Talk:List of evangelical seminaries and theological colleges/Archive 1

message: Toronto Baptist Seminary is not dispensational, nor ever was. They were always leaning more towards covenant theology. They are definitely reformed. 70.53.128.216 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of this may be in the wrong catagories 

message: Is holding to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy a necessary criteria for being considered as "evangelical?"  Also, I suggest that Ashland Theological Seminary be added to the list, as it is one of the top 10 largest seminaries in the US and is thoroughly "evangelical," rooted in the Brethren (Anabaptist) tradition. I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Much thanks to whoever re-vamped this list.  It looks much better now! I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Evangelical=Biblical Inerrancy

message: Someone has come along and added what looks like every seminary in Canada.  We will need to examine to see which of these meet the criteria of the article. For now I have separated them into their own list. Theriddles (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Seminaries 

message: There has been significant controversy at Knox Seminary which is why it is being deleted and re-added.  Until there is an official change of status of some kind, it should remain on this list. Theriddles (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knox Seminary 

message: There is some discussion about Fuller Seminary.  Personally I think it no longer qualified as evangelical.  Here is their Statement on Scripture:
"Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine self-disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. They are to be interpreted according to their context and purpose and in reverent obedience to the Lord who speaks through them in living power."
Note also these reviews from various students, noting the decidedly non-evangelical flavor.  
However, I also recognize that many will still recognize Fuller as an evangelical seminary, so I think we could include it possibly with comments. 
Theriddles (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuller Seminary 

message: Should the non-ATS accredited schools in the U.S. section be intergrated in the denominational sections above rather than seperated?  While ATS accreditation is clearly important, if a school is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia and meets the description of an evengelical seminary, it would seem the place to further discuss the school is on that school's page. In addition, while some of the non-ATS accredited schools are not accreidted at all, some of them are accredited by the relevant regional accreidtor or another national accreditor. One middle ground may be to list the accrediting body or bodies next to the schools.  Along those lines, I wonder if the other subcategories in the U.S. section are appropriate since they may require a categorization that is not readily apparent unlike the geographic categorization. Novaseminary (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any other editors object to consolidating all of the U.S. seminaries and eliminating the subcategories?  There seems to be overlap in the categories and some (moderate vs. conservative, for example) are in some cases more opinion than verifiable fact. Novaseminary (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody objected so I removed the debatable subsections within the U.S. section (conservative, moderate, etc.) with this edit. I left the existing denominational subsections and added some others.  denominational subsections are more verifiable and less subject to one's own point of view. I also removed the subsection formerly for non-ATS accrdited schools and moved those schools to their appropriate subcategory.  The "Other" sub section can go once those schools are properly in their appropriate subsection. Novaseminary (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-[[ATS]] accredited schools 

message: Before reverting in one edit several author's work over a month and a half and calling it vandalism, please discuss here. This article is a list, not an article about evangelical seminaries. Some additional text may be appropriate, but not as much has was there back in July. Please remember that no editor owns the list and to always assume good faith. Novaseminary (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've completely changed the purpose of the article of your own accord.  The polite thing to have done would have been to create a separate article with your purpose rather than erase this one, which had a much longer history before you arrived, and had actually developed into quite a good list. You don't even define what is meant by the word "evangelical" here, or seminary or anything else. You simply deleted the text, and added some non North American schools. Theriddles (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't just me that changed this list over the past few months. Creating content forks to serve particular purposs is not WP policy.  As I noted before, please remember that no editor owns the list and to always assume good faith.  As for what the term evangelical means, it is wikilinked in the list. The place to define that concept is in the article about evangelicalism.  Same with seminary. As I noted on your talk page (and will paste below), the text that was deleted was entirely unsourced and much of it was unverifiable. Novaseminary (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually you've completely changed the purpose of the article.  It is no longer informative about education options for evangelicals.  It's quite aggravating actually, but I don't have the energy to fight you about it. Theriddles (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly meant no aggravation and did not mean to pick a fight.  I'd encourage you to read WP:Lists#List_content.  A list probably is not the place to inform people about evangelical educational options other than to link to articles about those potential options.  The older versions of the list that you reverted back to had a substantial amount of text, none of it was sourced and a good bit of which was opinion and not verifiable in any event, including the categorization.  Perhaps you could create a section in the article about Evangelicalism or even create a new article on the history of evangelical academics or scholarship or the like. Then you could point to the list from the article (and point to this new article or section from the list).  You would still need to source any new article or section better than the list had been and be sure it is verifiable and not original research. I will also paste a copy of this discussion on the list's talk page  Novaseminary (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Well it's all yours now, have at it Theriddles (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe you don't believe I meant no offense. That is too bad.  But the list certainly isn't all mine now, it still belongs to everyone. I hope you won't have sour grapes. Novaseminary (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Theriddles|Theriddles's]] September 16 reversion 314339425