Talk:Emerging church/Archive 7

message: I do not intend to delete it and its presence does not bother me, but zoecarnate's inclusion under "articles and resources" could eventually cause problems.  Technically, this is a web directory and thus its inclusion violates Wikipedia policy.  I'm willing to look the other way (especially given its particular nature -- I think its a helpful tool for those studying the movement).  
This is Zoecarnate 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is quite valid even if not 100% accurate.  Many of the articles listed are pro-ec.  Nevertheless, there are more anti-ec articles listed and you are quite right that no pro-ec books are listed.  I would suggest we discuss here which pro-ec books to list.  We would want it to be balanced, having books say from McLaren on one extreme and Driscoll on the other.  I think I could put together a pretty good list.  I may do so soon and offer it as a suggestion here.  I also think that doing so would help the ec editors feel the article was more even handed.  Thanks for your input!  By the way, thanks for your edits. The article has been plagued with misspellings of the sort you cought and I agree that the "4 1/2 points" should have been deleted as it was not relevant to the article and might have diverted it off topic.Will3935 09:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slippery Slope Ahead?

message: OK, here we go again.  Mark Driscoll has been on the prominent pro-ec list, deleted, put back, and deleted again (by a pro-ec person who did not like his criticisms of McLaren and company).  Now someone has put him on the prominent critics list.  Interestingly, he has recently spoken at a symposium along with David Wells and D. A. Carson and he does call "the emergent stream" "the new liberalism," but he still claims to be a part of the ec movement, thus he really does not belong on the prominent critics list.  I think he belongs on the prominent ec figures list.  We need to decide what to do with him and stick to our guns.  All these people who flit in and out of the article without ever saying a word on this page are making things frustrating.Will3935 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  Some anonymous editor came up with a good solution, or so it seems to me.  Thanks, whoever you are.Will3935 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: thenext, mark would also say he was a reformed pastor - in fact, acts29 is a "reformed" movement.  one can place anyone where they desire - but the question would be does mark see himself as "pro-emerging?" ginkworld 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Driscoll

message: I added some pro-ec books and articles as references at the bottom of the article.  I hope this gets us close to feeling the article is even handed.Will3935 18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, your'e too kind.  I added a couple of pro emergent articles with expletives in the titles.  If they are ashamed of their own articles they should not publish them.  You noted that Sweet told emergents to speak out of both sides of their mouth.  Let's see how long the emergents let these titles stay on the list.  I suspect they don't have the integrity to let the world see the real them.Loudguy 19:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough Loudguy. In the interest of working toward a consensus, I would suggest our emergent editors take a look at the following article by Stanley Hauerwas to see if you might want to link it. Hauerwas is a very influential forerunner of ec and his article is highly articulate.  I think its the best article I have read that advances emerging church views. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/search/display-page.asp?Path=/jul1985/v42-2-article3.htm Will3935 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Additions

message: It seems to me that the article does ignore the one thing I have long valued from emergent input (yes, I really am listening to you guys).  The Republicans have always felt that they have conservative Evangelicals in their hip pocket (largely due to the abortion issue [and yes I am pro-life]). I appreciate emergent boldness that calls us to take a second look the political landscape. I won't go in to my personal dissappointments with the current administration but I have some strong feelings that are taboo to voice in conservative Evangelical circles where we are told to keep praying for our "good Christian president." I highly reccomend Michael Horton's book Beyond Culture Wars.  Horton is a conservative Evangelical and I admire his courage and integrity to write such a book.  Perhaps you guys could add a word or two along these lines somewhere in the article. If anyone tries to delete them I'll have your back.Will3935 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wonder whether there should be a general statement on the focus within the emerging church of Orthopraxis over Orthodoxy and how that focus lends itself to greater freedom to question traditional political assumptions (we should vote for the guy who believes in Jesus, instead of the guy who'll care for the poor) as well as the other values and characteristics mentioned in that section.  74.14.42.99 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I happened upon this article and wanted to ask something on the talk page, but it was over 200 kb!  I was bold and archived old discussions into 6 subpages.  If anyone has a problem with that, please go ahead and revert this edit and delete the subpages, but this way people can actually edit this page without their browser crashing... --Boco XLVII 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving discussion

