of a cult-like church:

I've located at least one other book published by Zondervan that alludes to Hymers and his church by name as having "fringe" or "extreme" or "isolationist" tendancies.

Shall I provide documentation for these?

It's also worth noting that I can't find my own archives right now, so I don't have access to press coverage from when I knew RLH. But I can find it or get it. Also, at this moment the L.A. Times archives are malfunctioning, and won't cough up anything before the early 1980s.Scooge (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have things that you think would be appropriate for the article, try to word them neutrally (even here) and indicate the reference you're using for the text. Shell ^babelfish 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay.Scooge (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One more little thing: what is the best way for us to confirm the accuracy of claims made that use articles from the Los Angeles Herald Examiner as sources?Scooge (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If they don't have online archives, unfortunately it would mean finding a way to get a hold of the particular source through a library or some similar means. Shell ^babelfish 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to include the use of an airplane banner during the abortion protest/"death prayer" segment; I believe that novelty of this tactic (and the fact that Hymers used it twice) makes it notable.Scooge (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps this is already in the article? Were you referring to this item - "On the same day, his church, the Baptist Tabernacle, chartered a plane to carry a banner reading "Pray for Death:Baby killer Brennan"." - or was there another incident? Shell ^babelfish 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't see that that one had made it in. Sorry.Scooge (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin C

BTW, has there been any success in confirming the claim that Enroth made some sort of public statement that retracted his claims about The Fundamentalist Army in the Eternity magazine article? Just curious.Scooge (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally haven't found anything that would confirm this statement - I believe Kdl4082 originally made this comment, so hopefully they'll see this and be able to let us know where we might be able to confirm the retraction. I would say if we don't hear anything over the next few days, that we should discuss returning the source and information from it to the article. Shell ^babelfish 00:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First Draft, Rewrite of "Last Temptation" Section

Hymers read the The Last Temptation of Christ, a book on which the controversial movie was based, and felt that the making of the movie was an attack on orthodox Christian belief concerning Christ.[5] Jonathan Rauch later referred to Hymers as a "religious zealot" for saying "I think the movie is filthy! I think it is ugly! I think it is going to bring God's fiery judgment upon America."[13]

Hymers led at least two demonstrations against the movie: one included about 200 of Hymers’ followers and occurred at Universal Studios; it featured a small plane overhead that carried a banner that proclaimed, "Wasserman Fans Jew-Hatred W/Temptation." [citation here is “2 Step Back From Film Protest Over Anti-Jewish Tone,” by John Dart, Los Angeles Times, July 23rd, 1988, Home Edition, page 1--To confirm that a plane carried a banner at the first protest at Universal Studios, and to give the approximate head counts at both protests. This article also clarifies that there were two protests, since most press accounts focus on the second, smaller one at Wasserman’s home. Note: can also use this as a primary source if we need to flesh out the widespread opposition among other Temptation protesters to Hymers’ style of protest.]

The second protest included a crowd of approximately fifteen fundamentalist Christians in front of the home of Lew Wasserman, the head of Universal Studios, and featured a “passion play“ in which a blood-soaked Jesus knelt down under the weight of a large cross; another actor played “Wasserman,” and stepped on him repeatedly, holding the Christ-figure down with his foot. Meanwhile, another plane appeared overhead, trailing the same banner about Wasserman encouraging “Jew-hatred,” as Hymers led his followers in a chant about the film being “bankrolled by Jewish money.” [citations: People magazine article, Time magazine article] (Hymers later claimed that he was not aware at the time that the Nazis had also used this term.) [does that datum need a citation?] Hymers’ group also burned Wasserman in effigy at this second protest [Citation: Film, Faith, and Cultural Conflict, by Robin Riley]. These demonstrations caused an outcry from the Jewish community, and several evangelicals and other members of the Christian clergy called Hymers an "anti-Semite"[14].

Irv Rubin, who was at the time the national chairman of the Jewish Defense League, maintained at that time that he “sympathized” with the concerns of evangelicals, "but Hymers wants to make a Jew-hating thing out of it." [citation here is “2 Step Back From Film Protest Over Anti-Jewish Tone,” by John Dart, Los Angeles Times, July 23rd, 1988, Home Edition, page 1] Following these events, Hymers apologized to the Jewish community.[14] Unfortunately, one of his attempts to build bridges ended with Rubin stalking out of a public meeting, and Rubin and Hymers each referring to the other as “crazy.” [“Effort to East Disagreement over ‘Temptation’ Ends in Rancor”, by Marita Hernandez, Los Angeles Times Home Edition, Metro section, page 6]

Before and since this incident, Hymers has repeatedly said that he takes the side of the Jews and the state of Israel. He claims he is not anti-Semitic.[15] He insists that he takes the Scofield Study Bible’s view that the “Abrahamic Covenant” grants favor to the Jews and, thus, to the state of Israel.[citation needed] Yet one of Hymers’ former top lieutenants—who left Hymers’ group in 1981—alleges that Hymers was in the habit of repeatedly caling him a “kike.” [Los Angeles Times’ “Sees Sin All Around Him” article].

