Talk:Strict Baptists/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
References and WP Standards
This article has no inline references and the tag has been there a long time. I feel that if nothing is done to improve this article that it just does not meet WP standards and should be deleted. Bjmullan (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the subject is probably notable, so deletion would not be appropriate. However, removing all of the unsourced, questionable material and turning the article into a stub that would, one would hope, expand from there with sourcing, might be the way to go. Novaseminary (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I stubified it down to the basic facts (though I don't even know those are true, so I have left a tag). Now to look for sources... Novaseminary (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Photos
Ouddorp has added single photos of particular churches to this article several times (e.g., this edit and this edit). There is nothing particularly "Strict Baptist" about this particular church, and so it adds nothing to one's understanding of this subject. I think it fails Wikipedia:Image#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature as it is not "significantly and directly related to the article's topic" since the topic is not church architecture or these particular churches. And as they have been added, there size and format violate MOS:IMAGES#Images. I have reverted each time. Would Ouddorp care to explain how these images meet WP guidelines and policy? Novaseminary (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- In any case, please stop edit warring. I think the photo is fine. While not being particularly "Strict Baptist" in its architecture, it is certainly nonconformist, and so does enhance the article. I will resize it while we discuss its inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- This article is about a group of people; not about buildings. There is no indication that this building or any building has any significance to Strict Baptists as such. I would suggest the opposite is true, in reality, but neither position is supported in the article (making the inclusion misleading at worst or a violation of WP:UNDUE at best). I wouldn't think we would include photos of random Strict Baptists from a village in the UK, would we? (Maybe if there was some sort of notable gathering of them to be shown, that would be another thing.) Images are there to explain the subject in a way words alone cannot, not just to make articles look pretty. And the editor who continues to reinsert has refused to enter the discussion here, instead reinserting again without discussion even after I raised the issue here. And the same editor had repeatedly inserted POV text over the months, making me wonder whether the good faith assumption should apply here. Novaseminary (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I got to totally agree with Novaseminary on this one. Bjmullan (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- This certainly has wide-ranging implications. To take a random example, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has a picture of the Church of the Pilgrims, which presumably is not notable, and is not mentioned in the article. I think we need a centralised discussion about pictures of individual churches in denominational articles at Wikipedia talk:Images. StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- In response to StAnselm's posting at Wikipedia_talk:Images#Pictures_of_individual_churches_in_denominational_articles, I wrote what I am posting immediately below this. Novaseminary (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- If a particular architectural style or feature is part of the story about the denomination or its beliefs or what have you, then a photo of a typical representative building of that style might be appropriate. Of course, that would need support. But there is nothing to support the idea that the particular photo being discussed at Talk:Strict_Baptists#Photos at all represents a particular Strict Baptist architectural style or the like. Nor is there any reason to believe there is such a style (I strongly doubt there is). I suggest we keep the discussion at Talk:Strict_Baptists#Photos (and will paste a version of this comment there). Novaseminary (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy to talk about this photo here; the wider issues should be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Images. Looking at the building, it looks exactly the way I'd expect a strict baptist church to look like - very much like a nonconformist chapel. Note the similarity with Wattisham Strict Baptist Chapel, which is a notable building. (Now, I'm not opposed to having that church as the illustration instead.) I'm sure a book like Nonconformist chapels and meeting-houses in Eastern England would have helpful information. StAnselm (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a list of churches to the article - all of them have pictures, so you can peruse them to see if there is such a thing as a "Strict Baptist style". StAnselm (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- If a particular architectural style or feature is part of the story about the denomination or its beliefs or what have you, then a photo of a typical representative building of that style might be appropriate. Of course, that would need support. But there is nothing to support the idea that the particular photo being discussed at Talk:Strict_Baptists#Photos at all represents a particular Strict Baptist architectural style or the like. Nor is there any reason to believe there is such a style (I strongly doubt there is). I suggest we keep the discussion at Talk:Strict_Baptists#Photos (and will paste a version of this comment there). Novaseminary (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- In response to StAnselm's posting at Wikipedia_talk:Images#Pictures_of_individual_churches_in_denominational_articles, I wrote what I am posting immediately below this. Novaseminary (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- This certainly has wide-ranging implications. To take a