message: Article says:
:With the paradigm shift of postmodernity taking effect throughout the 21st Century, the church came under criticism.
Come on, the 21st century is only like 5 years old. It is way too early to be using language like "taking effect throughout the 21st Century".
Come back in the 2106, and then you can say that :) --SJK 07:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments expose a need to reword that section. I'll edit it.70.243.109.152 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  throughout the 21st century.... 

message: Len Hjalmarson should be added to the list of Prominent Figures. I know the editors are trying to limit this list, but Len has probably written more top-level on-line articles WRT faith + ecclesia + xn leadership in post-liberal culture than anyone else considered part of the EM. http://www.nextrefomation.com
 
20:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to Add Len Hjalmarson to List

message: "Nelson Costa, author of Igreja Emergente, founder of Fundação Inocência, currently pastor of Walnut Community Church. He is considered a prominent Brazilian leader in the movement. "
This is wrong! Emergent church has little or no influence in Brazil (thanks to God). Rafael, the Gawain 00:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson Costa 

message: I notice that two new emergent editors coincidentaly made their first edits on the same day. Welcome to Wikipedia. I highly reccomend you read the Wikipedia handbook and strongly suggest you discuss changes in substance here first. Corrections in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style are most welcome without prior discussion but the kind of changes you made require prior discussion. We appreciate your input though and look forward to hearing from you on this page.Will3935 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To New Editors

message: I'm sorry if this sounds insulting to whoever is contributing anonymously, but your writing is worse than most of the high school students I taught when I was an English teacher. This is supposed to be a SCHOLARLY encyclopedia article, not a sloppy, poorly written blog entry. Mr. Anonymous, I would kindly suggest that your poorly written edits only undermine any points you wish to make since such juvenile writing undermines the credibility of the article as a whole, and especially your poorly written edits in particular. Others and I have been trying to untangle the vast jungle of poor grammar and style that has been omnipresent in this article up to now. I think it is time we made this article an example of excellence. Your input is most welcome but your poor writing is not. I suggest you tell us on this page what it is you wish the article to say that it does not currently say and the other editors can write it for you. We were just getting on top of the poor grammar and style and I don't think we should go back to having an atrociously written piece. Mr. anonymous, I suspect you are the one who placed the juvenile prank regarding Ken Silva in the piece. If you don't respect Wikipedia as a scholarly tool please move on, respecting our right to treat it properly. Additionally, this is an important topic to some of us on both the pro and con sides and it deserves to be treated with respect. Whoever you are you apparently do not realize how poor your writing is and you do not appreciate that others take Wikipedia seriously. Please stop interfering with our efforts to create something respectable.Will3935 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop the Madness

message: I know we were trying to keep this list to a minimum but the "prominent figures" list has grown excessively long and includes several marginal characters. It thus seems wrong that "prominent critics" such as John MacArthur who are truly prominent are excluded from the list. If we let one list grow, then we should let both.Loudguy 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Critics

message: Previously I have provided several large format changes, but they were reverted and not much discussion has taken place on the reformat since.  I have created the Emerging church movement sandbox for a discussion on these format changes. PLEASE SEE THE DISCUSSION as well as compare the 'diff's on the sandbox article's history page to see the suggested changes.  The current existing Emerging church movement article sections in question are posted in the history for easy comparison. Jwiley80 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to have you on our discussion page. I don't know whether to wave hello or goodbye with your retiring to your own sandbox. The way we editors from a variety of perspectives have gradually built this article sometimes one word at a time over a long period is through discussion. If you have ideas that you believe would help make the article better the way to do this is to make suggestions one at a time (the "one at a time" part is key) on the suggestion page and we will discuss them until we arrive at a consensus. Your approach as a new kid on the block who wants to make sweeping changes and move everything over to your sandbox is just a bit offputting. When you are ready to come home to our humble discussion we will talk.Loudguy 01:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Jwiley, you may want to check out Artisan949's comments at the top of this discussion page. Loudguy,I am glad you said the discussion was humble. I don't think those of us who contribute to it always seem humble! Niceguy2all 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformat Ideas Posted in [[Emerging church movement sandbox]]

