Jump to content

Talk:J. Vernon McGee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why list individual radio stations in North America?

[edit]

The current version of the article says:

Thru the Bible continues to air on over 400 radio stations including KXEG,KCRO and KLGO in North America

Why mention these 3 particular stations in preference over all the other 397+ stations which also carry the program in North America?

Ac44ck 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine a good reason. You may want to be bold and fix it. --B 04:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added KLGO because it has been twice sited by the National Religious Broadcasters association as Radio Station of the Year. This shows the reach that J Vernon McGee has even today to reach such large markets. 13:14 29 August 2007 (LightSeeker777)

Umm ... well ... that's not really a good reason. McGee is on the Bible Broadcasting Network, which reaches far more people than any single radio station. He's on plenty of radio stations in larger markets than Austin. Other than for the purpose of advertising your station, there is no reason to list individual stations. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and takes a dim view of spam, even internal spam. By the way, FYI, if you use four tildes (~~~~), they will automatically turn into your signature and time/date stamp your post for you. --B 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I added a reference from Thru the Bible's website that it is broadcast via the internet. I'm just a very big fan of this show, I've listened for about 3 years now. My apologies for any unintentional spam. LightSeeker777 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --B 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the dipute about neutrality?

[edit]

Questioning tags were addded by User:Mattisse for unstated reasons:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Where is "the discussion on the talk page"? What needs to be resolved before the message can be removed? I have asked on User_talk:Mattisse for clarification be given here. --Ac44ck 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing articles

[edit]

(Note: User talk:Ac44ck has interspersed his comments throughout my post, so the sequence may be confusing. I have tried to clarify by adding bolding editor names. Mattisse 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC) )[reply]


  • (Mattisse)

Are you aware that articles are to be referenced by unbiased third-party sources?

  • (Ac44ck)
An article needs to start somewhere.
Wikipedia:Verifiability says:
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
It can be difficult to know what those might be unless someone raises a specific objection. --Ac44ck 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (Ac44ck)[reply]
  • (Mattisse)

If you do not have footnotes, then the reader does not know where the information came from. Even if the sources you give were neutral, giving a balanced view, you do not say where to find specific facts.

  • (Ac44ck)
Me? I came to the party late.
The link to the "Thru The Bible Radio Network" website seems like a reasonable place to find info. So it isn't a third-party site. I don't know that very much of what is said on the page is controversial or that the subject's website is necessarily an overly-skewed source of information. --Ac44ck 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (Ac44ck)[reply]
  • (Mattisse)

"He walked away from the denomination when he moved from Pasadena to Los Angeles, citing inroads of liberalism as the cause of his dissatisfaction" -- where can the reader go to find this out, to verify that it is true? An unbiased, reliable, third-party source should be used to verify this - a reliable newspaper like the New York Times, or books published by reliable publishers, or websites that are neutral and not pushing a point of view. (Mattisse)

  • (Ac44ck)
Okay. This is a more emotionally-charged statement than it might be. If I was a Presbyterian, I could be offended at the charge that "liberalism" has made "inroads" in the denomination. It appears to be a fact that he left the denomination. If one objects to the phrasing, then it is an opportunity to be bold and fix it.--Ac44ck 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (Ac44ck)[reply]

It is not neutral if the only sources you are citing are primary sources, that is, documents from the organization itself. It would be like having Ford Motor Company writing a neutral article about itself, while General Motors writes a neutral article about itself. It can't happen because no one is neutral. That is why you need more than one reliable unbiased source. (Mattisse)

  • (Ac44ck)
I doubt that every article in Wikipedia has "more than one reliable unbiased source". Nor do I find multiple sources for everything to be a requirement in the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page.
The wording of the unreferenced statement about his motivation for leaving the denomination probably violates the NPOV policy. A direct quote along those lines would be verifiable, though it occurs to me that a direct quote might still be perceived as less than "neutral". If he made some pointed remark upon his leaving, he didn't act with neutrality. Portraying it as such would be politically correct, but maybe not encyclopedic.
This probably needs some reference, too: "His theological orientation was dispensational, premillennial, and mildly Calvinistic."
Perhaps my point of view isn't neutral enough to see where else this short article might violate the NPOV policy.--Ac44ck 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (Ac44ck)[reply]


  • (Mattisse)

Examples of footnote citations: (There are several methods Wikipedia allows. Tags are used when citations are missing in an article that is fairly well cited already, like the Scientology article.

You can ask me more questions, as I am probably not explaining very well, or go to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for help. Regards, Mattisse 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (Mattisse)[reply]

  • (Ac44ck)
I just saw a broad-brush painting with uncertainty-and-doubt -- but no specific objections. A blanket statement akin to "I don't like" it isn't much of a target to shoot at. Backing up every word with multiple third-party sources in anticipation of a whimsical challenge to an arbitrary jot or tittle is an unreasonable standard.
Lacking such a section created by the one who raised the objection, I will break out the two NPOV issues identified above as a separate section on this talk page so that others can identify or add to the possible points of contention which apparently (or conceivably, to me) brought the charge of "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
Who is the arbiter of when "the dispute is resolved"? What does it take to make that tag go away in the article?
This is not strictly true: "This article does not cite any references or sources." It cites one reference. The reference given apparently isn't "adequate". It seems to me that an abundance of references would not be necessary for a short article that is pretty light on things other than the basics: who, what, when, etc.
The article is obviously a work in progress. To mark the article as "not good enough" is pretty easy to do. An effort to make the observation would seem to indicate an interest in the topic at hand. Please be bold and jump in.