Scooge (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this one, and had some suggestions: I think it would make sense stylistically to move Jonathan Rauch's reaction later in the section so that first we present Dr. Hymer's opinion and actions on the subject together and then present any notable reactions. I'm not sure we need to say "at least" unless there's an indication somewhere that there may have been other protests, otherwise we're implying something not really in the sources. In regards to the statement about Dr. Hymer's not realizing the statement was used by Nazi's, I agree that I haven't seen that in any of the sources we've had so far and I believe it would be appropriate to have a source which states that as opposed to putting words in the subject's mouth. I'm not sure about the last paragraph either - right now it almost seems to convey the fact (by using the word Yet) that we believe Dr. Hymer's statements about not being anti-semetic to be untrue - perhaps we can play with the wording a bit? Anyways, those are my thoughts for now :) Shell ^babelfish 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That all makes sense. Actually, I'm not sure that the business of Koenig being called a "kike" has to be in this section at all--it really has more to do with "complaints about abuse from former members of Hymers' churches." Almost misleading to link it to the Last Temptation flap--the two are separate issues, unless one wants to contend that Hymers is an out-and-out anti-Semite, which isn't really true. The other way to handle it would be to bury it in the paragraph (as one of a set of allegations against him in that arena) and CONCLUDE with verbiage about how Hymers says he isn't an anti-Semite, believes the Jews are especially blessed, etc. (for those two data are certainly true, and documented [a least, I know the first one's documented, and I'll bet the second one's written down somewhere and should be confirmable]).Scooge (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I was making some other changes, I decided to take a stab at this section. Please let me know if anyone has comments or concerns. Shell ^babelfish 04:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll check it out. Scooge (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question re: Abortion/Brennan Section

We mention Roe v. Wade twice in consecutive sentences, and imply that Hymers became "concerned" right after this decision--and then led a particularly controversial set of demonstrations against it 13 years later. Might we drop the allusion to 1973, and simply pick up the narrative in 1986? --

In June of 1886, Hymers led a protest against abortion in the United States. Concerned about the impact of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, he called on his parishioners to pray that God remove Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan from his seat on the court by means of death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, its not good wording to have this twice - I think the wording changes fixed this. Shell ^babelfish 04:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question re: Church Chronology

Have we had any success in confirming that The Fundamentalist Army was actually disbanded (in 1985, or at any point), rather than simply becoming The Fundamentalist Tabernacle?Scooge (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find such a reference, although there last quote I can find that lists him as that group's founder is from 1988. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tabernacle, or Army? In any event, my understanding is that the numbers became quite low toward the end in the F.A.--so I'm wondering if it sort of limped along for a few years and then became the Tabernacle, or whether it actually disbanded. It seems like a distinction we ought to make, if we can find sourcing that establishes that aspect of the timeline.Scooge (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ferrell,David (August 12, 1988). "Hymers Fight — He Sees Sin All Around Him", Los Angeles Times, p. 3." says "But amid bitter infighting, the organization ultimately crumbled." I'm digging around to see if I can find something more concrete, but right now I haven't seen anything that connects the Fundamentalist Tabernacle to this group either. Shell ^babelfish 04:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Much improved !

I've been off-line due to RL issues for a week or so, and just wanted to say that this article has improved dramatically from the version that I stubbed a month ago. I know that work continues, but the primary editors should take a moment to congratulate themselves. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Things have been working very well since Shell said "don't you kids make me STOP this car!" Of course, I'm wondering whether any of the rewrites I suggested here might be acceptable for the article itself.Scooge (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to commenting on this recently. Since I'm making most of the changes myself, I need to be able to take responsibility for those edits, which means a lot of double-checking and cross-checking references so I'm comfortable that I'm getting it right. I appreciate your willingness to back away from the article a bit and work things out here, its been a great help! Shell ^babelfish 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Rawks

(I'm not supposed to say "rawks" even on a talk page, am I?)

The entry is really looking good right now. I have two small, borderline-stupid questions:

1) Is there an argument in favor of not naming Jeff Koenig? Or is that necessary because he made the accusation? It's just that he is an attorney at a downtown law firm, and I imagine that he (or his firm, or his family) might be reluctant to come (back [in his case]) into the public eye via this old connection with Hymers. Thoughts?

2) Is it necessary or advisable for the sake of balance to have a sentence or two at the end of the "Ruckmanism"/King-James-Only debate to refute the position that the texts upon which the KJV are based are the most reliable? Most of my associates who are biblical scholars have maintained the opposite of what Hymers appears to be advancing: that the KJV is highly accurate, but based on less-reliable texts. Should there be a sentence from a Biblical scholar who takes THAT position, or is that all getting just a bit scripturally recondite?Scooge (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as 1, possibly. If he's not had any involvement outside of that particular incident then we probably don't need to include his name - someone interested can always go to the source for more information. Looks like you already figured out number 2 :) Shell ^babelfish 05:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Scriptures, Stylistics Concerns, Chronology

• I think #2 above was rather idiotic of me--the article is about Hymers, not which translation of the Bible is most authoritative. I withdraw the question.