message: It seems to me the article says very little about the postmodern spirituality found in the movement. I realize a lot of unprofitable noise has been generated by the more extreme "discernmentalists" but the prominence of this aspect of the movement in popular discussion is not reflected in this article. I do understand that a fair and balanced discussion of this topic within the article would probably draw fire from both sides. Perhaps someone has some thoughts on this.Niceguy2all 07:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right on all counts. Perhaps someone else has the energy to open this can of worms. Not me right now.Will3935 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postmodern Spirituality

message: My techno-ignorance is showing again. Since I am an ignoramous and no one (!) has been kind enough to take me by the hand and show me exactly how to put a proper citation in a Wikipedia article (yes, I have read the manual), I placed a parenthetical reference after the block quote I added. Maybe someday, somebody will be merciful enough to change all of the article's paranthetical references to good, Wikipedia citations.Will3935 11:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parenthetical Reference

message: To the end of the criticisms section I added a block quote by J. P. Moreland which I believe articulately summarizes the concerns of critics. The only problem is that now, without a corresponding block quote at the end of the "favorable" section, the article loses symmetry and NPOV. I propose that the best favorable summation of emergent goals be put into a block quote at the end of the "pro" section. If no one offers a suggestion I will provide one.Will3935 11:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got impatient and added two "pro' quotes. Past experience tells me that these will soon be joined by a few dozen others. This we cannot allow but if others want to propose alternative quotes to replace these, that is, of course, a possibility.Will3935 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Propose Another Block Quote

message: Check out the article I linked under the "see also" section. I think understanding this concept may help to resolve some of your issues.Thinkenstein 09:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lumpers and splitters

message: Tried to move "Emerging Church Movement" back to "Emerging church movement." I don't like the use of lower case in the title but this seems to be the norm in Wikipedia. The attempted move back was not successful. Maybe someone else will succeed where I failed.Will3935 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to the editor who did this.Will3935 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Move

message: One of the aspects of the emerging church movement is that there are adherents within traditional denominations that have formed separate emerging churches within their denomination while other adherents continue to go to non-emerging churches within traditional denominations. At a conference held at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto April 8, 2006, Brian McLaren encouraged emerging church adherents to stay in their traditional churches and their traditional denominations if at all possible, and to only leave to form "emerging churches" if compelled by their current churches.
I am not sure how to add this information, but the idea that the emerging church movement is more a movement of individuals than a movement of "churches" is a unique facet of this movement.
Unforunately, I do not have a reference for this other than notes I took at the conference. Can this information still be included? 74.14.42.99 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to our discussion! Adding the anecdote from McLaren's speaking engagement would likely arouse much protest from our emergent editors. They have long insisted that McLaren should not be given as much of a spotlight as he seems to always gets in discussions of EC. Furthermore, I do believe the article does include references to EC's influence in traditional denominations. If you don't think such references are sufficient, perhaps you could add a better one or beef up the existing ones. Also, your credibility on this discussion page will be greatly enhanced if you get a username and sign in with it each time you offer an edit or dialog with us on this discussion page. Unfortunately this discussion has had its share of contributors whose identities were questionable. No need for you to know details about that now (although I would be happy to explain this as well as Wikipedia policy to you). Just know that you are welcome here!Will3935 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some checking on your question about citing your notes from MacLaren's speaking engagement. I'm afraid your notes are considered an unverifiable source, and thus not acceptable in Wikipedia.Will3935 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Change to "Membership" Section 

