User talk:Johnparkw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Johnparkw! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - ~~~~
Getting Started
Useful Links
Miscellaneous
Work Groups
Projects
Similar WikiProjects

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-projects to improve the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Article

Sub-projects as of today.

[edit] Rewrite the summary section

1. Clarify who the church is and what it stands for.
2. Take a stab at the Denominations contributions to North American Protestantism.
3. Sumarize its global witness
4. Document all assertions with verifyable references.
5. Move the "least known" out of the Lead sentence.


[edit] Locate pictures of the founders for the History section.

1. Identify someone to help with the copyright issues.
2. Search for relevant images.
  • Thomas Campbell
  • Alexander Campbell
  • Walter Scott
  • Racoon John Smith
  • Cane Ridge
  • Cane Ridge Revival
  • Brainstorm Ideas for graphics for Modern Disciples section
3. Edit and resize
4. Upload to Wikipedia
5. Edit location in the article


[edit] Re-edit history section and add references.

  • Decide how to approach the Division section
  • Decide how best to approach the CC(DOC)/ Independent Split
  • Where Disciples renewal/ Heritage fellowship??


[edit] Re-edit Modern Disciples section and add references.

[edit] Re edit Universities and Seminaries --

1. Consider whether this section makes sense to take up space
2. Write a talk section about my concerns and see if there is a consensus.


[edit] FIND HELP

1. Can I find a couple of editors from the CC(DOC) to assist?
2. Can I find an editor from the Churches of Christ and from the Independent Christian Churches who can help edit the article for balance?
  • Create Sub-headings


[edit] Split the Prominent Members section

  • to show leaders in the movement and individuals whose primary fame is outside the church.


John Park (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Articles to Consider

  1. Add a section on the slogans of the movement.
  2. Clean up the POV in the separation of CC(DOC) & non-instrumental Churches of Christ (1906)John Park (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and Category:American Disciples of Christ

  • Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
  • Category:American Disciples of Christ
  • Disciples of Christ by nationality

These two categories are for the same American denomination. Its official name is The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada. I would like to rename the CC(DOC) category to cover the full official name and then transfer the "american DOC" links there and the link the references that go there to the renamed page. In addition, there is a category:Disciples of Christ. It is really a disabiguation for American vs British Disciples of Christ. My questions: 1. Do you think this is a reasonable idea? 2. Can you help me do it? 3. Should it just be boldly done or should a notice be posted on the talk pages first? 4. Could the "Category:Disciples of Christ" page be linked to the Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) page and then a disambiguation paragraph be added at the top of that page, linking to the British page. John Park (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the rationale. Category:American Disciples of Christ is for individuals who are (1) American, and (2) members of the CC(DOC). Similarly, Category:British Disciples of Christ are for those who are British and members. Both of these categories have a parent category Category:Disciples of Christ by nationality, which is in use for any religion with members of more than one nationality, so that it can be included in Category:Protestants by nationality or similar categories. Category:Disciples of Christ by nationality is in turn a subcategory of Category:Disciples of Christ, which is a meta-category for members of the church. This category is a subcategory of Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the meta-category for the church in general. Everything seems in order here and the categories seem to be named and structured as all Christian religious denomination categories are. To make a change to a category name you need to propose a WP:CFD — the instructions for doing so are laid out fairly clearly on that page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight and perspective. I see that there are a number of issues here that will require some thought. My basic concern is still valid, namely that CC(DOC) and American Disciples of Christ are in reality the same category. With two locations, they are less useful than they might otherwise be. Some editors add to one and other editors add to the other. This is not my top priority, but I will add it to my list of improvements to explore down the road. John Park (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Sandbox

/Sandbox


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CampbellThomas.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:CampbellThomas.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CampbellThomas.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:CampbellThomas.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Hi, I've had a chance to read through the article. Here are some of my initial thoughts, presented in no particular order:

  1. I think the article is going quite well with history and the modern structure of the church section is coming along, but I would like to see some more on current beliefs (i.e. specific matters of doctrine) and practices. I realise there is a bit in there already in the "Modern Disciples" section, but it definitely could be expanded. Perhaps that might be a challenge since there doesn't seem to be a large amount of doctrine a member has to ascribe to to become a member.
  2. the first sentence of the article is interesting for me to read, but it's probably not the best thing to place in the very first sentence. I would tend to define what the church is (something like "The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is a Mainline Protestant denomination in the United States and Canada."), and then maybe the second sentence could say it's not well-known as compared to other mainline Protestant denominations.
  3. some parts of the "Modern Disciples" sections could be reworded and referenced better. As compared to the history section, it sounds less encyclopedic and more point-of-view-ish — like it was written by someone trying to promote the church or at least present it in as positive a light as possible. Perhaps not coincidentally, this section also is not referenced as well as the historical section. If the statements made in the "Modern Disciples" section were all referenced with third-party sources, the point of view problems would also likely disappear.
  4. since Category:Disciples of Christ exists, I'm not sure you ultimately need the section on prominent members. However, I would keep it for now until it's clear that the article is too otherwise too long and then that section could be cut.

For now, obviously my #3 would be the highest priority, followed perhaps by #1, depending on how much more there is out there that could be added. I hope this helps. I would like to contribute myself, but unfortunately I don't know much about this particular denomination or where to find information on it as compared to what I know about most. I guess that does go to show that it's possibly the "least well-known" of the M.P. denominations. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Observation

Tb and user:Secisek, you have have made your case. You are, to some degree getting caught in a game of uproar. May I encourage you continue to document the abuse and not respond to comments? I think the uproar itself will make your point, if you just watch. Those who speak (right now), in these cases lose. John Park (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may well be right. thanx. Tb (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Have a good day!:^) John Park (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my advice to Tb, as well. It would be futile to comment. -- Secisek (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello John! Thank you!

John/RedRocket: Thank you again for putting the links in your posts. That makes it really easy for me to go to them. Wiki is a little bit disorganized sometimes. I surely understand your concerns regarding citations. I like good citations in articles, too. When it comes to Scripture, we need to allow Scripture to prove itself. Put it up on the witness stand, so to speak. What I mean is this: if I can show you fifteen different passages that say the same exact thing in slightly different wording, that IS our secondary, and tertiary source. I could always site commentaries, and I probably will in some cases. That can get really wordy, though. As long as the citations are simple Scriptural passages, and the context doesn’t get into extremes, then I believe the changes should be left. The sections that I changed hardly had any citations, and needed some “body”. I added a lot of citations and organized the sections a little. We are trying to write an article that shows how MOST churches of Christ worship and how they use Scripture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I love encyclopedias just like everyone else here. When it comes to the part of the encyclopedia where religion comes up, we’ll see quite a bit of Bible verses. And that’s ok. It’s when we start adding material from outside the Bible that the discussion will become difficult to understand. Cross referencing will be our best tool. Again, thank you for helping me with the links and the ways of Wiki. Mark0880 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The importance of Acapella music to the Churches of Christ.

ThuranX, can you explain to us how mentioning the A Cappella music of a movement that developed around the principle of not using Musical instruments does not belong in the lead section of the article? Do you really believe your note: "revert. That's a minor point , as per the talk page, and not the lead?" To me, it seems central to the identity of the movement, which is NOT a minor point. Did I miss some conversation on the talk page? John Park (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm dropping this article from my watchlist. The POV pushing on here's insanely high ,the entire article reads like crap, and I got tired of fighting it almost immediately after reading the AN/I threads about it. There are too many religious zealots on this page, all insistent that the religion's existed since jesus, and teh catholic church must've hid it in a root cellar for censutires, and so on. Dogma won over fact here long ago, and i'm done. ThuranX (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, ThuranX. I've lost track the number of times I've reverted POV edits in this article. Many editors have lost sight that we are trying to build an encyclopedic article...that is based on proven fact....and not a pamphlet used for converting readers to the movement. I'm glad someone is/was trying to keep this article in check from POV edits. Sorry to see you go.
While A Capella music may be an identifying factor to Churches of Christ, it shouldn't necessarily be the second thing mentioned in the introductory paragraph. The introductory section is already too long. Being A Capella is already mentioned later on in the article, so mentioning it initially is redundant. You don't hear members of Churches of Christ saying to potential members "Come visit us, we're A Capella." While it might have played a role in historic separations in the past, it shouldn't be a central theme in the movement. --Ichabod (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