• I went back and attempted to italicize the names of books and magazines, and put article names/headlines in quotes. Unfortunately, I may be channeling other style sheets I've worked with, rather than Wikipedia's. Let me know if those quotes/itals shouldn't be there, in which case I'll take 'em out again--but I had thought Wikipedia matched Chicago, Words Into Type, and AP in those particular regards.

• Maranatha Chapel officially changed its name to Open Door Community Church in the mid-to-late 1970s (I can give you a precise date once I find the box that has all my old church bulletins in it, but I've moved--though a peek at the Hymerica Archives could probably tell us as well. Of course, if that (real) chronology contradicts what we have in print from third parties, we'll have to change it back, so let me know if our established sources say something different. (FWIW, my letter of excommunication, dated 1978 or thereabouts, was on ODCC letterhead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 10:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops--I did screw up on those quotation marks in the references; I'll try to fix that so as not to make more work around here than I have to, and I'll look back over the style guide in the next few days so as not to become too burdensome with my "helping." Scooge (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As far references go I was just using the standard citation templates because they're rather easy and if I remember correctly, they're supposed to automatically use italics and quotes in the right places, but I don't know that I've ever really checked them that closely. I believe they were modeled after APA style - there's examples of each of those templates at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style if you want to look into them a bit further.

I believe the source that I found which mentioned Maranatha changing to Open Door just said "in the 70s" and wasn't any more specific. I haven't really seen much else in the way of time lines from third-party sources and I haven't had any luck locating a copy of any of Dr. Hymers books either, though I'm not certain if any of those have historical information in them. This may be an area that we're going to have a difficult time pinning down exactly. Shell ^babelfish 05:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think 1970s is okay--but I just know it went from Maranatha to ODCC circa 1977. At some point in 1980-84 they were recruiting at UCLA as The Fundamentalist Army. I believe that was in 1983, come to think of it. So I know that they were ODCC in the late 1970s and FA by 1983-4.

Just for the heck of it, I'm trying to have the transcripts I have of the news show authenticated by someone who works for the actual station. I trust the people who transcribe them, but having official copies would be better.

Oddly, it WOULD help to get a transcript of Hymer's appearance on "Wally George," because the way he is introduced would tell us where his churches were at that point in history.

Still, I think the article looks pretty balanced and complete as it stands.Scooge (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More Way-Trivial Concerns

1) I'm going to assume that you mean that Wiki's style is based on "AP" style, rather that "APA" style (American Psychological Association). If my recollection is correct, that may mean I'll have to go back in soon and removed all those serial commas I so lovingly put in there. (Though I'll double-check on whether AP has come to its senses on that issue, and whether that particular aesthetic evil indeed made it into the Wiki-stylesheet.) I really need to go through this one more time, systematically, wearing only my proofreading hat, and get those teensy issues squared away.

2) I'm sorry I blew it on the "Doctorate of Literature" thing. I was going to double-check on that, but someone held something shiny up in front of my face, and . . . well, there you go.

3) It appears that what the reference templates do is: a) use English/scientific/"logical" notation inasmuch as commas within references go OUTSIDE the quotation marks (this, of course, makes sense in terms of the fact that the reference templates work as a sort of mini-database; there would be no way to Americanize the references--I just don't think it could be done, since they are in different fields; b) add quotation marks to names of / headlines for articles; c) do not italicize the names of books--that's the one I had to go in and fix manually.

4) Do we happen to have sourcing on the assertion that both of Hymers' sons are now in graduate school? Now that I think about it, it's sort of a strange claim, because a) we know that one of the twins just gave an address to his graduating class this past May/June, and it would be odd that they both would have started graduate school over the summer, immediately after graduation; b) didn't RLH III pop over to the previous Wiki-article on RLH Jr. and ask us to take it down, because he'd just started a demanding full-time job? It's starting to sound slightly "off" that they both got into graduate school so quickly, and that one of them is combining it with what sounds like FT work. Do we have a citation on this particular datum?Scooge (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah, it may be AP style, but honestly, different editors use different styles - some editors don't use the templates I did, I just happen to find them easier. I'd be happy with whatever you think works best. If the templates are getting in the way of formatting the reference, you can just replace the template with the full citation formatted however you want and as long as its still between the ref tags (and you don't change the name="" part), it will come out that way in the reference list.

As far as the sons go, I'm honestly not sure where it came from, but honestly, its pretty harmless, don't you think? Shell ^babelfish 09:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Shell. I took it out. I was getting a lot of flak for it. You have no idea what it's like to be caught in the middle like this . . . oh, wait ; ) Perhaps you do.Scooge (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Word Repetition/Grammatical Misuse of Word "allege"

I'm troubled by Waldrip's edit because the word "allege" already appears in that sentence, and because it does not make sense in the way it's used structurally. It may not even be any more accurate than "recall," because of its connotations of use in a court of law, and because we don't know what tone of voice these former members of Hymers' church used in their recollections. Did they sound like they were making accusations?--or just stating matter-of-factly what happened?

I vote that we revert to the previous non-redundant, grammatically correct formulation.Scooge (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)