This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
These definitions differ in weight and sophistication:
maryann 23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This article has essentially no citations or verification. It's a culmulative original research list-themed essay and should be deleted. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't be so bossy. quite a few of those deletions are indisputably supprted as deletions in that the premise of the article does not warrant mainstream, recognized flavors being included here. For example, read the premise of the article and tell me why Pentecostals are in this article. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===>What? I'm not sure that I can understand everything you're saying here, but this article does none of the following:
so it isn't original research. By the way, telling me not to be bossy is being bossy. I'm just trying to help you out here. The burden of proof is on you to defend deleting them, not on us for keeping them. Pentecostals are probably on here because the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement began within several Western denominational families before the founding of separate churches and those churches are not within one church body or government, but loosely affiliated by a common attitude toward theology and worship, the definition of a movement. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===>Burden of proof The status quo was established, and you are the one making the claim; you need to provide evidence to convince other people that your claim is reliable. You haven't. Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. Why is it that saying your edits are hysterical is a personal attack, but calling me bossy isn't? Clearly, you've got some kind of agenda to push as a "John 3:16" Christian that has some hostility toward other schema of Christian taxonomy, and it's totally bankrupt, so you're looking for a justification to delete massive parts of the article. This is not original research. Which of the classifications of original research is this? If you can't tell me, then you can't expect me to accept your conclusion. Is List of cities in Morocco original research, too? By your reasoning, it would be, since there is no academic source that has the same list and calls it "List of Cities in Morocco." Preposterous. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===>One last tidbit May I also add that for a Wikipedia article to explicitly say that Christian Identity is not a Christian movement is POV. Since adherents of Christian Identity call it a Christian movement, all we can do is contrast it with mainstream Christianity, add sources that contradict their testimony, and explain how it differs from what is commonly understood as a Christian movement. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a real reason for giving some movements identical entries on more than one list? AnonMoos 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've spotted two entries that reflect what I believe to be errors. First the entry on "creationism" confines this movement to a belief in six day creation. Age-day creationists, Framework theorists, and Gap theorists (not prominent any more) all insist they are creationists, but reject the idea of a literal, six day creation. Some of the leading, contemporary creationists, such as Hugh Ross, differ quite vocally with the literal day theorists. Thus, the article is inaccuarate at this point. Also, the editor who says New Thought began with Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) seems to be advocating an unsourced, novel idea which does not belong in a reference work. New Thought's origins and development is more complex than I can address on a talk page, but most historians recognize an earlier origin than Christian Science and believe Christian Science was never part of the New Thought Movement. In spite of its many similarities to New Thought, there are sufficient differences to cause mind science practitioners to consider them part of different schools, and I would be interested to read any scholarly accounts which consider the Church of Christ, Scientist to be part of New Thought. One could argue that Unity, under Quimby's influence, represents something akin to an origin for New Thought even though Unity never joined the New Thought Alliance. If no one objects to my comments I wil come back soon and correct these entries. Will3935 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Noticed that the last bit of the section on the "Quiverfull" movement read "Full of crazies." Much as I agree with the writer's analysis of the Quiverfulls, we need to keep a NPOV on this article. Please refrain from injecting your own opinions into the article; it needs to stay objective. Remember, this is an encyclopedia page, so it's no place for polemics. Beggarsbanquet ( talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
These definitions differ in weight and sophistication:
maryann 23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This article has essentially no citations or verification. It's a culmulative original research list-themed essay and should be deleted. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't be so bossy. quite a few of those deletions are indisputably supprted as deletions in that the premise of the article does not warrant mainstream, recognized flavors being included here. For example, read the premise of the article and tell me why Pentecostals are in this article. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===>What? I'm not sure that I can understand everything you're saying here, but this article does none of the following:
so it isn't original research. By the way, telling me not to be bossy is being bossy. I'm just trying to help you out here. The burden of proof is on you to defend deleting them, not on us for keeping them. Pentecostals are probably on here because the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement began within several Western denominational families before the founding of separate churches and those churches are not within one church body or government, but loosely affiliated by a common attitude toward theology and worship, the definition of a movement. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===>Burden of proof The status quo was established, and you are the one making the claim; you need to provide evidence to convince other people that your claim is reliable. You haven't. Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. Why is it that saying your edits are hysterical is a personal attack, but calling me bossy isn't? Clearly, you've got some kind of agenda to push as a "John 3:16" Christian that has some hostility toward other schema of Christian taxonomy, and it's totally bankrupt, so you're looking for a justification to delete massive parts of the article. This is not original research. Which of the classifications of original research is this? If you can't tell me, then you can't expect me to accept your conclusion. Is List of cities in Morocco original research, too? By your reasoning, it would be, since there is no academic source that has the same list and calls it "List of Cities in Morocco." Preposterous. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===>One last tidbit May I also add that for a Wikipedia article to explicitly say that Christian Identity is not a Christian movement is POV. Since adherents of Christian Identity call it a Christian movement, all we can do is contrast it with mainstream Christianity, add sources that contradict their testimony, and explain how it differs from what is commonly understood as a Christian movement. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a real reason for giving some movements identical entries on more than one list? AnonMoos 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've spotted two entries that reflect what I believe to be errors. First the entry on "creationism" confines this movement to a belief in six day creation. Age-day creationists, Framework theorists, and Gap theorists (not prominent any more) all insist they are creationists, but reject the idea of a literal, six day creation. Some of the leading, contemporary creationists, such as Hugh Ross, differ quite vocally with the literal day theorists. Thus, the article is inaccuarate at this point. Also, the editor who says New Thought began with Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) seems to be advocating an unsourced, novel idea which does not belong in a reference work. New Thought's origins and development is more complex than I can address on a talk page, but most historians recognize an earlier origin than Christian Science and believe Christian Science was never part of the New Thought Movement. In spite of its many similarities to New Thought, there are sufficient differences to cause mind science practitioners to consider them part of different schools, and I would be interested to read any scholarly accounts which consider the Church of Christ, Scientist to be part of New Thought. One could argue that Unity, under Quimby's influence, represents something akin to an origin for New Thought even though Unity never joined the New Thought Alliance. If no one objects to my comments I wil come back soon and correct these entries. Will3935 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Noticed that the last bit of the section on the "Quiverfull" movement read "Full of crazies." Much as I agree with the writer's analysis of the Quiverfulls, we need to keep a NPOV on this article. Please refrain from injecting your own opinions into the article; it needs to stay objective. Remember, this is an encyclopedia page, so it's no place for polemics. Beggarsbanquet ( talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)