--Ac44ck 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (Ac44ck)[reply]

Items whose neutrality may be in dispute

[edit]

The following quotes from the article may not be neutral statements:

  • "He walked away from the denomination when he moved from Pasadena to Los Angeles, citing inroads of liberalism as the cause of his dissatisfaction,"
Wording may be inflamatory.
  • "His theological orientation was dispensational, premillennial, and mildly Calvinistic."
Might create contention among those who want to claim that he was in "their" camp:
Are there multiple flavors of "dispensational"?
What is meant by "mildly" Calvinistic?

--Ac44ck 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You are getting the idea. Mattisse 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those feelings are not inflammatory but his interpretation? Isnt it encyclopedic to include the subject or authors own interpretation regardless of an editor believes it too? 2600:100F:B115:9B20:0:30:A59F:7D01 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more than desired:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barry_Cohen_(attorney)

  • "Tagging is fun, I know" --Mattisse 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is only a partial list of such "fun":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mattisse
  • 00:52, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Sadharan Paath‎ (unreferenced) (top)
  • 00:50, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) M'banza-Kongo‎ (unreferenced + wikify) (top)
  • 00:49, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) 19th Academy Awards‎ (unreferenced) (top)
  • 00:48, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Otto (SRMTHFG)‎ (confusing + no context) (top)
  • 00:47, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Broadway Sand, Gravel and Artstone Company‎ (unreferenced advert + company website) (top)
  • 00:46, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Brinsley Schwarz‎ citations missing|date=November 2007 (top)
  • 00:44, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marcus Wareing‎ (question notability) (top)
  • 00:42, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Uta Pippig‎ (needs intext citations) (top)
  • 00:41, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Robert Schlaifer‎ (needs intext citations) (top)
  • 00:40, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Cross Lanes, West Virginia‎ (unreferenced & unverified article) (top)
  • 00:39, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Guanajuato‎ (needs footnotes references) (top)
  • 00:37, 10 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Tullus‎ (unreferenced & unverified article)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_responsibilities_of_one_who_adds_a_dispute_tag_vs._FUD_attack_or_Trolling

--Ac44ck
Please stop wikistalking me. See WP:STALK.

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.

Please stop. Thanks. Mattisse 15:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ac44ck ⋅- Not sure where you want me to respond - here are the diffs from my responses

[edit]
I don't know what you want done with the diffs.
It occurs to me that if someone says, "That's wrong and I want it fixed", then it would be helpful arrive at agreement about:
  • Whatever is perceived to be "wrong"
  • What "fixed" will look like
  • Whether it got "fixed"
So far, I haven't perceived clarity about what is expected before removal of the tags would be agreeable to those who put the tags in place.--Ac44ck 04:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted twice on the article page as you requested I do

[edit]
Hi! If you are talking about J. Vernon McGee, I did post it on the article page (as you requested) [1] where you requested I do so. Here:[2][3]

Mattisse 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrediting another editor is not a way to fix problems in your article -- lets get a mediator or third-party opinion

[edit]

As they say, focus on article content, not on the editor. We should do that. So I will disregard your disparaging comments on my behavior (gained by stalking me?). If you continue to stalk me, I will have to report it, so please stop. It does not help the article improve. --Mattisse 15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources; policy, why; how to, etc.

[edit]

There is no doubt the subject of this article is notable. The issue then is the reliability of sources, the problem with the existing sources and how to source. As there seems to be a some misunderstandings about what is being asked and tension levels seems to be high, I am hoping to defuse by explaining these matters in some detail and suggesting some things that can be done.

First, please look at any article that is a featured article to see what a full sourced article looks like. Note that the lead section in many contain no sources only because it summarizes information contained later in the article which is sourced.

So why does this article (and every article on Wikipedia) require sourcing? Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is by definition a tertiary source which synthesizes already published information for its information. Note that there are many articles which are unsourced. This is a terrible problem and not a basis to say "why are you focusing on my article when these other don't comply?" Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

We have basically four fundamental policies involved in this area. The first, Wikipedia:Notability covers topics. It asks whether the topic is notable, by asking whether there exists reliable, independent sources which treat the subject in detail and stresses that sources on Wikipedia should be secondary sources. The answer here appears to be that such material exists, (though none of those sources have yet been cited), so we need not worry about this one.

A second policy is verifiability. It speaks to material in articles, rather than the topic as a whole, and requires that any reader be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged." "Any edit lacking a source may be removed." The burden of providing verification so is on the person adding the material. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

This works hand in hand with the last two policies, Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. The former, as the name implies, prohibits original research: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable" and requires sourcing to show that you are not publishing original thought. The latter requires that material in articles represent "...fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors."

