- The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the Talk:Evangelicalism). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contents
Pollinator, you seem to feel that it is an error to say that today's (Neo-)evangelical movement is an heir to the fundamentalist movement. Can you explain why you think so? And what do you mean by "Neo-evangelicals who had come out of fundamentalism were indistinguishable from tradtitional Evangelicals. What does that mean? At what point were they formerly distinguishable from "traditional Evangelicals"? This is the same kind of confusion that the first version of the article underwent. You called "very distorted" what I think I can support from Carpenter's and Hatch's work, but I'm not sure even what your version means. Can you help to clarify? Mkmcconn (Talk) 06:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I guess the real question is, what do you think fundamentalism was at that time? When do you think that "Evangelicalism" became separate from "Fundamentalism" (80s and 90s) is a very late date - much, much to late, to be bold about the matter. The rise of Billy Graham is a significant catalyst for accelerating this split (in the 50s and 60s). Mkmcconn (Talk) \
I'll have to wait a few days, before I can get the books I need to make my point; but in the meantime, would you explain your point of view? Similarly, in the Evangelical article, a paragraph says that there is, paraphrasing, "significant cross-pollination between the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists". I would strongly contest that, if the sentence is intended to speak of the separated parties. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- I decided to go ahead and fix what I was having a problem with. I hope it meets the goal you had in your changes, also. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm ambivalent about the use of TOCleft in this article. Although I think it is an improvement, as I compare the two versions, before and after, it seems that one kind of obtrusiveness is exchanged for another. The regular TOC isolates the very brief introductory paragraph, so that the most important single sentence of the article is visually blocked out. But the TOCleft is also a bit distracting, alongside the text. The problem will be worse if lengthy header titles are added to this article. I'm inclined to keep the TOCleft, in preference to the more distracting problem caused by the ordinary TOC; but, we should keep an eye on the relative width of the block, IMHO. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Distracting blank spaces
editFormatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.
Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.
A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s
The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I read the neo-evanglicalism subject area. I realize some fundamentalist neglect good works or being salt in the society and spend all their time focusing on doctrine. However, there are plenty of charitable and salt like fundamentalist who are active in politics and do not just focus on abortion, homosexuality, etc. I think that overly broad brush strokes are being employed. I also think that not all fundamentalist are confrontational which the article seems to imply. I, for example, a fundamentalist, successfully resisted the temptation of putting a POV tag on it. LOL
I also think just because you do not want to do crusades with liberal organizations that deny scriptural authority that does not mean you are being unreasonable or an "evil shunner". In short, being a fundamentalist does not make you hate mainline church members or rail at non Biblical inerrantist or Spong everyday.
After all is said and done, I am merely asking for reasonable balance and not overly broad brush strokes. I am trying to be fair and reasonable here and realize that fundamentalist have had their shortcomings but neo-evangalicalism article seems to be pushing neo-evangelicalism.
I will make some changes so it the broad brush strokes are avoided. I did that earlier but it breaks the flow.
ken 23:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffaloReply
- I agree with you, ken; there is a tendency to describe this disagreement in a way that one side comes out looking as though Wikipedia endorses one side rather than the other. That means that there is work to do in getting it "right" in our description. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It is now June 10th 2007 and I think this article is well rounded.
I am speaking for myself here, but perhaps others agree. I have said many times that that an argumentative style reduces readability and lowers the quality and credibility of any article. "B says A about C" is easy to understand. But "B says A about C; C denies A and rather says D about A" is not at all easy to understand. It looks like committee work.
OK. So, WP is the work of a committee; but we don't have to make it obvious. Let each section describe a position clearly and without interruption. Then the opposition should reply without interruption. Please look at the most recent edits, and you'll see what needs to be done, I think. See what I mean? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
to mark
editI didn't know how to do the footnotes but I added the fundamentalists critique of neoevangelicism with the way I knew how to footnote it. I see problems with many fundamentalists but I also see problems with neoevangelicism. You could say I am a funda-neo-evangelical. LOL I do think my adjustments were fair and made the article more balanced.
I added this to the intro:
Fundamentalist, on the other hand, saw themselves as more willing to publically confront Church apostacy and personal immorality and than neoevangelicals which they thought has its place and can be constructive. In short, they saw the neoevangelicals as often being too concerned about social acceptance and intellectual respectability and being too accommodating to a perverse generation that needed correction. In addition, they saw the efforts of Billy Graham who worked with more liberal mainline demonominations as a mistake and they tended to support their own evangelists. [1]
I added this to the end:
However, some fundamentalist claim that a loss of Biblical authority eventually occured in neoevangelicalism in regards to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy which they see as being a true doctrine because many neoevangelicals no longer hold this doctrine [2].
ken 00:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffaloReply
"There was a split within the fundamentalist movement, as they disagreed among themselves about how a Bible-believing Christian ought to respond to an unbelieving world."
The expression "Bible-believing Christian" is dependent upon a particular point of view as to what it means to be "Bible-believing". It doesn't simply mean a person who believes in the authority of the Bible, or it's historical truth, or it's moral value. Yet many would quite reasonably characterise the aforementioned as being people who are "Bible-believing", not least of all the individuals themselves. I believe that some groups equate the words "Bible-believing" with the belief that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, and that the author intended to give it this meaning. Given it's unique usage, it should be enclosed in inverted commas or made more neutral.
GuyIncognito 11:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Marked section History as WP:POV, since it is written like Neo-evangelicalism is working, while the text indicates that the claim is actually made by Tim Keller. The section doesn't make a distinction between the claims of the authors referred to, and the claims made by Wikipedia. This makes the section, unintendedly, look like Wikipedia is vindicating Neo-evangelicalism. Wikipedia is neutral, since it is intended to be a fact reference to all humankind irrespective of religion. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Evangelicalism and Neo-evangelicalism are the same movement, but (at most) are terms used by different folks for evangelicalism .--Carlaude (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Seeing zero dissent after two weeks I deem the merge proposal to have consensus.
Thus I merge 'em.--Carlaude (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Whether they "are terms used by different folks for evangelicalism", or whether they are used by some to mean two different things, is a POV discussion. I think it was a debateable move to merge the articles. I just happen not to object for myself; but others would object strongly. This issue may be revisited at some later date, depending on whose attention it gets. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think it should be merged as a section into the Evangelicalism page, perhaps as a subsection under the Types of Evangelicalism section. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
- They were merged per the May 2008 Wikipedia:Consensus
- Any further debate should be at moved Talk:Evangelicalism. ~~
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the Talk:Evangelicalism). No further edits should be made to this page.