Talk:Vintage Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Start of Vintage Church Talk page Djfonseca (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
MatthewVanitas, how can this page be better edited so that's it's not flagged for non-encyclopedic content? Thanks for your assistance! Djfonseca (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Greetings! In terms of bringing the article more in line with encyclopedic style, I would recommend you check out some other church listings on Wiki. A number of other church articles are also in need of editing, but in a brief perusal I ran across various good examples, such as this article: Holy Cross Lutheran Church (Atwater, California). Fundamentally, the article as it currently stands draws too heavily from the church's own perspective and statements. In other words, it serves as a mouthpiece for the church rather than an article about the church. Some sections (such as History) have a good encylcopedic presentation, and you do have a couple good quotes from external sources (key to promoting a balanced view). The sections Values, Beliefs, and Services do need a fair bit of work though. Values draws entirely from the church's own statements, so I would advise that that section be summarized and incorporated into another section. For Beliefs, try to look at the church from a very outside, dispassionate perspective, and describe what theological links the church has to other movements within Protestant/evangelical Christianty. The Services section is probably the least encyclopedic, and verges on flagging for advertisement. Rougly speaking, I would recommend that you retain the second paragraph (about structure, compare/contrast with standard Protestant liturgical worship), and perhaps keep an abbreviated portion of the quote from the college journalist, though noting that the journalist is agnostic is redundant and edges on being a loaded statement. I'll clarify that I am in no way opposed to the existence of this article, but on the contrary believe that having academic, neutral articles covering churches does more to portray a positive image than does having an article which could be accused of "bias". If the "Churches" section of wiki turns into a series of advertisements, it loses educational value, and thus won't reach a wider audience. I hope you find these suggestions helpful! Take care. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Couple more points upon reflection: the Discipleship and Housegroups section is also strongly slanted in an [b]advertising[/b] fashion. Recommend that you instead summarize that section. One small but very important detail: do refrain from capitalizing "Him" (for religious reasons) in encyclopedic articles. Again, the intent is not to disrespect Jesus by refraining from that capitalizing convention, but to keep a neutral stance. If Christian editors were to insist upon capitalizing "Him", then Muslim editors would insist upon adding the (PBUH) "Peace be upon him" honorific after Muhammad's name. Note that adding PBUH as an honorific is specifically discouraged on Wiki: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw)?. So, in fairness, please approach article content with an "outside" view. Thanks again!MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
