Talk:The Purpose Driven Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
[edit] Major Update
I spent some time redoing this entire article as it had been edited down to almost nothing - for good reasons. I acknowledge upfront my own biases on the book. However, I have endeavored to make the writing of this entry "encyclopedic" in style. I have also tried my best to uphold Wiki standards of W:NPOV, W:BLP, COI, etc. I trust I have done this correctly. If not, I am open to correction and learning to do it the right way. CarverM (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Acceptable criticism?
This Rick Warren guy really is not a Christian! -- Stallion Tiger 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The book also advises leaders to adapt their message to what their church-goers want -- contradicting the teachings of the Bible" - As editors of an encyclopedia and basically random people on the internet, we do not get to say what or who contradicts the teachings of the Bible. If a notable person has said so, we might record that and cite the source, but we can't say it on our own initiative. Neither do we get to (or have to) decide who the Christians are. If that's not wrong on any other basis, it's contrary to Wikipedia's policy. We have to follow our policy on biographies of living people. I think it is pretty clear from the context of your remark above that you are expressing your opinion, but still it it pretty close to non-neutral, unverifiable, and controversial: material that is not allowed. Thanks for your work on the articles, Tom Harrison Talk 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Acceptable source links
Please remember, per WP:V that self-published materials (blogs, personal/church websites, etc.) are not considered viable sources.
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.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Please refrain from adding these to the Wikipedia.