message: Someone (ip address 204.126.2.5) who did not choose to reveal his or her username put a pro-ec article in the critical list. I don't know why this person would do so. It seems to be ignorance to me since, if this person wanted to promote ec, they would only have had to list the article in the right place. 204, we love you but prefer  you at least learn the difference between pro and critical ec before making such edits. Good try though. Thanks for visiting!Will3935 07:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep an Eye Out

message: Check out my course in creating postmodern jargon which I have placed on my userpage!Will3935 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational Opportunity

message: (The entry below is taken from my userpage [Will3935]).
I have found that sometimes unqualified people weigh in on Wikipedia articles, reducing the accuracy and quality of these articles in spite of their good intentions. Based on my experience, I believe these editors genuinely believe they are improving the articles they contribute to. The phenomenon reminds one of the deluded contestants who try out for American Idol and only end up humiliating themselves. When the judges offer sound criticism to these conterstants they tend to respond quite angrily. So it is, I have found, at Wikipedia. Being honest with these editors sometimes results in hard feelings on both sides. Perhaps I can prevent some of these hard feelings by sharing with you the criteria I try to abide by and subsequently expect of other editors. Before contributing, ask yourself the following questions:
1) Am I qualified to write? That is, do I possess a sufficient mastery of English to make a worthy entry in an encyclopedia? Am I aware that writing for an encyclopedia requires a set of skills not needed on a blog? If you are not a good writer consider running your proposed edits past those who do possess such skills before you make changes to an article.
2) Have I mastered the subject matter I am writing about? Reading a few books and articles about a subject does not necessarily make one sufficiently knowledgeable to address an issue in a reference work. This mastery of the subject must involve a thorough reading of many books and articles that express various views. Spending time talking to one's friends on a blog does not qualify one academically to contribute to an encyclopedia.
3) Am I willing to accept correction on matters of substance and style? Wikipedia articles are constructed by the consensus of a community of editors. Individual contributors can not expect to bypass this community and they must be willing to accept correction or criticism without getting angry and bitter.
4) Am I sufficiently confident in my edits that I do not believe I need to resort to sock puppetry or other violations of policy for my edits to stand?
5) When engaged in an editing conflict with someone is my goal accuracy or victory? Wikipedia's purpose is to inform its readers not to boost the egos of its editors.Will3935 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Before Contributing...

message: Below is the satirical entry regarding postmodern jargon I mentioned earlier:
A Short Course in Creating Postmodern Jargon (by me)
1) Take an existing word and add prefixes and/or suffixes. See the examples below:
"television" ... "televisional"
"stereo" ... "destereoization"
"history" ... "rehistoricalized"
2) Graft another word onto the existing one.
"televisional broadcasticity"
"factized destereoization"
"rehistoricalized narrativeness"
3) You must then use your jargon frequently for it to gain credibility.
"Televisional broadcasticity causes a new, missional matrix."
"All efforts to impose one's own narrative on another person are subject to factized destereoization"
"All propositional absolutations are subject to the deconstruction inherent in the rehistoricalized narrativeness discovered in new community paradigms."
4) You must also use your term in false antitheses:
"Instead of radioized waveness we can only advertise through televisional broadcasticity."
"Either one engages in factized destereoization, or they will live apart from the benefits of authentic narrative."
"Tyrannical, absolutized approaches to narrow, community post-paradigms are no longer valid in a model that engages a more generous, rehistoricalized narrativeness."
After you have followed the above four steps you will be awarded the authentic, postmodernal, gold star of hypersophisticatedness!!Will3935 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since put an improved and greatly expanded version on my userpage if anyone is interested. I do believe it is relevant to this article in that much of what passes for scholarship these days is just "philosobabble."Will3935 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: I undid the revision of the anonymous editor who deleted Steve Chalke from the prominent figures list. Steve is both quite prominent and quite emergent. Unless he has had a recent change of heart I can see no reason for such a deletion when so many non-prominent figures remain on the list.Will3935 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to the anonymous editor who set me straight about Chalke. Apparently other emergents don't consider him one of them, thus justifying the editors' deletion.Will3935 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steve Chalke

