Talk:Christian fundamentalism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian fundamentalism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 365 days

Christianity: Theology Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Fundamentals and Genesis

That the early Fundamenatlists were not literalists in their interpretation of Genesis 1 is clear from James Orr's article on this subject. Please correct the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.70.141 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orr writes in 1917: "In conclusion, it is clear that the narratives of Creation, the Fall, the Flood, are not myths, but narratives enshrining the knowledge or memory of real transactions. The creation of the world was certainly not a myth, but a fact, and the representation of the stages of creation dealt likewise with facts. The language used was not that of modern science, but, under divine guidance, the sacred writer gives a broad, general picture which conveys a true idea of the order of the divine working in creation." that's literalism. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In The Fundamentals, which this section is siting, Orr wrote about the first chapter of Genesis, “There is no violence done to the narrative in substituting in thought ‘aeonic’ – vast cosmic periods – for ‘days’ on our narrower, sun-measured scale.” The Fundamentals; a testimony to the truth. Volume 4, page 101. [1] Whatever Orr wrote on other occasions, in his essay for The Fundamentals he directly stated that the first chapter of Genesis did not have to be taken literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.115.217 (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"By denomination" section

I have pruned a number of inclusions in this section simply due to the fact that they are not within the scope of this particular article. This article is about a specific movement within Christianity, and is well defined in the lead. It is essentially Protestant, and most within the movement would subscribe to the tenets of The Fundamentals (although that has drifted within recent decades). It consists mostly of Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and non-denominational groups. The items I removed are (1) Christian, and (2) fundamentalist, but they are not "Christian Fundamentalist" within this scope. They are "fundamentalist" within their own Christian traditions, which is not the same thing. There's a nuance here to be grasped, but because this is an article about a specific movement that has a specific definition, we have to careful not to drift out of that scope. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clade Diagram please

May we have a clade diagram, showing how this lot diverged (and perhaps recombined/hybridised etc) from whatever the distant past and theoretical origin of their evolution is? Midgley (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condense "In Australia" section to a single paragraph?

I see the maintenance tag for the section "In Australia". How do editors feel about moving this section as-is into a stand-alone article and then replacing it with the following single paragraph?

In Australia, Christian fundamentalism has been represented by the now defunct group Logos Foundation. The Logos Foundation, led by Howard Carter, was a controversial Christian ministry in the 1970s and 1980s that promoted Reconstructionist, Restorationist, and Dominionist theology. The Logos Foundation disbanded shortly after an adulterous affair by Carter became public.

Nowa (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put this in per WP:bebold. More details about Logos foundation can be found in its stand along article. Nowa (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the section is unsourced and essentially WP:OR. A good portion of it is also largely editorial and not written in an encyclopedic tone. Moving it to a new article just moves the problem to another article instead of solving the issues. It should just be deleted unless it can be sourced. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. Thanks for your feedback. Nowa (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of discussion of Range Christian Fellowship

As far as I can tell, none of the references for the Range Christian Fellowship are reliable secondary sources (i.e. RS). The primary reference Small, for example, is a self published book by the wife of the founding pastor. I also could not find any RS after my own search. Hence, despite all of the work that went into it, I deleted that section as not being notable per Wikipedia standards. Nowa (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]