Talk:Saddleback Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Southern California, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Southern California, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject California. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
The "Serious concerns with" section added September 27, 2005 does not pertain directly to Saddleback Church so much as the author's personal opinions about Rick Warren and the "Purpose Driven" movement. I have changed the title to "Opposition, concerns" do to the unduly prejudicial tone it invoked.
I do not believe this amount of editorializing is appropriate, and should be at the least reduced to a few relevant concerns. As is, the "opposition" section is as big as the general explanation.
Further, a section is already present in the entry for Purpose Driven Purpose_Driven I propose shorting the section to a reference (as it is in the Purpose Driven entry) instead of a list of redundant, critical links.
- Please sign your posts on talk pages.
- Agree this article needs work. The section of links to critics is actually longer than the text of the article! Ridiculous. It shows that some don't like this particular church, but I think we knew that. Andrewa 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Links - Criticisms
I can see how it would be entirely appropriate to have criticisms and debates within a Wikipedia article. I wonder, however, if the links section in this article goes too far. In fact, for the individual who is expressing his opinions through them, I think that s/he would find it far more useful to boil it down to one or two powerful links, thus appearing more neutral.
Just one user's thoughts... --Jelgie 18:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some adds
I´ve put some new information concerning the subject purposed, that I think is give real information about this institution. Of course, everybody has the right to make critics, but both sides must be heard. Se ya, from Brazil!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.186.80.19 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Blatant POV
The continuous references to "God" expanding this or that ministry in this (Saddleback) church is clearly POV by any reading of Wikipedia's policy. I have to wonder how many readers would even be offended by it.
If anyone argues that it is not POV but "fact", please consider this: What if I said that it was really Satan driving the expansion of this church? Wouldn't someone (rightfully) point out that that was POV?
On a personal note, I think it is foolish, dangerous, and disrespectful to ascribe the success of a particular church to "God". How dare you! InFairness 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"How dare you!" seems a teeny bit extreme. I guess I'm just not that shocked at my fellow Christians (or Muslims or Jews for that matter) ascribing their church's success to God. Or do you see the only intelligent, safe and respectful view as one that is secularly based?;)
We Christians come at things from a different paradigm. And I think folks of different faiths who live in a pluralistic society are all mature enough to realize that us making claims of the God-based nature of worldly successes (just as they do) does not equal disrespect. It equals faith.
In any case, might it be better to remove and annotate what you believe is POV rather than remove the entire contribution of the author? Is there not any content that you felt could be kept in your revision of the article rather than a mass delete? I was tempted to revise it myself before you deleted. It just seems rather "unwiki-ish" to undo everything a contributor did. But I am new at this so this is newby feedback. It just seems more in-line with what I've read about how wikipedia works.
All the best!--Jelgie 07:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Left Behind
Okay, really don't wanna get involved with this article, but... while it may be true that Left Behind does take place in the end times and does involve people getting shot, "Ties to violent end times video game" is still POV. Two reasons: (a) It's arbirtrary that you chose to draw attention to these two facts to the exlcusion of others. It could also be described just as accurately as "Ties to modern-era real-time strategy game", or even "Ties to video game which has lots of concrete." An anti-concrete activist would be particularly offended by such a game, and would want to make sure that everyone knows that Saddleback has ties to such a debacle. So, the fact that two particular aspects of the game are being highlighted displays a POV on the game itself. (b) "Violence" is a relative term. I'm sure Left Behind is less violent than, say, Grand Theft Auto. Actually, I'm sure it's less violent than the Bible. So, to use it implies a judgment on the game which is extraordinarily difficult to make objectively. Hope this helps. Korossyl 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is so totally slanted, and has no historical significance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.247.221 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 September 2006
[edit] Saddleback church settlement
What is this about? I can't seem to find anything on it and I'm curious. Strawberry Island 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Well known and influencial
This has been moved from the article for discussion.
- Saddleback is currently one of the most well-known and influential churches in the world.http://www.inplainsite.org/html/saddleback_church.html
I don't think the source could be considered a reliable one. [www.inplainsite.org www.inplainsite.org] doesn't indicate in any way that it is anything other than one person's website.[1] A google search for the author of the piece, David Cloud, shows that he has nothing in his background to make this kind of claim valid. In fact, his writings are apparently controversial in themselves.[2] For this kind of claim, it requires a source with some editorial oversight and fact-checking. Pairadox (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
