Talk:List of Christian movements: Difference between revisions

Original research

This article has essentially no citations or verification. It's a culmulative original research list-themed essay and should be deleted. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Not original research, just a list This is simply a directory of other Wikipedia articles. It doesn't fit the definition of original research. You should probably try getting consensus before making several hysterical edits to delete content or else people won't take you seriously. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary source to itself and it's not self-referential. Simply because we have many articles on the wiki, does not mean you can make a list which includes some and then slap a label on that list, asserting that it is something. Where are the experts who call these listed entries "Christian movements"? The aggregation of these article titles together under this banner is indeed an act of original research. Even the name is. Everything we publish must be cited to a reliable source and the wiki is never a source for itself. You need to go find some authors who've written about Christian movements and see if they mention these. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 07:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be so bossy. quite a few of those deletions are indisputably supprted as deletions in that the premise of the article does not warrant mainstream, recognized flavors being included here. For example, read the premise of the article and tell me why Pentecostals are in this article. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

===>What? I'm not sure that I can understand everything you're saying here, but this article does none of the following:

• Introduces a theory or method of solution;
• Introduces original ideas;
• Defines new terms;
• Provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• Introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• Introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• Introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source

so it isn't original research. By the way, telling me not to be bossy is being bossy. I'm just trying to help you out here. The burden of proof is on you to defend deleting them, not on us for keeping them. Pentecostals are probably on here because the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement began within several Western denominational families before the founding of separate churches and those churches are not within one church body or government, but loosely affiliated by a common attitude toward theology and worship, the definition of a movement. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the burden of WP:AGF is on everyone who edits. I made individual edis with individual edit summary reasons. Either rebut those reasons individually here or leave my edits alone. It is you who has turnd my routine edits into a controversy, so the burden of dialog is especially high on you. If you fail to discuss each deletion of mine you object to, then you are in bad faith mode. Either address my edit summaries here, or leave those edits be. Also, you calling me "hysterical" was very bossy and a personal attack.→ Wombdpsw - @ ← 07:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Burden of proof The status quo was established, and you are the one making the claim; you need to provide evidence to convince other people that your claim is reliable. You haven't. Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. Why is it that saying your edits are hysterical is a personal attack, but calling me bossy isn't? Clearly, you've got some kind of agenda to push as a "John 3:16" Christian that has some hostility toward other schema of Christian taxonomy, and it's totally bankrupt, so you're looking for a justification to delete massive parts of the article. This is not original research. Which of the classifications of original research is this? If you can't tell me, then you can't expect me to accept your conclusion. Is List of cities in France original research, too? By your reasoning, it would be, since there is no academic source that has the same list and calls it "List of Cities in France." Preposterous. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)