Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 5

message: I have done another big edit of links. About a third of the article was links, and some of them had little relevance to the article. Please, please, please... this is an encyclopaedia, not a link directory. I know that if people have a good site, they will want to publicise it, but please resist the temptation. If you are a Christadelphian, and really want to draw people to look at the Christadelphian understanding of the Bible, you'd be far better contributing to the article itself. A huge long list of links is likely to result in most of them being ignored - if people want a whole list of Christadelphian sites they can go to google.
If you are trying to increase the traffic to your own site, wikipedia isn't the place, and you are breaking wikipedia policy. This is hardly a good example to set, if we claim to be God-fearing people. There are plenty of legitimate ways to publicise your site - among the links that I have left are some sites that will often provide links to other Christadelphian sites, so if people are interested they can access your site that way.
I have left a small selection of links, including to Dawn and Old Paths fellowships, so I hope I have been even-handed. I have removed the multiple links (i.e. different links to different sections of the same website); ecclesial sites (these are often relatively small sites, and we cannot start a precedent leading to all 1500 (?) ecclesias linking to their own sites); Christadelphian schools (not mentioned in the article and of little relevance to the general public); and a whole host of other sites that are either covered by the existing links, or are easily accessible from other sites.
Please do not add any more links unless:
1. They conform to wikipedia policy 
2. They contain something significant that the existing sites do not contain or do not link to 
3. They maintain a balance in the link section 
If you think this is unreasonable please discuss here. It's very rude to anonymously just do your own thing, and not engage with other users.RJB
:I have replaced much of what was removed it is rude to abitarily delete another peoples hard work! Mine was only a small portion butI know somebody else worked hard on the links and you have undone all their hard work! [anonymous user]
::Please refrain from deleting my comments on the talk page. Yes, lots of people have worked hard on the links, myself included. However, wikipedia is not simply about my work or your work. It's about creating an article that has a broad consensus and provides relevant, accurate information to the general public. The edits I made to the article incorporated some of your (and others) material. If you would like to expand/amend them, please go ahead - but we're not going to get anywhere if you just restore them to the version you'd written that I'd thought needed some editing.RJB 18:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tonight I restored a recently deleted link then thought better of it. The target site is a good one but it doesn't belong here - as a moment's reflection would have shown. I had better apologise for the reference to vandalism too!Aquatarkus 15:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Wikipedia, it is possible to link to external websites. Such links are referred to as "external links".  Many articles have a small section containing a few external links.  There are a few things which should be considered when adding an external link.
#Is it accessible?
#Is it proper? (useful, tasteful, etc?)
#Is it entered correctly?
In general, external links should be accessible by the widest audience possible. That is, try to avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications (Flash, Java, etc.) to see the relevant content, at least if there is a simpler site available. If the best/only site does have such requirements, it is best to include a note to that effect. For people with a slow connection, also mention the size if that is large. Examples: "(requires Java)", "(1 MB PDF file)", "(requires registration)". The same applies to any sites with ads that spawn new windows.
#Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.
#Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.
#If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.
#On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link.  The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other.  One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
#High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.
#For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. For films, Movie Review Query Engine, Internet Movie DataBase, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic offer especially large collections of reviews. To access the list of other collections of movie reviews available online, please use this link.
#Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
#Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such.  In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.
What should not be linked to:
#Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes.  Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged.  The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead.  Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions.  See also External link spamming.
#Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above.''
RJB 13:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What to link to

