Talk:Matthew Fox (priest)

message: I un-did the merger between Creation Spirituality and this article. For one thing, if you think a merge is needed, the proper way is to put a  notice on the page and invite discussion. Creation Spirituality is much bigger than Matthew Fox. That's like redirecting Marxism to Karl Marx. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that Fox invented "Creation Spirituality". It therefore belongs under his name until it can become larger than him. And putting it where I did explains what Fox is all about. As for putting things up for merger, I do not believe that it is a procedure that is to be rigidly followed everytime, and certainly, in this case, seems to be contra-indicated. However, I won't lose my shirt on this,since I only thought to improve the page, not scrape with anyone over it. If you like it this way, keep it! WikiSceptic 19:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that "There is nothing in the talk page". Well, I was in the process of posting it, when you jumped me - notice the three minute difference? Anyway, this is what I was going to post: 
The Matthew Fox page did not provide an explanation of what he was all about. Merely providing his biography does not provide a justification, IMHO, for an entry. But Creation Spirituality I found was spun off as a separate page, when it should have been merely a section in the Matthew Fox page. 
As the merged page stands, the explanation of what ideas Fox represents is woefully meagre. But from what I can glean, it seems he is an occultist and, like Spong, another "Christian" who is really an apostate and a pagan. If that is what Foxism is all about, shouldn't it be said plain and simply? And if Foxism is merely Fox's version of Spongism, shouldn't that be pointed out? 
When I have finished, the former "Creation Spirituality" page is now empty. It ought to be deleted. WikiSceptic 19:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Since you had not been personal, I did not take your reversions personally. Therefore, thank you for the gracious apology, although it was not necessary. And I still believe that the changes I had made are necessary. But I will not press the point. Since this is not a page that concerns me directly, I will not trouble myself with it anymore. Thanks & regards. WikiSceptic 20:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (heading)

message: Quadell — Would you object if I changed the categorization of Matthew Fox from "Roman Catholic priest" to "Former Catholics", a category I believe should exist and which I plan to create? WikiSceptic 13:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, that sounds accurate. Fox is no longer Anglican either. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-Categorization

message: What is Fox's relationship with the New Thought movement?  He has been categorized in it, and "See also" links placed to the New Thought religions, but there is nothing in the article to explain or justify this.  --Blainster (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Thought? 

message: I would note that the only sources for this article to date are:
#Fox's autobiography
#His website
#The website of the unaccredited university he founded.
Such sourcing meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. Per WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not sufficient, per the "third party" element in the above quote. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Fox is discussed in the university textbook Rave Culture and Religion (Routledge, 2003) and various other academic literature. I'm adding a search template to this page so that editors more easily may look up references at Google Books and Google Scholar, respectively. __meco (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: A Candian newspaper had an article about him. Good enough to establish notability and acts as a third party source. -- Secisek (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Margaret asked: Matthew Fox is the author of numerous books. See ...[snip]... Is this not sufficient, by itself, to justify an entry?. Actually not in and by itself. The notability is mostly defined by the availability of secondary sources. But if Matthew Fox wrote a number of books, it is an indication that there should exist secondary sources, so the article should be kept until we have googled for those sources. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He's most definitely notable, at the very least by this 2ndary link, and this book written by Brian Luke Seaward, and this review of "Creation Spirituality". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Is what? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So... ? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation Spirituality

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matthew Fox (priest). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105012958/http://shiftinaction.com/discover/luminaries/matthew_fox to http://shiftinaction.com/discover/luminaries/matthew_fox
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified