Talk:Back To Jerusalem movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Back To Jerusalem movement article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Christianity in China work group. See also Portal:Christianity in China. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Tag

Added tag as unreferenced. Pastordavid 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The link is a reference. Thanatosimii 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My bigger concern was the issue of notability and verifiability. There is no reference in this article that this group actually (1) exists and (2) is notable. Such evidence would come from 3rd party sources - not the groups own home page. Anyone can create a group, and then link to a site they created. This does not mean that they are notable enough for an entry. From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And further: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Pastordavid

which would be more of a problem if this page was more than a stub. Thanatosimii 17:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually stubs have to establish notability as well. Nil Einne 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You have recently made two edits on three talk pages to pages which have absolutly no relation to one another whatsoever except that I have recently made comments on them, and then you proceed to contradict me. Apologies if I'm wrong, but since the chance of that happening on a site of 1.5 million articles is one in several trillion, I had better not find that you're edit-stalking me. Thanatosimii 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I share the same concerns as Pastordavid brought up in January. I don't see anything in the listed references that establishes that the movement exists and is important of it's own right. The listed book could easily be entirely self promotional and the first two references are entirely redundant. There seems to be a promotional campaign going on here to write articles on the movement in other languages as well. - Taxman ^Talk 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hattaway, stafford, and the movement's page itself are all different sources; I don't see where the redundant stuff comes from. More than enough to satisfy notability, particularly due to the christianity today link, which is a good enough source to be used in many christianity related pages on wikipedia. As for "promotional campaign," it is totally normal for other languages' wikipedias to copy the english one. Nothing has happend to this page that hasn't happend to Qakare Ibi, a page I suspect we can all agree isn't spam. Thanatosimii 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The first reference is just a book review of the listed book. It doesn't offer anything new or serve as a reliable reference. When I see that type of thing and someone asking lots of people to write articles in many languages for something that hasn't really established its importance it looks fishy. Just because something happens on other articles doesn't make it a good thing. Even the Christianity today article just interviews the same author. That doesn't serve as independent verification. What would be better would be if we could have more independent sources that speak to the importance of the movement. - Taxman ^Talk 03:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course more would be good, but what more can you expect from behind the Great Firewalls of China? Whether it is or is not important there, it definitly is important in some sense in western Evangelical Christendom, given all the attention Brother Yun has recieved from his book. Thanatosimii 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is the article has basically none that establishes importance. It needs some to justify existence. - Taxman ^Talk 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you to read this book before labelling this article as ‘not important’. --G. Campbell 05:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)