message: I believe the postliberal theological roots of ec (Lindbeck et. al.) is not described in this article at all. Perhaps some ambitious soul could work on this. Also, Niceguy2all is right that the article ignores all issues related to postmodern spiritualiy and thankfully the Ken Silva types have not tried to weigh in on this here (sorry Ken, you are a faithful brother but I think you are somehwat unfair on this issue -- just my opinion [and no, I'm not the childish brat who keeps mocking Ken in the article]). Also, my lack of technosavvy really embarassed me. I'm an old fogey who is somewhat technophobic. If some bright technosavvy person would paste appropriate photos in this article it would greatly improve it. In the course of pasting together the work of various editors we have ended up with a two-part Values and Characteristics section that I proposed be merged into one. I think the article has a long way to go still.Will3935 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theological Roots, Spirituality, Photos, Values and Characteristics

message: My answer to the following edit:
23:54, 6 March 2007 Markdf10825 (Talk | contribs) (Deleted this quote because without more context it was more incendiary than informative; what is the battle Moreland is referring to, who are the barbarians, etc.) 
Mark (I hope I can call you that for short) I do appreciate your concern here. First, let me assure you that by "barbarians" Moreland does not mean emergents. What Moreland is referring to is the ageless battle between truth and error, light and darkness. I know these are not postmodern categories, but that is exactly the point. The quotation summarizes "modern" concerns with EC and thus serves as an articulate expression of such concerns. It is not our place to either endorse or reject the reasoning in the quote for all we are doing is using the quote to summarize Evangelical concerns. Certainly one has the right to disagree with Moreland and even to feel his comments are incendiary. Nevertheless, Moreland does succinctly state what other Evangelicals have expressed. We do not have to agree with these Evangelicals or even approve of the way they express themselves, but in an encyclopedia we are duty bound to relate the facts as well as we can. The fact is that Evangelicals have criticized EC and Moreland's quote summarizes their criticisms well. We must resist any temptation to censor these facts from Wikipedia just because we do not like the tone in which the one quoted speaks. Hope this helps clear up the reason why I maintain the quote should stay in order to make the article as accurate and articulate as possible. I believe that censoring this quote only takes away from the overall quality of the article. Will3935 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to Mark

message: The list of names has become notoriously way too long and we are in danger of having an administrator delete the entire thing, considering it advertising and a web directory. Both lists now stand at 22 names.I propose that any names added to either list must come at the expense of one already on it. Below I've pasted a relevant satire from my userpage:
About the Spamming in the Emerging Church Movement Article
To those who are interested, I am not responsible for the spamming and advertising on the emerging church "prominent figures" list. It just became impossible to fight after awhile. I think there are still two or three emergent blogs in the world that are not promoted there. Once they get on the list I am thinking about adding my cat. He is as noteable as some of the "prominent figures" already on the list. See the entry below that I've already prepared for him:
:Haddon 3935, Prominent American cat. Founder of emergentcat.com and a well-known, late-night speaker in the alley. Influential, early figure in the emerging cat conversation and author of the noteworthy works A New Kind of Feline and Meowal Living (both scratched out in his litter box). Has also made significant contributions to the Wikipedia sandbox.Will3935 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Figures List

message: Bromaynard 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply Concerning Prominant Figures List 

