Talk:Independent Fundamental Baptist

message: The article Independent Baptist church has a lot of overlap with this article in content and scope, it even offers "Independent Fundamental Baptist" as a synonym. Logically these two articles are on the same topic. In addition the Independent Baptist is a better written, sourced, and more encyclopedic article.  Samboy220 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The article reads like the operation manual of one specific IFB church, not a description of IFB churches in general (remember the INDEPENDENT, there isn't a single handbook or set of guidelines that all IFBs follow to the letter). I've done some cleaning. I've made much of the content more concise and removed some items that are not backed up by the sources in an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic and applicable to IFBs as a whole. I'm not perfect, so if anyone disagrees with any of the edits, please post here and we can discuss them to reach a consensus and improve the health of the article overall. Samboy220 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs fixing 

message: I really don't see why the paragraph about Avoiding the media has any-thing to do with the article. It sortof sound like a suggestion to the movement, not a statement. If someone else doesn't revise it, I will.
Hellfire Preacherman 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uneeded paragraph 

message: Some of the text of this article almost seems to be an attempt to be comical in regard to the typical IFB church.  Certainly, it would seem that the author has a very limited exposure to IFB churches.  
I would like to help correct this and present a correct view of IFB churches, but how can one do this when every edit or correction is deleted?
Imasaved1 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no attempt to be comical. The information given is factual. I myself happen to be an Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher, with experience preaching in dozens upon dozens of IFB churches in several different states. If the information doesn't seem right to you, you're not in an Independent, King-James-Bible-Believing Fundamental Baptist church - and to that end, you're probably not saved, which you need to get before it's eternally too late for your soul, my friend - pray to Jesus. Regardless - the edits you've made -- besides being unreferenced, poorly-worded, and against WP policies -- were not generally true of IFB churches. It sounded more like you were talking about your own church (which may or may not call itself IFB). If everyone edited the article to reflect the specifics of their own home church, it would be a big mess. The article as it stands reflects a general overview -- an average -- of the IFB experience; and again, I base that on the references given AND on my going-on-25 years as a traveling IFB preacher who has been in over a hundred IFB churches all over the South and several outside it too. Nuberger13 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to engage with you in this debate you so long for, you're an attention-seeker. This is an encyclopedia; we're here to work, not chat and debate (WP:NOT#CHAT). If you want to make changes to this article, you need to follow all the Wikipedia policies which come into play - namely, the information you provide needs to be explicitly referenced (WP:REFERENCES) from a verifiable (WP:VERIFY), reliable (WP:RELIABLE), independent source over which you've had no influence (WP:CONFLICT) - and if it's going to be replacing or contradicting information currently in the article, it needs to explicitly state what information in the article is flatly incorrect, and why/how, and prove it using reliable scholarly material. Nuberger13 (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What's your reference proving this? Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What's your reference proving this? Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What's your reference proving this? Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What's your reference proving this? Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What's your reference proving this? Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What's your reference proving this? Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What's your reference proving this? Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What's your reference proving this? Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: If 'encyclopedic information' still means detailed, detached, dispassionate, dissociated information - then that's exactly what it all is. But let's see you try to back up the incorrect assertions you've made here first. I would again like to emphasize that I'm a traveling IFB preacher who probably sees more IFB churches in one year than you'll see in your life, so I have more experience than you do with this, and am better equipped to judge accuracy than you are. Nuberger13 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions