Talk:Corporate election

Assessment Talk Section
This section is for assessment discussions for the WP:Christianity assessment department.

March 29th
Set class as C and importance as Low, added Theology Work Group tag and set as High for that group.

This article needs some work, and at times seems to be just a summary of one or two persons work (9 footnotes in a row from a single source across 5 pages of that source!). The research needs to be MUCH more broad in order to get upgraded further.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain what difference it makes that there are 9 footnotes in a row from a single source when it is the only scholarly source available that deals extensively with these specific objections made to corporate election? As to the research needing to be MUCH more broad in order to get upgraded, it would be helpful if you would be able to cite scholars that have written extensively on corporate election but who are not featured here. ThanksClassArm (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)ClassArm


 * Do you really think that it is the only scholarly source that deals with these specific objections? What it makes a difference is that if there really is only one scholar who is answering the objections, then perhaps the response doesn't fit the requirements for notability? As far as other sources, I would think that you could find good answers in just about any Calvinist Systematic Theologian. Michael Horton, Robert Peterson, or Michael Williams would be a good start. RC Sproul would be another.ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
Why was this article marked for fixing? I was hoping that there would be some guidelines here on the talk page, for further research and edits. The article looks okay to a cursory reading by a non-Wiki reader.

New Revision to Article
Greetings, For those who have watched this article, it has obviously undergone a complete revision. As you can see in the history of edits, I started editing but since I did not cite reasons, Vrenator thought that vandalism was taking place, so it was deleted. I apologized for this and understood the concern. I gave Vrenator a heads on the upcoming revision. I appreciated Vrenator's help in setting me up with an editing user that helped me to clean up the article before posting. Since this article was in the Start-Class, and did not adhere to Wikipedia standards, I felt that a thorough revision was necessary. Corporate election is an important theological topic in Christianity, especially among Arminian theologians. I have read and used the best scholarly sources in putting this article together. Eventually I would like to add three more misunderstandings that critics level against corporate election. I have the information but it needs to be condensed. I plan on adding a section on the significance of Ephesians 1:4 to the discussion of corporate election. I have the information, but will need more time polish it before posting. I have sought to adhere to Wikipedia standards, so I would appreciate any feedback with concerns that people may have. ThanksClassArm (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reason for removing Wikify tag
The article underwent an excellent editing process from EastTN to better conform to Wiki standards. I am all for improving articles, but I don't see what Wikilinks need to be added; the format, and the section headings all appear to comform to Wiki standards. The lead paragraph is solid. Thus, I see no reason for the tag continuing to remain.ClassArm (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions concerning the validity of the tags placed on this article by Reformed Arsenal
Please give examples for each of the tags.

''This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. (July 2012)''


 * This tag is somewhat subjective. When I read this it does not seem to be a summary of the pertinent scholarship available (which is what an encyclopedia is), it seemed more to be the kind of thing that would be turned in for an essay in college. The first main section (Summary of the corporate view of election) is basically a bullet point list arguing for Corporate Election. Essays are often "well researched and scholarly" that "rely on many verifiable and reputable resources." That would not change the fact that it is written like an essay. Nevertheless, that is not my primary concern with the article.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

''This article may contain original research. (July 2012)''


 * The paragraph (Election is Christocentric) appears to be a synthesis of several sources, but pedominantly comes from the study bible notes of a particular study bible. The same could be said for (Election has an eternal purpose) and others. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

''The neutrality of this article is disputed. (July 2012)''


 * The entire (Argument against corporate election) section is written with caveats that the arguments against it are wrong. Under the section (Corporate election excludes individuals) the phrase "This assumption has been implicitly invalidated by the description of corporate election provided earlier in the article. Corporate election does not exclude individuals," reveals the bias that the editor who wrote that sentence believes the criticism to be invald... assessing the validity of the critique is not the role of the editor... only to report that the critique exists. To support this critique the article does not cite someone who holds the critique... rather they quote a book whose entire purpose is to support corporate election. The next section (Corporate election is not the election of people, but merely the election of an empty set) begins with the word "This misunderstanding" and again cites the same work that was attempting to support prove corporate election. This continues through the rest of the section with "another reason to reject..." and uses the same source. This kind of writing, including the opposing view point but undercutting it, is a hallmark of essay writing. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

''This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (July 2012)''


 * The beginning of (Corporate election excludes individuals) begins with the phrase "There are many scholars" and then again cites a source that's goal is to prove Corporate Election over and against Individual Election. In the section (Cultural and religious setting for the New Testament) the phrase "is firmly supported by the scholarly consensus" is only citing one source... which is hardly a concensus. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

''The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (July 2012)''


 * As shown above, the entire section that includes Calvinist viewpoints is written in such a way that the view is invalidated by the article itself. It is also not sourced by a single pro-individual election source (in fact, it is entirely sourced by a source who is arguing against individual election) ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

''This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Christianity or the Christianity Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (July 2012)''


 * The tag itself identifies who would be considered an expert. In the case of Wikipedia, a person who is specialized in researching Christianity and Christian topics would probably be a good start. As it stands the article is sourced only by pro-corporate election citations, even in the section on individual election. ReformedArsenal (talk)

Thanks,ClassArm (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)ClassArm


 * Was I specific enough for you? Also, to make statements about the essay as though you are a neutral observer when you are in fact the primary editor responsible for the state it is in is somewhat disingenuous. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence: In the above section where you indicated that you had done a complete revision of the article, you write "Eventually I would like to add three more misunderstandings that critics level against corporate election." The very fact that you are approaching them as misunderstandings shows in the article. This is a HUGE NPOV issue. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to add, I don't think this is poorly written. It is a decent essay type document that effectively argues for Corporate Election, and includes the opposing viewpoint (even while undercutting it). If I was grading this paper for a college assignment, it would get a solid B+/A-. However, the goals of writing that kind of document (Arguing for a particular position) are markedly different than the goals for Wikipedia (collecting and reporting what the secondary sources available say about the subject without bias). ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The writing in this article is, in fact, horrifically bad. I've read through the whole thing and I have no idea what the corporation is, nor what the election is. This article doesn't even do the basic work of explaining what this concept even is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of tags on this article was excessive, so I simply cleared all of them and replaced it with a rewrite tag, since it doesn't even explain the basics to a non-expert. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity
Objectivity seems to be an issue especially in the section on counter-arguments for corporate election. These brief paragraphs are often followed by quotations from the article itself, which is needless to say lacking in academic rigour. More seriously, the counter-arguments are labelled as misinformed or as assumptions before the reader is even told what the counter-argument is. In fact, the reader will not find out what the counter-arguments are from this article. This needs work. The counter-arguments, even the unanswerable ones (!) need sufficient inclusion if the coverage of the topic is to be objective and balanced. The corporate election stance on these counter-arguments may prove to be a valuable inclusion, but this should be clearly set out and included without pejorative and baseless statements on the validity of the counter-arguments. I'm hoping to do a paper on this soon. So i may be back to help when I am a little more educated myself. 90.193.233.41 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)