random example, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has a picture of the Church of the Pilgrims, which presumably is not notable, and is not mentioned in the article. I think we need a centralised discussion about pictures of individual churches in denominational articles at Wikipedia talk:Images. StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I got to totally agree with Novaseminary on this one. Bjmullan (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- This article is about a group of people; not about buildings. There is no indication that this building or any building has any significance to Strict Baptists as such. I would suggest the opposite is true, in reality, but neither position is supported in the article (making the inclusion misleading at worst or a violation of WP:UNDUE at best). I wouldn't think we would include photos of random Strict Baptists from a village in the UK, would we? (Maybe if there was some sort of notable gathering of them to be shown, that would be another thing.) Images are there to explain the subject in a way words alone cannot, not just to make articles look pretty. And the editor who continues to reinsert has refused to enter the discussion here, instead reinserting again without discussion even after I raised the issue here. And the same editor had repeatedly inserted POV text over the months, making me wonder whether the good faith assumption should apply here. Novaseminary (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I would make the list a stand-alone list. My understanding is that architecture is not part of their theology. And whether we find there to be similar looking buildings is irrelevant OR. Whether sources support it is the question. But again, from what I know of their theology and practice, the attention to buildings is misplaced. Novaseminary (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- StAnselm (or anyone), have you been able to find any source to support the proposition that the photo we are discussing is in anyway illustrative of Strict Baptists, the subject of this article? Or that it is representative of Strict Baptists or otherwise unique to them? If not, I suggest that this image stay out until someone does. So far all you have offered is that you "think ithe photo is fine" and that "it is certainly nonconformist". I support including this photo on that church's article (of there is one) or even on a general "nonconformist chapels" article (assuming the article meets N) if you can cite something to support it as illustrative of nonconformist chapels. Neither of those articles are this article, though. Novaseminary (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's all I've offered. There's the precedent in numerous articles of illustrating churches of a particular denomination. I don't think the image guidelines preclude this at all. The picture is illustrating the subject. StAnselm (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. And the subject of this article is a group or subset of Baptists. It is not about architecture or buidlings, at least until somebody adds sourced text to establish that the group of Baptists had anything to do with architecture other than happening to meet inside. (And though one can rarely prove a negative, take a look at this history of a particular Strict Baptist congregation mentions several moves into largerly facilities, but never notes anything distinctly "Strict Baptist" about the buildings. And pardon the OR, but the photo doesn't look much like the church discussed here.) There is no text, let alone sourced text, that even mentions buildings (WP:BURDEN). Seeing as two of the three of us who have commented here on talk do not think the photo meets WP guidelines/policy (and so far only you and I have commented at the other discussion you started), I'm going to take it out, for now, until a consensus for its inclusion can be established here. Feel free to post at RfC. Novaseminary (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFF, since that concerns article deletion discussion. I'm not sure WP:BURDEN applies either. And I certainly don't think there is a consensus to remove it. StAnselm (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. And the subject of this article is a group or subset of Baptists. It is not about architecture or buidlings, at least until somebody adds sourced text to establish that the group of Baptists had anything to do with architecture other than happening to meet inside. (And though one can rarely prove a negative, take a look at this history of a particular Strict Baptist congregation mentions several moves into largerly facilities, but never notes anything distinctly "Strict Baptist" about the buildings. And pardon the OR, but the photo doesn't look much like the church discussed here.) There is no text, let alone sourced text, that even mentions buildings (WP:BURDEN). Seeing as two of the three of us who have commented here on talk do not think the photo meets WP guidelines/policy (and so far only you and I have commented at the other discussion you started), I'm going to take it out, for now, until a consensus for its inclusion can be established here. Feel free to post at RfC. Novaseminary (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's all I've offered. There's the precedent in numerous articles of illustrating churches of a particular denomination. I don't think the image guidelines preclude this at all. The picture is illustrating the subject. StAnselm (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- StAnselm (or anyone), have you been able to find any source to support the proposition that the photo we are discussing is in anyway illustrative of Strict Baptists, the subject of this article? Or that it is representative of Strict Baptists or otherwise unique to them? If not, I suggest that this image stay out until someone does. So far all you have offered is that you "think ithe photo is fine" and that "it is certainly nonconformist". I support including this photo on that church's article (of there is one) or even on a general "nonconformist chapels" article (assuming the article meets N) if you can cite something to support it as illustrative of nonconformist chapels. Neither of those articles are this article, though. Novaseminary (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Photos II
