Talk:Reformed Baptists

message: Although one cannot be precise as to a definition of being famous, it's probably sufficient to exclude names which would not be well known to most Reformed Baptists.  That's why I removed the names associated with Exe Gia Publishing from this section, and instead (to be clear that this isn't vandalism), I added a link to the site in the external links section. DFH 20:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section heading has since been changed to Notable Reformed Baptists, more in keeping with Wikipedia criteria. DFH 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Reformed Baptists 

message: I'm pretty sure that not all Reformed Baptists are Sabbatarians or hold to a Covenant Theology position. Most of the profs at my school who are Reformed Baptists are neither (including my Principal, Michael A. G. Haykin) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloud Stryfe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covenant Theology and Sabbatarianism 

message: The following modern Reformed Baptists don't yet have articles in WP:
* Michael A. G. Haykin – the Principal of Toronto Baptist Seminary
* Erroll Hulse – editor of Reformation Today magazine and "roving ambassador" for Reformed Baptists
* Albert N. Martin – Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey. One of the leaders of the Reformed Baptist re-surfacing in the mid to late 20th Century.
The following 17th century Baptist pastors had a significant influence on the development of Particular Baptist theology:
* Benjamin Keach
* Hansard Knollys
* William Kiffin
See: Kiffin, Knollys and Keach - Rediscovering our English Baptist Heritage, by Michael A. G. Haykin (1996)
DFH 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The three from the seventeenth century definitely need articles. A.J.A. 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone could import any that exist from the 1911 Britannica or the Schaff-Herzog. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Started a stub on Keach.Brian0324 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Reformed Baptists 

message: ... and should they appear on Template:Calvinism? Please see the discussion at Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Reformed Baptists Calvinists?

message: Wouldn't Preacher be more appropriate? StAnselm 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, changed it. StAnselm 09:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles Spurgeon, evangelist

message: mohler is a southern baptist and driscoll's church is non-denominational. though these men may have close ties with reformed baptist churches and reformed baptist pastors, they are not directly associated with the denomination. at least to my knowledge they are not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.123.154 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be pretty clear from the article that the "reformed Baptists" are not a sole denomination, but more of a theological movement within different Baptist circles.  There certainly are some "reformed Baptist" denominations, but there are also reformed Baptists in the Southern Baptist Convention, the GARBC, and other Baptist gruops. Mohler certainly qualifies, and Driscoll does as well with a looser use of the term "baptist". raekwon (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  driscoll and mohler not reformed baptists 

message: Could whoever messed this up please return and fix it? This was a very comprehensive article which has been reduced to a paragraph.
A few "contributions" ago, if you look through the history, there has been an "uncontroversial" move, either from or to Reformed Baptist*s*, but at neither page is there anything like the article that used to exist.  Fix please!!! I'm trying myself now.Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was stubified because the prior text was unsourced, POV and had other problems as noted in the edit summaries. Please do not reinsert text without meeting WP:BURDEN. Novaseminary (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here is a link to the "old" version; it is still around, no need to dig through anything. And it was tagged, for more than three years as OR and since September for sources (which is related). It was almost entirely unsourced, and the one source there was failed WP:SYNTH. As for looking for sources, the sources there now (some added by me) are used properly and are RSs. But please do add more sources. Novaseminary (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, Novaseminary removed the article, without explaining what was meant by "POV." Some of that material should be reinstated, if it can be sourced. -- 202.124.75.47 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, some of it can go back in if it can be sourced. Though some of it was POV (read WP:NPOV) (e.g., "important Biblical truths were recovered and reemphasized"), I noted in my edit summary  here that I was removing long-tagged original research, or at least material that was unsourced. I didn't mention POV in my edit summary or in the talk posting immediately above Jamesrlforsyth's and your revelation about my edit. And then, I added a source (also as noted a few postings up). We could of course keep discussing and complaining about events of almost a year ago, or we could work to improve the article. Novaseminary (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Phrases like "important Biblical truths were recovered and reemphasized" are unfortunate, but can surely be handled by rewording rather than outright deletion? -- 202.124.73.56 (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to imply that nothing related to this can ever go in the article. Unsourced, POV material does not belong. Sourced, NPOV material that is given due weight is fantastic. The fact that the long-removed unsourced text is so clearly POV makes me doubt the veracity of the facts themselves, POV aside. But please, add neutral sourced text. Please. Novaseminary (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why has the whole page virtually disappeared?

message: In an effort to head off the repeated insertion of non-notable or unsourced entries in the Notable Reformed Baptists section, I propose spinnjng it off into a stand-alone list. That might make it less attractive to link spammers, or at least keep it out of what should become a real article. Who knows,  that might even help the substance of this article grow. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Y Done - Created the spin-off SAL at List of Reformed Baptists. Novaseminary (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people 

message: With this edit, I again reverted an IP editor's insertion of non-RSs and OR. IP, please explain how the source is ok or the material not OR. Novaseminary (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and IP edits