"The ministers or the saints of God are called by God Himself through dreams and visions and then the chief pastor is led by the Lord to lay hands on each person and seperate them for this ministry. All the saints are not married. They stay single prepared for the Kingdom of God and for Zion. They will havo to go through certain periods of traning to be qualified as pastor or center pastor or sister/brother in-charge. Holiness is most preffered and a life of seperation for each servant of God. "
(From [[Pentecostal Mission]])
On 12/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
"The ministers or the saints of God are called by God Himself through dreams and visions and then the chief pastor is led by the Lord to lay hands on each person and seperate them for this ministry. All the saints are not married. They stay single prepared for the Kingdom of God and for Zion. They will havo to go through certain periods of traning to be qualified as pastor or center pastor or sister/brother in-charge. Holiness is most preffered and a life of seperation for each servant of God. "
{{fact}}
- d.
Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
"The ministers or the saints of God are called by God Himself through dreams and visions ... <snip>"
(From [[Pentecostal Mission]])
This seems to be someone writing an article about their religious group from the perspective of that religious group. That's suboptimal, but it's not a huge problem by itself: we can rewrite it for NPOV. More problematic is people fighting to add or maintain POV in an article. Has that happened here?
-- Matt
I don't believe so. I came upon it in RC while working on MWT and taking a break by fighting some vandalism (relaxing AND productive, although it proves that i need to get a life). I contacted the user about it:
"Hi there, I noticed you've been adding to [[Pentecostal Mission]]. Thankyou for your contributions to Wikipedia; they are much valued. However, please remember that Wikipedia [[WP:NPOV|follows a neutral point of view]]. As a result, we cannot assert the existence of any particular divine being, referring to god with a capital G and as 'Himself' violates this policy. Please do not be discouraged from editing; just in future be aware that we may have to modify your contributions slightly so as not to imply the superiority of any particular religion over another. [...] "
I don't think there's been any significant attempt at removing the POV, nor has there been any obvious attempt to put it back in after it has been removed.
{{fact}} seems a little... mean. I know that sounds childish, but [[WP:BITE]], its true. One of the editors in the last 50 changes actually has a userpage (besides the CVU members RVing), while another has a talk page only because a newbie unfamiliar with policy (unsigned comment) has asked him if he is really who his username implies him to be. The rest are IP editors.
I don't really care about this article in particular, I mean on a whole. Is there some sort of POV taskforce / wikiproject? I know there's some sort of taskforce for 'countering systematic bias' but I'm not so sure how it works or how effective it is.
On 9/12/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
"The ministers or the saints of God are called by God Himself through dreams and visions ... <snip>"
(From [[Pentecostal Mission]])
This seems to be someone writing an article about their religious group from the perspective of that religious group. That's suboptimal, but it's not a huge problem by itself: we can rewrite it for NPOV. More problematic is people fighting to add or maintain POV in an article. Has that happened here?
-- Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi Akash,
I don't really care about this article in particular, I mean on a whole. Is there some sort of POV taskforce / wikiproject? I know there's some sort of taskforce for 'countering systematic bias' but I'm not so sure how it works or how effective it is.
IMHO there are a lot of dark spots in Wikipedia within the New Religious Movements / small churches area. You've found a perfect, but not isolated, examples.
You'll find anything: 1) Articles by adherents, written in true believer tone 2) Articles by critics, claiming devil's involvement, child abuse, .. 3) Strange mixtures of 1) and 2) 4) OTOH significant groups with only substub
I've tried some time ago to have somebody look at [[Local churches]], but failed to get an answer at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity]].
Regards, Peter [[User:Pjacobi]]
The original article appears to be a copyvio. The new text is just too POV to even consider leaving in the article.
Ian