Talk:Orthodox Presbyterian Church

message: Can someone post how many current members and churches the OPC has in North America and throughout the world?  I am unable to find this data to post, unfortunately. Scunning 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Membership Data

message: I would like to see this article expanded considerably in many ways I find it insufficent. However as I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I am reluctant to edit this article myself, as I have obvious biases. --24.213.155.165
:It's fine that you're an OPC member. Go ahead and make your revisions, but try to make them neutral in accord with WP:POV. If they aren't neutral enough, they can be fixed (or at worst, reverted). --Flex 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for expansion of this article 

message: It would be helpful if someone could summarise the theological issues raised in Paul Elliot's book, which has been described in various places online such as . DFH 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, though I would suggest multiple sources should be used. The Trinity Foundation is very strict (too strict, IMHO) in what it defines as orthodoxy, and I don't think their publications should be the sole basis for a section on the current state of the OPC. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no objections for multiple sources to be used. I cited the Trinity Foundation only as an instance which brought the matter to my attention.  btw.  I reside in England, and have no involvement with the OPC. DFH 18:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current state of the OPC 

message: A large violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV has been inserted, and then re-inserted after being removed. It represents a lot of effort, but if there's any sourcing for the arguments, I fail to see it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... I pass no judgement on the truth or untruth of the added material (I don't know enough to do so)... but, true or not, we can't include it unless someone can provide reliable sources to support it.  That is fundamental policy here on Wikipedia (see our WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies for more).   Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive OR 

message: Here's a perfect example of what is being criticized and (rightfully) removed:
:Neither the OPC website and nor the website of the office of the OPC historian indicates that a census has ever been conducted to determine the racial, political, or economic composition of the denomination.
This is a classic example of synthesis. Nothing at "historian.html" discusses any census regarding the composition of the denomination. The words "census", "racial", "political", and "economic" appear nowhere on that page; nowhere does that page make the assertion that such a census has not been made. The POV of the paragraph appears to be that some such survey should have been made; the synthesis is that the absence of mention of such a survey on that page indicates that no such survey has been made. 
:The report's rationale that the denomination inherited the reconstruction racial dynamics of the PCUSA has not been updated since 1974.  The committee which authored the report was dissolved after submitting it to the General Assembly.
Again, noting the absence of something the editor thinks should have occurred ("has not been updated since 1974") is a violation of WP:NOR and an example of WP:SYNTH; if some third party reliable source had made the point of the absence of such a thing, it might be usable, but we can't point to the index and say "oh look so and so isn't there". 
Removing the "synthesis" tag while a discussion is underway was completely inappropriate.
:Such notions are quite at home in the Christian right, American fundamentalist circles, and in quarters of the Republican party. 
Says who? Pure violation of WP:NOR and more to the point WP:NPOV.
:The OPC has never petitioned the federal government to change its policies when a Republican has held the office of President of the United States
Who says it should?
:In 2002, a prominent OPC minister... 
As the edit summary said, this was removed appropriately under WP:BLPREMOVE.
It is 100% incumbent upon the editors adding stuff to articles to make sure the adhere to out policies of WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Find appropriate sources and then add the material; you can't add material and then hope someone eventually finds those sources. And WP:NPOV absolutely must be adhered to; your personal opinion of what this church should or shouldn't do has no relevance whatsoever. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of original research and synthesis 

message: I've requested full protection for this article. I'd protect it myself but I'm somewhat involved. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, the page is fully protected now. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the same edit warring continues, the article is likely to be completely protected again. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: *Remove All - Discussion in detail below but essentially there are violations of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:EDITORIAL SPACKlick (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I was invited here by the feedback bot to find this discussion has been quiet for a week. Do you feel you are close to a consensus? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the discussion stalled after a couple of editors were blocked for sockpuppetry. I think an uninvolved editor will need to determine consensus. StAnselm (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the discussion went quiet once it became clear that it was pretty unanimous to remove all the WP:OR and that has since been removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  I think it would be good for you to keep an eye on recent activity and deletions. Thanks! 81.64.76.210 (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress?

message: :::Yes, well this edit is more original synthesis. We do not claim "anecdotal evidence", ever. StAnselm (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for the record, StAnselm -- I didn't object to the writing. I thought it was well written. But after all the issues on this page, the rules need to be applied consistently. Unsourced content needs to be removed. Sourced content needs to be allowed (even if you don't like what it says).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraface32 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's the only reason? You did see the footnote at the end of the paragraph, didn't you? That is generally sufficient - citations are not needed at the end of every sentence. Are you saying you didn't actually dispute any of the content? Then it seems to be that your objections are are spill-over from the debate above. In fact, to be perfectly honest, it looks like you are only removing my edits out of spite. Please try to keep the issue of my additions separate from the issue of your own additions. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Are you saying you would have preferred not to have deleted my addition? In that case I shall restore it. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of 19 and 20 February

message: I have reverted this recent addition of an opinion piece from Ordained Servant. It seems to me that we should focus on official denominational positions, not editorials. StAnselm (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordained Servant opinion 

message: I have removed a bit about how many ministers use the phrase "Cultural Marxism". It doesn't seem to come from a reliable source - the minister making the claim says people accuse him of it, but it just sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. In any case, please discuss it here before adding it back in. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Marxism 

message: I hope the editors add some treatment of LGBTQ issues by the OPC. I was raised in the church. It remains openly rejecting of gay members and the gay offspring of current members. It opposes same-sex marriage for everyone, even for people outside the church if I am not mistaken. 24.4.92.102 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Issues