message: I believe there is one way the list could expand without overwhelming an article (which is the case now) and without being in danger of deletion. Wikipedia's Project Christianity has some rather lengthy lists. They even have a "List of Ex-Christians." I have jokingly suggested a list of ex-readers of the list of ex-Christians. We could go back to the more modest list of both critics and proponents and move everything more lengthy to Project Christianity if they will have us. We could have both an in-text link and a reference link to the list in this article. I kinda think that might be a good idea, but again, I am not emotionally invested in it. Any thoughts?Will3935 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bromaynard 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically I was referring to here but it is all Wikipedia.Will3935 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bromaynard 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bromaynard 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea regarding the list

message: 68.127.158.243 just put a link to an article in the pro-articles section. I repeatedly tried the link and nothing happened. Perhaps 68 can try again. If the dead link stays for a long time someone will eventually delete it.Will3935 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bromaynard 02:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know of a specific policy. That doesn't mean there isn't one. I feel the same way you do and won't feel bad if someone deletes it.Will3935 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link not working

message: For those who did not know, blog links are a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. I deleted a few. We have already provided links to related web directories. I don't know for sure, but even these may be on shaky ground, but I propose we leave them until someone slaps our hand and sets us straight.Will3935 12:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog Links

message: The favorable books section needs to be alphabetized. I'll do it when I get time if no one else does. (Sinbad Lives!)  Will3935 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Favorable Books

message: This question is irrelevant if the list is successfully moved, but the stated qualifications for prominence among the Canadians seem weak to me. If one is "prominent" simply by being a practitioner and and thinker the bar for prominence is set so low the name of the list should be changed to "Active and Thinking Emerging Church Movement Participants." This is also irrelevant but it seems from looking at this list that having a blog is in itself a qualification for prominence. Just having a blog is certainly evidence that one is tech-savvy and that one has friends they talk to, but it is not in itself an indication of prominence unless that blog (such "The Ooze") is prominent (something difficult to quantify and something none of the list's entries seek to establish). Anyway, if we get the list moved anyone who vaguely thinks they might be emerging can put themselves (policy against self promotion has frequently been violated here) on the list and it won't really be our problem.Will3935 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some searching for these figures and found no reference to them outside of their blogs and the blogs of their friends (although Goodyear did have a newspaper right up for his tattoos). I question whether this meets Wikipedia criteria of prominence: "One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." Nevertheless, it probably won't be our problem for too long. I do suggest, however, that when the list is moved the word "prominent" be deleted from it as many of its figures are not prominent outside of their circle of friends.Will3935 16:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Canadians

message: I have done more research into the "prominent Canadians" and I do sincerely believe that my cat is more "prominent' than these figures. If these are the most prominent emergents in Canada the emerging church movement must have made almost no impact there. It seems to me their inclusion for such prominence as founding a "small church" is comical. I've done that and much more. Maybe I should get a friend to put me and all of the other "thinkers" who have started small ministries on the list while I go ahead and list my cat.Will3935 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone differs with my deletion I propose we seek a third opinion here in Wikipedia. I think any admin will agree we have to draw the line somewhere, and with these latest additions to the list we have, in my opinion, crossed quite far over that line.Will3935 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, for those who did not know, promoting oneself or one's friends within the bounds of Wikipedia is a violation of it's policies.Will3935 14:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting the Canadians

