Talk:List of Christian movements

POV Check
These definitions differ in weight and sophistication: maryann 23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Christian left: those who hold a strong Christian belief and share left-wing or liberal ideals.
 * 2) Christian right: encompasses a spectrum of conservative Christian political and social movements and organizations characterized by their strong support of social values they deem traditional in the United States and other western countries.

Original research
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)


 * ===>Not original research, just a list This is simply a directory of other Wikipedia articles. It doesn't fit the definition of original research. You should probably try getting consensus before making several hysterical edits to delete content or else people won't take you seriously. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a primary source to itself and it's not self-referential. Simply because we have many articles on the wiki, does not mean you can make a list which includes some and then slap a label on that list, asserting that it is something. Where are the experts who call these listed entries "Christian movements"? The aggregation of these article titles together under this banner is indeed an act of original research. Even the name is. Everything we publish must be cited to a reliable source and the wiki is never a source for itself. You need to go find some authors who've written about Christian movements and see if they mention these. &rarr; Wombdpsw - @ &larr; 07:19, 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)
 * Introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * Introduces original ideas;
 * Defines new terms;
 * Provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * Introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * Introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * Introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source
 * No, the burden of WP:AGF is on everyone who edits. I made individual edis with individual edit summary reasons. Either rebut those reasons individually here or leave my edits alone. It is you who has turnd my routine edits into a controversy, so the burden of dialog is especially high on you. If you fail to discuss each deletion of mine you object to, then you are in bad faith mode. Either address my edit summaries here, or leave those edits be. Also, you calling me "hysterical" was very bossy and a personal attack. &rarr; Wombdpsw - @ &larr; 07:10, 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)


 * Whoa nellie! You are veering into personal attack territory here, please stop. Now, as for your "List of Cities in Morocco", provided that the government of Morocco's list comports with ours, such a list would be fine. However, this list here about Christian movements, seeks to aggregate articles which are not in fact about Christianity at all (such as Christian Identity) into a novel list which puts them on the same playing field with bona fide Christian movements such as Restoration Movement. It's that novel equating of the genuine with the false under the banner of a "Christian movement list", which makes this list a WP:OR violation. Also, the opening sentence of this article says "Christian movements are theological, political, or philosophical intepretations of Christianity that are not generally represented by a specific church, sect, or denomination". If that's the premise of the article, then Pentecostalism should not be in list as it's very mainstream and is well represented by many Christian churches. Also, the oxymoronic terms of Liberal Christianity and Conservative Christianity do not belong on this list as these terms are more associated with political commentators than any actual movement. Please show me even one link to a reliable source that asserts there is such a thing as a "Liberal Christianity movement". There are plenty of Liberal Christians and they are already well represented at the United Church of Christ (and elsewhere). Please go to here and see if there is any self-description of a "Liberal Christianity Movement" there. The same applies here. Please do your homework on this topic, you are woefully underinformed. &rarr; Wombdpsw - @ &larr; 18:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's cynical how you accuse user Koavf of a personal attack, when it is obvious you followed me through my contribution to this page immediately after we had a quarrel. You changed this list I contributed to and you changed the article I contributed. Stalking and taking revenge through a third party is sophisticated, I admit, but a personal attack nonetheless.
 * Because I like to keep things neat, I will address your arguments:
 * This list is like a category with the obvious delight of having one or two descriptive lines. It's only a summing up. There is never "original research" in a summing up. If you have issues, you'll have to go to the article you have issues with and address them on the respective talk page. Only there lays the justification that has led to the inclusion in this list; it's not done the other way round. So the onus is not on Koavf but on you for each of your deletions: you should convince the editors there otherwise the entry here will only grow back here, like weed grows back as long as the roots are intact.
 * This list has a status quo, just like Koavf said, carried by many users. Not only by Christians but even by an atheist like myself. As you have admitted yourself, the terms are widely used and even carried by the media! By deleting these terms you are denying their existance, denying their use, and denying visitors to find explanations about them.
 * You are mistaken about 'movement': A movement is not a denomination or formal organization as you suppose above. Neither is it a doctrin or dogma. Social movements can have organizations and can have doctrins, but above anything else they are informal. They consist of masses of people of whom mostly are not holding formal positions. (if they held formal positions, they didn't need movements but could organize opposition easily and use their power within institutes) You deleted entries because they are not denominations or churches, but that is not good enough since this page is about movements, not denominations or churches. Read social movement.
 * You obviously do not read but only critizise. That means YOU are doing the original reasearch. Seeing your contribs list, you never add anything, only critisize and delete. You don't seem to read the articles. You deleted creationism saying "it is not a movement but a doctrin"... Well, if you would only have read the article you would have seen that it is both a doctrin and a movement. Even the US judge quoted there officially said in 2004 that creationism is intricately connected with the "IDM" or intelligent design movement. It's a verdict. It's even law now. Since you do not base your "arguments" and deletions on real arguments, it is really YOU who is doing the original research.
 * Now you have to proof each of your arguments at the respective pages before any of your deletions is condoned here. The burden of proof is on you. -- ActiveSelective 00:34, 4 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)

Duplications
Is there a real reason for giving some movements identical entries on more than one list? AnonMoos 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Errors
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)

More on POV
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)