Talk:Charismatic Episcopal Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General | Convergence Movement | Origins and Vision | Government | Beliefs | Worship | Finance | Military Ministry | Growth & Current Status | References & External Links
Contents |
[edit] Organization/Development of Article
I've revamped and brokendown the CEC discussion page to conform to the present subsections of the article. If you have a comment or question or discussion you wish to introduce, please make it subsection-specific or, if general in nature, please post it on that talk page.
Kenneth Tanner 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, also remember to put all the subpages on your watch list so you'll know when someone's talking. Kennethmyers 03:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I manually check them from time to time, but if someone wants to put them on a watch list that's a better--more timely--method of monitoring. As for more references in the article, agreed. I'm not the one for that job, however, as the growth of this parish and diocese keep me occupied almost 24/7. Kenneth Tanner 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Continuing Anglican Movement?
Someone added the CEC to a list of churches that are part of the Continuing Anglican Movement and then linked to our page here removing the photo from Manilla. I restored this page and removed the link from the Continuing Anglican Movement page since we, the CEC, openly state that we are not associated with the Anglican or Episcopal Churches. I assumed it was just more vandalism, but spotted an old post from Canon Hatfield on the Continuing Anglican page and thought I'd better open this up for discussion here rather than assume it doesn't belong. So does anyone think we are involved with that movement? Please state the case. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subsections
The subsections seem to be more confusing than helpful. Should these links be deleted? --Knulclunk 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality Dispute
- CEC "Debate?" How about just keeping to factual/verifiable info? Dgardner710 19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the point, Knulclunk, thanks. The purpose of the tag is to engage in a process to resolve the problem. Most edits that are rejected or undone here are mostly vandalism, people posting ridiculous things that are inappropriate. Until those who are placing the tag are willing to discuss what it would take, specifically, for them to agree to remove it, I'll keep removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- So what parts are considered non-neutral? What would have to change to remove the tag?--Knulclunk 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering the number of persons on both sides of the CEC debate who have repeatedly edited, un-edited, and re-edited the article, to suggest that the article is, in fact neutral, is itself a seriously non-neutral point of view! Regardless of where any of us stands, let's call a spade a spade!--Martin Buber 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ceclogo.png
Image:Ceclogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Added rationale and removed tag. --Knulclunk 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please Adhere to Wikipedia Guidelines
Please Note the Direct Quote from the Wikipedia Guidelines about edit wars regarding Neutrality Disputes!!! Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.
Factual? Who knows what is "factual" any more? As Ken Myers has pointed out (the guy who wrote the original article, remember?) what WAS a fragile, hard-won consensus, has been repeated hijacked by CEC partisans. Yes, there are strong opinions on both sides. NOT to recognize this is fundamentally dishonest. And, as this dispute is nowhere near resolved, it is against the policy of Wikipedia to remove the Neutrality Dispute.--Martin Buber 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, what parts are you concerned about? Which sections are POV? I've read the article several times... are there facts that are incorrect? Are you concerned about tone of the recent developments section? Remember, nothing about this article should be "inside" information. If it hasn't been published and sourced, it can be removed.
- The NPOV tag says "take it to the talk page", but you have repeatedly failed to explain your issues with the article. Go ahead and change the most egregious section to something you would prefer, but be prepared to source it and, if need be, defend it here on the talk page. (Then you can restore the NPOV tag!)--Knulclunk 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Martin - Ken Myers wasn't the original author, spin back through the history and you'll see. The point is, you need to actively discussing what needs to change in order to remove the neutrality tag, that's also in the rules. Since those who want it aren't here discussing it, then they are the ones in violation and deserve to have the tage removed - period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cecshield.gif
Image:Cecshield.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)