message: Will, I think some of your comments on this are actually "catty" (speaking of your cat) and outside the bounds of what's proper, since you're publicly disparaging the contributions of people to a regional conversation of which you're clearly not a part.  To suggest that the "emerging church movement must have made almost no impact there" is small-minded, insulting, and untrue.  The fact that it doesn't look like the American emerging church is one of its distinctives, not a disqualification.
To insist that inclusion on a regional list require as great or greater prominance than American EC-celebrities is to insist that voices in some parts of the world will never qualify to be listed for their region.  The Emerging Church is criticized for a lack of worldwide voices, yet the American editorial policy here would start deleting those who begin to speak up in their own context?  Suppose a South African emerging church practitioner begins within his context to be a significant voice, but doesn't write a book, doesn't plant a megachurch, and doesn't have 400 links to a blog somewhere.  Perhaps he doesn't have an article about him in USA Today either... does that mean he isn't the foremost South African voice on the emerging church movement?  Hardly.  Not being in the top ten of the American awareness should definitely not disqualify such a person from the South African list.  If the list is moved (which I wholeheartedly support) away from the article, perhaps it should be re-titled as examples or regional leaders or something.
Faililng that, if this is how this Wikipedia entry is going to be characterized, I will simply dispute its neutrality or recommend it be moved to "Emerging Church Movement in the USA" so we can create a different entry for the rest of the world, one which doesn't judge the entire planet by American standards.
Having said all of that, it is worth noting that most of the Canadian deletions were done by the individuals who were listed, and those who remained (at least the ones I spoke with, myself included) were not entirely comfortable being listed... both because we can all point to others in Canada whose contributions we value more highly and because none of us like what this list has become and don't wish to be associated in any way with its abuse.  I didn't add them, and for this reason, I won't be adding them back.  Apparently this article should genuinely be titled The Emerging Church Movement in the USA and we should think it quite big of the Americans to include 7 (count them, seven) people from the rest of the world in the list of influential people in the movement. - Bromaynard 15:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you like we can seek a third opinion. Just let me know. I would welcome it. It sounds like you feel some emotion on this issue and an objective, third party would be most helpful in my opinion. I'm sorry maynard, but I can't see how pastoring a church with a handful of people in it or having a blog makes one "prominent" enough in any context or in any world region to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article as such. If that were so we would have to have thousands of entries. Wikipedia does have standards for measuring prominence and I am quite sure admins would be happy to give us their opinion. I am more than willing to entertain this third opinion from admins if you like. Just let me know and I will arrange for it. I wouldn't have stepped on your toes and upset you so much but I fear the list is making the article a laughing stock. It was never meant to be comprehensive and in fact a list so comprehensive has no place within the bounds of another article. It constitutes an article in its own right if admins will let it stay. We'll give it a try and then everyone and their dog (notice I didn't say cat) can have fun listing themselves and promoting their small churches.Will3935 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, perhaps I've misspoken or misstated my intent.  If the list is going to be there, it should reflect whatever is happening in each region of the world in the emerging church in that context.  As such, it would have some encyclopedic survey value.  Since that could quickly overrun the article, it can't reside here.  I'd be happy with the deletion of the list, or its removal to some obscure place.  I think there may be an outcry over its deletion, so move it somewhere else - it's stopped being what it purports to be here though.  I'm happy *not* to be on the list, and I'm happy to leave off my friends, my cat, and my neighbour.  What I'm not happy about is having someone say that because the emerging church in other parts of the world don't look like an American megachurch, they don't qualify - because that fundamentally misunderstands what the emerging chruch movement actually is in several of its expressions worldwide.  In part, the splitting of the list into regions causes the problem by highlighting regions and then persistently deleting ones which don't have a global voice (meaning they aren't "heard" in the USA).  Personally, I hope that moving the list away from the article satisfies others that it wasn't actually deleted and they won't feel compelled to re-add it here, but I also hope that moving it makes the list obscure enough that people lose interest in tinkering with it endlessly.  I don't need another opinion to convince me that the list has become a joke, that's my position as well... this whole thing just illustrates the point :^)  Bromaynard 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Prominance & Deletion of Canadians 

message: I'm going to go ahead and try to move the list. Unfortunately, the more tech-savvy editors seem to be MIA at the moment, so I will give it a try. I don't know what I am doing so I will start at the help desk. It may take some time, but I will see if we can make the list an article in its own right and link it to this one.Will3935 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a help notice on my user talk page since I am hopelessly incompetent about such things. If everyone will just remain calm we will get the list moved in good time and then I will look the other way at what goes on within its borders.Will3935 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving the List of Prominent Figures