User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2:2.4 Other


 * 1) Give the Nakedites their own article and tell them to stop editing the main Christianity articles. Seems like a no-brainer to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) While the views of the Nakedites should obviously be discussed, assuming they have adequate notability as an offshoot of the Starkerites, *discussion* as a word implies balance. If the Nakedites are opposed to balancing their views, then no matter if they are acting in good faith to God or not, they should be treated like any other group of users pushing their POV and/or edit-warring and/or being disruptive, warned and blocked if persistent. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) It is appropriate to discuss the views and activities of Starkerites in a separate WP article specifically about them. Depending on how big a movement they become in relation to the mainstream Christian denominations, it may be appropriate to say a few words about the movement in the larger articles about Christianity, of course keeping in mind WP:UNDUE etc (while the movement remains marginal, probably nothing at all needs be mentioned). If Starkerdites become a really major movement, comparable in size with, say, Methodists, it may become appropriate to include a more extended discussion of their views in the general Christianity articles (provided, of course, that Starkerdites do actually regard themselves as Christians). Nsk92 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Almost as Cryptic says--an article of their own, and a mention on appropriate nudity related articles, including the articles on Nudity in religion, Christian naturism, but not Christianity articles in general. DGG (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with the above, give the Nakedites their article, advise them that it has to be written from a neutral viewpoint, provide the correct sources and most importnat, allow for other non-Nakedite editors to edit the article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) If it meets notability, an article on Nakedites otherwise include as a subsection in Starkerites and include in List of Christian denominationsFelixmeister (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Check the date. If April 1st wait till noon, if not wait for winter. As a Brit who has several Christian friends I find this one of the less plausible scenarios, however:
 * What should Wikipedia do?
 * Treat it like any edit war by POV pushers, warn those who break the rules, ban when necessary, but aim for an encyclopedic result.
 * Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia?
 * No, well no more than any other religious group is restricted by NPOV rules.
 * Do they have the right to not be offended?
 * Yes. And they can achieve that by closing their minds and only reading stuff that is censored by those whom they follow. But they'd be missing out on Wikipedia and almost anything else worth reading.
 * Should Wikipedia give in to their demands and remove pictures of clothed people worshipping in churches or from all articles on Christianity? & Should Wikipedia remove all pictures of all clothed people indoors to try to assuage the Nakedites?
 * No. Wikipedia is not censored.
 * Should anyone from any FRINGE movement be allowed to show up on Wikipedia and demand to be able to dictate how all articles in some area are written?
 * Yes, anyone can show up and make demands/edit pages. But where their demands clash with policy they will be politely resisted.
 * What if they decry the definition of WP:FRINGE and try to rewrite WP:FRINGE and other policies to let them do whatever they want?
 * They'd get reverted and warned, and if they continued they'd get blocked and if necessary certain pages would be protected.
 * 1) If they say they are Christians, that goes in, but if significant sourced material said that some other Christian groups regard them as heretics that goes in too. But as with any sect they are subject to notability. A proper neutral article about them? Yes by all means, and on other Christian articles where relevant to include them as a minority view.  ℑonathan ℂardy  (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) We have reliable sources they exist and what they believe, etc. Disruption needs to stop. They should be compelled to write about their religion using reliable sources and work toward consensus on other articles regarding their fringe theories. If they are unable r unwilling civilly show them the door. -- Banj e  b oi   10:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)