Talk:Danvers Statement

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Christianity Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International Council for Gender Studies[edit]

Could somebody please tell me why William and Barbara Mouser aka the "International Council for Gender Studies" are representative of anything beyond themselves -- let alone demonstrative of "many Christian groups" (the claim for which they were original cited for). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

It seems that one editor redirected this article in mid-2011. Since then, the redirect has been reverted at two different times by two different editors. I also feel that the Danvers Statement is notable enough for its own article. If there is any opposition to restoration of this article, please comment here. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion that resulted in the original merge: Talk:Complementarianism#Merger_proposal. The idea was, the articles need to be worthwhile standing on their own, which they weren't. In my opinion, if you want to restore this information (which I agree is worth keeping) it should be merged into the CMBW article since that group and the Danvers Statement are interrelated. Until then, I'm going to redo the redirect while you add this info to the CMBW article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support having a stand alone article, and suggest that we keep the article here while it is being discussed. Consensus can change, and the inclusion of the statement in the two readers demonstrate its stand-alone notability. St Anselm (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone watching this page? Does anyone else support the article being restored? St Anselm (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danvers Statement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103040658/http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers to http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More independent sources[edit]

These.[1][2][3][4] Just checked, we're using one of these but I'll leave it here still. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]