message: Some General Notes before Discussion:
*Please of course continue to follow avoiding personal attacks, stay on topic and sign in but the the general comments about these have been moved to RAW's user talk page. If desired they can be reviewed and continued there. This will help pare down a very long discussion. And will help to keep us focused on the topic, which generally seems to have reached consensus. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forums agreed, but why keep ripping out the interlanguage links? ISTM they should stay. Aquatarkus 10:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might have been in error by Elpis. They have been restored.  58.107.151.115 would you please sign in. RAW 11:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, yes it was my error I probably deleted too much --Elpis 15:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please if you wish to discuss external links do so in the area set aside and focus on the links to forums here. These links to forums are to sites who purpose is a forum for discussion. RAW 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, please read carefully. I did not justify it on that basis. I must also chuckle to think that if everyone else is anonymous how would you know if it applies to at least one other forum and some of the links? :-) RAW 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If the comments are read carefully the reason for removing the links is that they violate the policies outlined above. And the person who is objecting to their removal happens to be an owner. Which is also questionable in relation to policies above. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If increasing traffic to a site is a violation of Wkipedia policies then no site could be linked. I expect that the links to the Christadelphian Websites have generated some traffic to these sites. Are you suggesting that they should therefore be removed? Ekklesiastic 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again you need to read carefully. increasing site to a traffic for a discussion (as the forum links do). Not all links. RAW 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Links like these would qualify as pseudo-'official' sites. There is one for each significant fellowship grouping (and, to avoid an edit war, some of lesser significance have been included). Discussion forums are not by any stretch of the imagination official. I think a neutral observer would recognise the distinction. Aquatarkus 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for your contribution to the discussion Aquatarkus (at last we have a discussion). Do I understand you correctly - are you saying that linking to a website on Wikipedia makes it pseudo-'official', or is there another (unstated) reason why these private websites should be regarded as pseudo-'official'? The only way a Christadelphian website could be 'official' would be if it  was owned by an ecclesia or an organisation constituted by an ecclesia or group of ecclesias, or an organisation or association legally recognised as such and with objectives specifically 'Christadelphian' objectives. In other words, an ecclesia could have an official website, as could the Sunday School Union or the Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association. A website owned by an individual or group of individuals not directly governed by an ecclesia would be 'unofficial'. Are there any 'official' websites currently in the Christadelphians article? Ekklesiastic 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There are no real 'official' sites to choose from, because the Christadelphians do not make up a corporate organisation. The CMPA site would be as official as one could get - in my opinion, but others might disagree. RJB took the option of including one site from each fellowship grouping, and these individual sites are - again in my opinion - very representative of the fellowships they represent. Aquatarkus 04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for your clarification Aquatarkus. It appears then that all the links under 'Christadelphian websites' are therefore unofficial, while truly official sites are not listed. The purpose of external links should be to provide "neutral and accurate material not already in the article". Sites which are "representative of the fellowships" in a divided community cannot, by definition, be 'neutral' and should not be used. In line with Wikipedia policy they should all be removed. Ekklesiastic 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree that none of the Forums listed in the article are 'official'. I recognise the distinction you are trying to make. A neutral observer would probably also recognise the distinction, and for many months Christadelphian websites and Forums Relevant to Christadelphians have been clearly distinguished in the article to avoid any confusion. However, I do not understand your distinction between non-official and pseudo-official. So what's your point? Forums do provide additional information not available on the websites and are a valuable resource. Ekklesiastic 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Forums relevant to Christadelphians are relevant to _Christadelphians_. But Wikipedia isn't targeted at Christadelphians in particular, and Christadelphians won't come to Wikipedia to discover what's relevant to them. The question is whether these forums are particularly relevant to neutral readers? And the answer is that they aren't. Aquatarkus 04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *RAW, please don't remove contributions to this discussion which oppose your own views. 'Consensus' is not gained by deleting opposing views.Ekklesiastic 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't agree with the removal of the links to Forums, unless the links to the other sites are removed as well. I believe there should be consistency in deciding whether or not to link to a site, and currently there is none. Ekklesiastic 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So far others are not seeing it that way. I am not sure why if you seriously feel that the external links should be removed that you would object to the forum links being removed? Sorry but it sounds like a child's tactic that says if I can't play, no one else can either. Surely if you have posted (see discussion on External Links below) that the external links should be removed, therefore you belive the links to forums should certainly be removed? But it sounds like you really don't believe that and are just saying it to try and bully people to keep the links to forums by trying to remove both sets. RAW 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on links to forums

message: Ekklesiastic has now raised the issue of other external links and that discussion is continued here. So far no one else is in agreement with him and Aquatarkus has distinguished well between the two. It would seem that the links to the websites of various "major" fellowships provide information about them. The forums on the other hand are places to discuss. The purpose outlined above and the policy is to provide information not discussions. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It appears that the links to Christadelphian Websites generally fail to meet the Wikipedia criteria for providing external links and I therefore propose that section titled 'External Links' should be removed from this article. Ekklesiastic 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Cdelph I'm wondering why you think forum links should be removed when you've added a link to a forum yourself in at least one other Wikipedia article. Ekklesiastic 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sorry but it seems that your new found objection to the links have more to do with the removal of the links to forums than with whether you believe it or not. Could you explain why you have so quickly changed your mind? RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Upon reviewing the links there are many purposes, including the providing of further information not found in the article. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *These seem to be very inappropriate comments. Someone has chosen not to use a name so how can you be sure of your accusations? I own/manage none of the sites and have admitted earlier to adding one of the forum sites (which have now been remvoed) and would gladly add them if it is a concern to you. You appear to have attempted to set a policy because you are upset over the loss of the link to your forum. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I checked the link and saw it provided lots of information and various further links, only one of which was to a discussion forum. The main purpose would appear to be a web page. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sorry but again your new found objections seem strange. By your definition it would be close to impossible for anything to be "neutral". Even articles on the wikipedia are not "neutral". Each of these are outlined by RJB above provide information on the various "major" fellowships within Christadelphians. The purpose of the article is to provide information whether Christadelphians are divided or not. Christadelphians may not wish to draw attention to it but it is reality. And the wikipedia is to provide that information. Whether you are surprised or not. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Nothing requires them to be "official". They are sites that generally would provide information on that fellowship and as RJB outlined. See above for all his reasons. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please refer to the  Wikipedia policy on External links. "What should be linked to ... 2. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one." Ekklesiastic 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on External Links 