- My English isn't good enough to join the discussion. But it's very normal to place a photo/picture by an article of a denominations. I don't agree the discussion, on the Dutch Wikipedia, but also the French and the German Wikipedia you will see the same. Rubenfl (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hersteld_Hervormde_Kerk
- http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederduitse_Gereformeerde_Kerk
- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89glise_wallonne
- http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubenfl (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why this particular photo? Is it representative/illustrative of Strict Baptist facilities? How do we know? This particular church doesn't even seem to have.a WP article. Novaseminary (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I, for one, would be happy with another photo of one of the many notable Strict Baptist churches instead. That strikes me as a good compromise. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would also agree with StAnselm. Can you suggest an appropriate photo here? Bjmullan (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad we can agree that this photo is no good. Any replacement should be supported with a source noting its ”Strict Baptistness” or importance to Strict Baptists generally or give some reason beyound that Strict Baptists met or meet their. (That is akin to why the Vatican is appropriate on the main Catholic Church article(s), but some random Southern Baptist church does not belong on the Southern Baptist Convention article.) I would think the justification needs to be more than ”it'll make the article look nice”. Novaseminary (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think we agree "that this photo is no good." But I would suggest File:Wivelsfield Strict Baptist Chapel.JPG in the Bethel Strict Baptist Chapel, Wivelsfield article. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad we can agree that this photo is no good. Any replacement should be supported with a source noting its ”Strict Baptistness” or importance to Strict Baptists generally or give some reason beyound that Strict Baptists met or meet their. (That is akin to why the Vatican is appropriate on the main Catholic Church article(s), but some random Southern Baptist church does not belong on the Southern Baptist Convention article.) I would think the justification needs to be more than ”it'll make the article look nice”. Novaseminary (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would also agree with StAnselm. Can you suggest an appropriate photo here? Bjmullan (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I, for one, would be happy with another photo of one of the many notable Strict Baptist churches instead. That strikes me as a good compromise. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why this particular photo? Is it representative/illustrative of Strict Baptist facilities? How do we know? This particular church doesn't even seem to have.a WP article. Novaseminary (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. StAnselm, you do think the current photo is good? Why do you suggest the Wivelsfield photo? Is it based on something other than OR? Novaseminary (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's fine. I was suggesting the Wivelsfield photo as a compromise. StAnselm (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why that photo? Is it your opinion that the only standard for inclusion be that the particular photo be of a building used by the denomination? Or is there more to it? Or is it just whatever StAnselm thinks looks good? Novaseminary (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- In the light of the opinion expressed at Wikipedia talk:Images#Pictures of individual churches in denominational articles, I withdraw my suggestion of including the Wivelsfield photo, and suggest we stick with what we have. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why that photo? Is it your opinion that the only standard for inclusion be that the particular photo be of a building used by the denomination? Or is there more to it? Or is it just whatever StAnselm thinks looks good? Novaseminary (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Major Overhaul needed
Ok...
This article doesn't have a single foot note, the sources are inaccessible to the average reader, and the external links (which I deleted) were to church websites, a publishing company, and a forum's message board.
This thing needs to be redone basically from scratch. I'll work on it as I can, but I don't have a TON of free time... but this article will end up getting merged into another article if we don't solve these problems. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. It had been stubbified in March 2011 as noted in this section above. An IP continuously reverts to an older version that is POV, OR, no inline citations, etc., and had done so again just before you came along. With this edit I reverted to the sourced stub. I think this verison could be the basis for an improved article. After reverting, I added back the merge tag you added, though I am not convinced the articles should be merged. Novaseminary (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I still think that it probably needs to be merged with Reformed Baptists... there's not a lot of content here, and I'm not sure that this offshoot is notable enough to have it's own page. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. It had been stubbified in March 2011 as noted in this section above. An IP continuously reverts to an older version that is POV, OR, no inline citations, etc., and had done so again just before you came along. With this edit I reverted to the sourced stub. I think this verison could be the basis for an improved article. After reverting, I added back the merge tag you added, though I am not convinced the articles should be merged. Novaseminary (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)