ThuranX, and --Ichabod, Thanks for your prompt responses here. Both of you are correct, of course, that POV edits abound on the Churches of Christ article. Many are made in good faith. They represent the different perspectives of individuals who are zealots in the sense that they tell the story of their church with passion. I suspect that many may never have written a term paper where they had to cite references and footnotes, so the reference they know are Bible verses. With a radically congregational approach, there are few places that individuals from the Churches of Christ can engage in conversation about their movement. Others do not seem to made in good faith, but doesn't the Wikipedia mantra "assume good faith" require that you and I just fix those, respectfully, and move on? With the article on limited protection as it is my expectation that the anonymous editors will simply reinsert the "lead section" everyone has reverted since January 2008 or before. I expect it within two minutes of the end of the protection. I personally believe in seeking consensus, scholarship, and reason. Consensus is a messy process, isn't it? To those in the Churches of Christ, the edits and comments the three of us make appear that we do not respect their identity. (Yes, MINE, too.) We are all outsiders. I hope both of you will continue to watch Churches of Christ and help referee the game. BTW, My real interest is described in detail on this page and my user page. I find it interesting that some members of the churches of Christ see themselves as a branch of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) after more than a century of separation. Consensus may take a long time. This article will need a few editors who understand what NPOV means and are willing to sympathetically coach and teach. John Park (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

John Park W. I left that page, unwatched it, and removed from my talk page your messagve to me. WHAT, in all of that, led you to think I gave a shit about your excuses for pushing your religious advocacy version of the page? You're one of the 'we're the greatest religion ever' pushers that drove me away from that article. DO NOT BOTHER ME AGAIN. ThuranX (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JP: I need assistance with citations

Hi John! Thank you for the updates. - Hey, I actually found and added a citation to the "Other Theological Tendencies" section of churches of Christ. However, I am trying to learn how to follow the already established citation method in the page. I went to Wikipedia:Citing sources and I still really dont see directions on how to make that little number appear with brackets. Can you help, please? Thank you!! Mark0880 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark, there are two parts to adding references and citations on a page.
  1. First list the source (Book, article, whatever) by editing the section of the article called "References." There are templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates that will format it for you, or you can enter the info as plain text. To do the former, find the appropriate template copy it and paste it where it goes. You can play with this in the Sandbox by cutting and pasting and the clicking preview. If you do the latter, be sure you give all the information. You can see what it will look like by using the Preview feature. This will give the details needed to find the book or source, for those who would like to read more, or to check your work. More details on sources are available at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and its links.
  2. Second for each page cited in the article put your cursor in the text where you intend the citation to go and the click on the <ref/ref> tool bar (at the top of the edit window) and enter the Author, Year of Publication, and page numbers just as you'd like them to appear in the Notes or footnotes section. The wiki software will do the rest. John Park (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Hi, I may have mentioned this before.

When an article is found in a subcategory of Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), it does not need to be added to the main parent category of Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); in fact, in almost all cases it should not be.

For instance, Frances McDormand is in Category:American Disciples of Christ; there is no need to add her to Category:Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Similarly, Drury University is in Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), so it doesn't need to be added to the parent category.

I saw that you added a whole heap of articles back into the parent, but that pretty much defeats the purpose of farming them out to the subcategories and can be more confusing for those who like to find articles by sifting through categories. Thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I personally find the Wikipedia subcategories puzzling. My personal preference would be for a few broad categories. You ARE the specialist in categories! And, I yield to your perspective. Would you like me to go back and clean up my mess? John Park (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter