This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Evangelicalism in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Evangelicalism in the United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Evangelicalism in the United States at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I think the inclusion of "pseudoscience" to describe alternative theories to evolution is not adhering to WP:NPOV. We need to give both sides the best arguments they advance and not arrive at conclusion statements of fact without proper citations to an actual scientific consensus. Evolution is a majority stance in the scientific community, but NPOV necessitates a fair hearing of the minority views. Cyberpunkas ( talk) 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."<ref>[[#National Academy of Sciences 1999|National Academy of Sciences 1999]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25 p. 25]</ref>
An uncited part of the article connects Evangelicalism to Young Earth creationism. However the article on YE creationism lists among the organizations who support this only the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. They are relatively small organizations and may not represent Evangelicalism as a whole. The rest of the list involves non-Evangelical Lutherans, Seventh-day Adventists, and Baptists.
Is the connection between Evangelicalism and YE creationism strong enough to be included here or is this is a general issue with some strands of Protestantism? Are there any reliable sources that confirm the connection? Or is this original research?
The entire "Recurrent themes" section currently seems to lack citations to reliable sources, but I am puzzled why a controversial claim seems to have nothing to back it up. Dimadick ( talk) 14:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The relevant section has been tagged with a need for citations since June. I am more concerned that this violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons by connecting a still extant religious group and its adherents to a fringe anti-science movement. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Dimadick ( talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evangelicalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
5 lines about the Christian Right and 15 lines about the Christian Left. Wiki supposed to be objective, yet the Left has a 3 time larger section than the Right. balance, someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 ( talk) 15:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evangelicalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that what really distinguishes evangelicalism from other branches Christianity these days is three things: Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Biblical Inerrancy. There is a lot of talk about other things, but I think it really comes down to these three things. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 02:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Karl Barth says:
I don't want to be argumentative, but rather just engage in some intellectual discussion aiming toward improving the article. My gut feel is that the article should hit strongest on the three beliefs sola fide, sola scriptura, and biblical inerrancy. First of all, I know that there can be many definitions of evangelicalism, but I think what makes the most sense is the meaning of evangelicalism that the American media uses. This is evangelicalism characterized by media outlets such at Christianity Today and The Christian Post, and colleges such as Wheaton College (Illinois), Liberty University, and other colleges in the Christian College Consortium. The two Sola's and Inerrancy are really much more at the heart of this common language "evangelicalism" than many of the other topics in the article, like evolution, abortion, secularism, and Christian nation. As for evolution, the deniers have to choose either Old Earth or Young Earth. A Young Earth belief makes it very difficult for any of the evangelical colleges to teach biology with any integrity, so evangelical beliefs in this area are becoming somewhat fuzzy recently. Old Earth is hard to reconcile with biblical inerrancy. Abortion is opposed by many non-evangelical denominations, most notably many Catholics, so this is not really distinctive of evangelicalism per se. Secularism is actually a hot debate within evangelicalism itself. Many evangelicals feel that separating church and state is really in their best long-term interests. They fear a day when the Nones control the government, and ecumenical faith is force-fed in public schools. Christian Nation is similar. There is a strong vein of US evangelicalism that wants nothing to do with the government, because they fear that government favoritism of evangelicalism now could easily swing to government persecution of evangelicalism in the future. All in all, I think the article should focus on the two Sola's and biblical inerrancy, rather than these other extraneous topics. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 04:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Articles about other churches have covered the problems they have with organizational sexual abuse - I propose that this one needs the same. Perhaps start with the #churchtoo movement (the evangelical parallel to #metoo), go on to Rachael Denhollander, exclusion and bigotry of LGBTQI+ people, through to Mike Cosper's chronicling abuse in the Mars Hill megachurch. A couple of refs to start with:
Before I launch into this - any comments for or against?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 12:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
evangelism 105.112.177.88 ( talk) 16:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Evangelicalism in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Evangelicalism in the United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Evangelicalism in the United States at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I think the inclusion of "pseudoscience" to describe alternative theories to evolution is not adhering to WP:NPOV. We need to give both sides the best arguments they advance and not arrive at conclusion statements of fact without proper citations to an actual scientific consensus. Evolution is a majority stance in the scientific community, but NPOV necessitates a fair hearing of the minority views. Cyberpunkas ( talk) 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."<ref>[[#National Academy of Sciences 1999|National Academy of Sciences 1999]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25 p. 25]</ref>
An uncited part of the article connects Evangelicalism to Young Earth creationism. However the article on YE creationism lists among the organizations who support this only the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. They are relatively small organizations and may not represent Evangelicalism as a whole. The rest of the list involves non-Evangelical Lutherans, Seventh-day Adventists, and Baptists.
Is the connection between Evangelicalism and YE creationism strong enough to be included here or is this is a general issue with some strands of Protestantism? Are there any reliable sources that confirm the connection? Or is this original research?
The entire "Recurrent themes" section currently seems to lack citations to reliable sources, but I am puzzled why a controversial claim seems to have nothing to back it up. Dimadick ( talk) 14:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The relevant section has been tagged with a need for citations since June. I am more concerned that this violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons by connecting a still extant religious group and its adherents to a fringe anti-science movement. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Dimadick ( talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evangelicalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
5 lines about the Christian Right and 15 lines about the Christian Left. Wiki supposed to be objective, yet the Left has a 3 time larger section than the Right. balance, someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 ( talk) 15:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evangelicalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that what really distinguishes evangelicalism from other branches Christianity these days is three things: Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Biblical Inerrancy. There is a lot of talk about other things, but I think it really comes down to these three things. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 02:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Karl Barth says:
I don't want to be argumentative, but rather just engage in some intellectual discussion aiming toward improving the article. My gut feel is that the article should hit strongest on the three beliefs sola fide, sola scriptura, and biblical inerrancy. First of all, I know that there can be many definitions of evangelicalism, but I think what makes the most sense is the meaning of evangelicalism that the American media uses. This is evangelicalism characterized by media outlets such at Christianity Today and The Christian Post, and colleges such as Wheaton College (Illinois), Liberty University, and other colleges in the Christian College Consortium. The two Sola's and Inerrancy are really much more at the heart of this common language "evangelicalism" than many of the other topics in the article, like evolution, abortion, secularism, and Christian nation. As for evolution, the deniers have to choose either Old Earth or Young Earth. A Young Earth belief makes it very difficult for any of the evangelical colleges to teach biology with any integrity, so evangelical beliefs in this area are becoming somewhat fuzzy recently. Old Earth is hard to reconcile with biblical inerrancy. Abortion is opposed by many non-evangelical denominations, most notably many Catholics, so this is not really distinctive of evangelicalism per se. Secularism is actually a hot debate within evangelicalism itself. Many evangelicals feel that separating church and state is really in their best long-term interests. They fear a day when the Nones control the government, and ecumenical faith is force-fed in public schools. Christian Nation is similar. There is a strong vein of US evangelicalism that wants nothing to do with the government, because they fear that government favoritism of evangelicalism now could easily swing to government persecution of evangelicalism in the future. All in all, I think the article should focus on the two Sola's and biblical inerrancy, rather than these other extraneous topics. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 04:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Articles about other churches have covered the problems they have with organizational sexual abuse - I propose that this one needs the same. Perhaps start with the #churchtoo movement (the evangelical parallel to #metoo), go on to Rachael Denhollander, exclusion and bigotry of LGBTQI+ people, through to Mike Cosper's chronicling abuse in the Mars Hill megachurch. A couple of refs to start with:
Before I launch into this - any comments for or against?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 12:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
evangelism 105.112.177.88 ( talk) 16:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)