Template talk:Family International

... started initially with (32) entries.

Hey, cool. I guess you noticed that I went on a Wikisearch for articles to add to Category:Children of God. Joie de Vivre 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but I did take a look at the category for some relevant articles for the template.

Smee 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

This looks to me like undue weight to put the names of members or ex-members or people whose parents were members in the template. So I removed those sections. --Justanother 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COG is a group of people; how is it undue weight to mention... the people? Joie de Vivre 05:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed several POV and barely connected links from the template. Please discuss here the relevance of such links before restoring them. Sfacets 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your opinion that these links are "POV and barely connected" before removing them. Joie de Vivre ^T 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may wish to view Talk:Children of God#Removal of content; other editors have expressed disapproval of Sfacets' removal of content from Children of God. See diff, diff. Joie de Vivre ^T 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors (i.e. all who responded) at Children of God disagree with what you did there. I believe that what you are doing here similarly goes against consensus. Joie de Vivre ^T 12:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is as I mentionned in the article - have a look at the other templates in the same category - notice anything different? You cannot arbitrarily place links to push your own POV such as links to articles on anti-cult organisations - this is both misleading and does not solely deal with the COG. Sfacets 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't get into COI, however the reason there is a talk page is to discuss issues, and so far, there has not been much input from editors not directly associated with the article or the movement.Sfacets 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your selective removal of items from the template as POV-pushing. You even removed

Flirty fishing, which was invented by David Berg

and practiced solely by COG members. Removing an article on a topic that is solely associated with the COG, how does this improve the template?

Also, I do not understand what you meant, when you said "there has not been much input from editors not directly associated with the article or the movement". Joie de Vivre ^T 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point Sfacets is trying to make about the participation of editors who are associated with the subject. Is it a bad thing or a good thing?

As for the specific links in the template, most if not all of the entries that were removed appear to have a direct connection to the topic. It'd be best to bring them to the talk page to discuss rather than deleting with no consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what they mean by "associated". Joie de Vivre ^T 23:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sfacets. That is not how it works on Wikipedia (I trust you have been around a while to know this). You do not remove alleged POV and then discuss it; you first discuss it, get a consensus, and then remove it. The links you removed because they are "POV" is only your opinion. As Joie de Vire pointed out, you removed the link to the

Flirty fishing article. That not only does not make any sense it almost betrays an agenda. The original links should remain. We can discuss each link individually before anyone removes them. --Thorwald 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The edit summary restoring the names (here) indicated that "[a]ll of these people have self-identified themselves as affiliated (past/present) with this group". Where, in each article, are these two criteria—self-identification and relevance to notable activities—satisfied? I checked each article prior to removing the names and found content confirming that the individuals' parents were members of COG/TFI, but little else. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who isn't unequivocally a current member, and who hasn't self-identified as such, should not be included in the template, full stop. Including 'former members' in a list entitled 'members' is just plain wrong. Can anyone give me a valid reason why I shouldn't delete all the names until such time as this is corrected (and sources to back it up provided)? If I don't see a response soon, I'll go ahead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go a step further to suggest that ordinary members should not be listed at all. I understand and support listing the leaders of an organization and people known for their association (pro- or anti-) with the organization, but why should a general template about TFI contain a list of ordinary members who are not known primarily for their affiliation with TFI? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Per WP:BLP#CAT, we shouldn't include anyone who's notability isn't linked to their membership. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would rule out

Jonas Anderson (singer)—should be removed for lack of sources, leaving only Jeremy Spencer and Ricky Rodriguez. Their notability is linked to their membership in TFI, and they probably should be included. Perhaps the "Leadership" and "Members" groups could be combined into one "People" group: David Berg (founder) - Karen Zerby (current leader) - Ricky Rodriguez (ex-member) - Jeremy Spencer (member). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As the one would reverted back to inclusion of those names, I reconsidered and I now agree with you. Some of those names do not belong. When I wrote that "they have self-identified", I should have clarified. Some of them have. The entire Phoenix family were members of TFI and the biography of River Phoenix includes several paragraphs on his time in Venezuela in TFI and he said a bit about it. Joaquin Phoenix also said a bit about his time in several interviews. Rose McGowan also talked about her time in TFI in Italy in several interviews, as did Christopher Owens and Susan Cagle/Justice. Christy Gibson and Jonas Anderson have been very vocal of their membership and support of TFI in Thailand (and TFI promoted their involvement in TFI). Kerenina Sunny Halim was, in the past, very active in TFI. Anyway, I don't really care either way. If you don't think these names should be included, feel free to delete any or all of them. --Thorwald (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No members belong in the template. It is simply not possible to provide the necessary details and citations in the template. It doesn't matter whether they are current or former members. Imagine including membership lists in templates for any other organization, it would be a nightmare. Would we put a list of members of the Catholic Church is a template about the Catholic Church? Lutherans in a Lutheran Church template? If the members held some sort of official position or role, then yes. Born into the group or simply joined it? Not!