This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Romans9:11 (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 1 July 2008 (→Input on Jack Graham (pastor) page: Made attempt to encourage reasonable discussion and consensus on Jack Graham page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:15, 1 July 2008 by Romans9:11 (talk | contribs) (→Input on Jack Graham (pastor) page: Made attempt to encourage reasonable discussion and consensus on Jack Graham page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
|
Input on Jack Graham (pastor) page
Lyonscc,
Would you mind taking a look at the page for Jack Graham (pastor) when you have a second? This page has had quite the edit warring over the last couple of months that resulted in it getting locked for over a month. Tomorrow it becomes unlocked and there may or may more warring over a couple of subjects. I really would prefer to stay out of this warring and let some fresh blood take over with their opinions. I'll let you read the discussion and the history yourself to make your own opinion if you're interested but please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks and sorry if this is not the way you prefer requests.Dirkmavs (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dirkmavs, per your request (00:00, 30 June 2008) I have added this to my watchlist, and I will observe changes to this page. Just from a perusal of past changes, it appears that the issue of support (or lack thereof) of 5-point Calvinism and/or hyper-Calvinism (which are commonly conflated) has been coatracked onto his page, and probably given undue weight, particularly since (from the text quoted) he uses the word 'hyper' and seems to be specifically targeting hyper-Calvinism. After some Googling, apart from some Calvinist/hyper-Calvinist blogs decrying his comments, it does not appear that his position on Calvinism is all that notable, and I'm not sure why it's even important to include in an article about him. Otherwise, we might as well go tagging folks as "not a Mormon", "not a female", etc. - what someone is not, particularly when it is not a significant deviation from the majority, is typically not notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well as you can see in the various discussions on the page in question we share the same viewpoint on this issue so any help you could give would be appreciated. Take care.Dirkmavs (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Lyonscc,
It appears that DirkMavs, a fellow Arminianist with you, has rallied you to fight with him. I've looked at your discussion page and have taken note, that except for the Arminianist point of view, and a few more things, we share a remarkably similar view point on life including politics and religion. It would SEEM that our view point on things wouldn't be SO different that we could not have a reasonable and congenial discussion. I would like to ask that, instead of you and I entering an edit war, that we approach these issues with discussion and a reasonable effort to be honest in accessing the situations and coming to an agreement. I believe we've gotten off to a bad start already. For instance, it should be clear to most any reader that the June 30th edition of Jack Graham's page on the issue of his criticism towards Calvinism is in no way, conducive towards NPOV. The statement is not encyclopedic in tone (and comes off as a child like response) and the use of bolding in the paragraph is highly inappropriate. I made GREAT strides towards producing a NPOV paragraph and it seems you summarily dismissed this effort. I was really surprised at your decision to just revert the paragraph and not try to improve on my efforts make suggestions for making the paragraph better. I am going to leave your changes for now, and enter into discussion on the discussion page of that article. Please take a look at my points and see if we can come to a consensus.Romans9:11 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)