message: it says "conscientious objectors, but not pacifists." can someone who knows please elaborate on this. i dont understand.  
- Christadelphians are not pacifists - they just will not fight for Gentile Powers.  Hence for most their WWI willingness to work in munitions factories, a position subject to much criticism. 
:I have edited the history section to remove the erroneous statement that the term "Christadelphian" was in use before 1864.  If you care to consult "Yahweh Elohim" (and I have an original copy) you will find no such reference. I have also added the term actually used in the Northern US - "The Antipas".  Note the Southern Brethren used "Nazarenes," and it was under this name they were granted exemption by the confederate congress. user:Chuckh: 4 March 2006
::* Chuckh, thanks for the correction. I would be very interested in seeing a copy of the original edition of Yahweh Elohim. Is it available electronically? I am also interested in the use of the name 'Nazarenes' by the southern brethren. Can you provide any further details? You can email me at the address in my profile on my blog if you wish. Ekklesiastic 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pacifist? 

message: User 82.47.74.47 has vandalized a link in this article on three occasions. Whoever you are, please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.   Ekklesiastic 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Removed this section. There was some discussion of a website about Christadelphians, but the discussion made no reference to the wikipedia page. This is a page for discussing the wikipedia article on Christadelphians. It is not a general discussion forum RJB 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Hutchinson's crtical attack in his "What They Said Would Happen!"-?? 

message: I removed the following phrase:
(a Greek word commonly mispronouced as "Eee-clee-see-as")
and replaced it with a link to the wikipedia page on ecclesia; this would seem a more suitable place for mention of correct (or even incorrect) pronunciation. RJB 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecclesias

message: Removed text: personal arguements are not really for public consumption and do not give a very good impression of Christadelphians.
:*It is is out of bounds to delete like that per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. Besides, all anyone has to do is go and read the page's history to read the discussions. CyberAnth 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to provide information, not to generate good PR. The purpose of this page is not to "give a very good impression of Christadelphians". Please don't remove material simply because you don't like the impression it leaves. Ekklesiastic 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I am in agreement with both CyberAnth and Ecclesiastic on this. Do not delete any discussions.  Note also, please sign in when you make edits and also sign your posts. Cdelph 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted discussions 

message: At the start of the page, a statement is made saying "There are approximately 50,000 Christadelphians in 130 countries." Under wikipedia's policy, statements like this really need to be verifiable. I'm not sure who worked out this statistic, but I've googled this statistic, and all I come up with is a list of wikipedia mirrors. If this is not verifiable, it should be deleted. Benpmorgan 09:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I changed "approximately" to "an estimated". I don't know where the estimate comes from - I've heard several estimates at various times, all largely guesswork I think. Ekklesiastic 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: What do you think about the use of anecdotes in this article? Personally I feel that comments like the following are unverifiable, easily challenged, and add nothing substantive to the article (and almost certainly would be contrary to Wiki guidelines).
:*Christadelphians have had many public discussions with other religions, most commonly Jehovah's Witnesses, and have not yet to date been proven wrong in their belief of the scriptures. Many Jehovah's Witnesses turned to the Christadelphian Faith after these discussions, believing the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses to be misleading and ultimately wrong in their understanding of the scriptures. Catholics have also been unable to find a flaw in the Christadelphians, and one Priest was convinced by the Christadelphians that his religion was wrong, yet said that he could not change his 'faith' because he had a very comfortable lifestyle and was in a respected position in community .
Is there any evidence that Christadelphian discussions with other religions have been "most commonly with Jehovah's Witnesses"? They have "not yet to date been proven wrong" is a subjective opinion. "Many Jehovah's Witnesses turned to the Christadelphian Faith after these discussions". Can this be substantiated? What about the "many Christadelphians" who may have turned to other faiths? "Catholics have been unable to find a flaw in the Christadelphians". Is there an official Catholic source that can be cited? "One priest" is, well, "one priest". What about the thousands of priests who continue to be Catholics? 
In my opinion this comment should be removed. Ekklesiastic 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdotal information 

message: I have amended the following
:became known as the Central fellowship, named after a meeting hall in Birmingham England near the Birmingham Central station.
There is no Birmingham Central fellowship; as far as I'm aware the fellowship is named after the ecclesia, not a hall, since the Central ecclesia has met in a number of different halls.
I have deleted the following
:The "Central Fellowship" today are those who in fellowship with the CMPA (Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association's directors).
I have been a Christadelphian for 10 years and know several CMPA members and have never heard such a definition used; I suspect most would strongly disagree with it.  RJB 14:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christadelphian history