As you can see, all these policies have in commmon the requirement of citation to independent, reliable, secondary sources. It's no surprise then that we have guidelines on how to cite sources and on what constitutes a reliable source.

In order to cite a source, place at the bottom of the article a section called references with the software markup {{reflist}} (I have done so). This will automatic populate with the citations you add in the following format: When you want to cite a source in the text, you add at an appropriate point <ref>source information</ref>. Note that the forward slash in the trailing tag tells the software that that is the end of the citation. Once saved, you will see only a footnote marker in the text, with the source text appearing in the references section.[1]

references

[edit]
  1. ^ Fuhghettaboutit. Copyright N/A (2007). See this in edit mode to see how it was done. Written on November 11, 2007.

The reason the external link for Thru The Bible Radio Network is not acceptable, at least as the only source, is because it is not independent of the subject; rather it is as far from independent as can be (would you rather trust and rely on an article on some company written by its president or by a newspaper?)

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

So where to find these sources? You, who are involved in the subject matter, are much more likely to know of publications that speak about Mr. McGee in detail. Nevertheless, here are a few sources I found using a google book search which you might use to bolster other sources you know of (these may not all be suitable for use).

--Fuhghettaboutit 15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should articles be verified and referenced

[edit]
Would anybody like to add input relevant to the discussion on referencing and sourcing above? I'd be interested in hearing it, plus any helpful suggestions. Thanks. Mattisse 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed your RfCpolicy template. Please use an article RfC template, the template you used adds the dispute to the RfC list about policies - not articles, or the application of policies to specific articles. AvruchTalk 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article edits on Nov 15, 2007

[edit]

Infobox: Added items; removed statement that his later affiliation was nondenominational.

Removed statement saying that he "walked away" from the denomination. The Church of the Open Door describes itself as _inter_denominational -- not _non_denominational. Dr. McGee could have remained a Presbyterian while pastoring an _inter_denominational church. This article would seem to need documentation that he forsook and repudiated his denomination, as suggested in the previous version.

Removed the following:

His theological orientation was dispensational, premillennial, and mildly Calvinistic.

They may be true, but they are not referenced and the terms may not be clear:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/studybible-dispensation.html
Following are some of the varieties of dispensational theology that currently exist.
  • Traditional Dispensationalism -- C.I. Scofield
  • Modified Dispensationalism -- Dallas Seminary -- McGee's alma mater.
  • Further Modified Dispensationalism
  • How does one measure "mildly" Calvinistic?

Added some external links. The "Handbook of Texas Online" could probably be moved to the "Reference" section, but I didn't footnote anything to it; so I left it as an external link.

Added section with tables.

Added Persondata template. --Ac44ck 02:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to measure mildly Calvinistic? Basically there are 5 points TULIP. How many of the 5 does a theologian adocated? Go study the TULIP if you don't know about it. To believe only in T & P (total depravity of man & perseverence of the saints) makes one a 2 point Calvinist, which could be called mild -- person who rejects the UL&I of the TULIP.(AltheaCase (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Young-Earth creationism

[edit]

A wide spectrum of evangelical scholarship (sometimes confusing in both its subtleties and its variegation, including but not limited to the day-age interpretation, the gap theory, and the belief that it amounts to apostasy to consider a chronology longer than Archbishop Ussher's 6000 years) lays claim to the terms "creationist" and "biblical literalist", the young-Earth camp being only one of many. Thus it is essential to exercise care not to use a label that is either too general or too specific in a given context. I will assume that the article is correct in asserting that McGee viewed the days in Genesis 1-2 as six consecutive literal 24-hour periods (it has been many years since I've heard him speak on that Scripture, so I don't remember), but even that, by itself, does not necessarily mean he adhered to a young-Earth view of origins. Although McGee at some point may have believed that view or expressed support for it, he clearly, publicly, specifically disavowed such a belief more than once, and in commenting on more than one passage of Scripture. Check out the July 5, 2021, TTB broadcast (Matthew 1:1-15) at https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/thru-the-bible-with-j-vernon-mcgee/ for merely the latest instance (and unfortunately the only one for which I have documentation). Would someone with more Wikipedia skill than mine please be so kind as to append that citation to the phrase "Although he expressed considerable openness in his Thru the Bible broadcasts to the possibility of an ancient Earth", paragraph 2 under "Thru the Bible"? --2603:6081:8002:AE78:C572:B691:B196:C08 (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Inserted footnote on my own, then removed it after noting criticism of the use elsewhere of links to TTB itself. Apparently such may be considered citation of a primary source -- a frustrating restriction, if I'm understanding it correctly, because McGee's own statements here seem unambiguous. Still learning the ins and outs of Wikiworld... --2603:6081:8002:AE78:C572:B691:B196:C08 (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest University

[edit]

the correct name for the college is Rhodes College formerly known as "Southwestern at Memphis" (SAM) strictly undergraduate, the word university has never been associated with the college. Hammondwest (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, I deleted polemical diversions in the article.

[edit]

This article is not the place to debate Amillennialism, nor should McGee be called controversial for not being amillennial. He is identified as a (Dallas Theological Seminary type) Dispensationalist, which sufficiently and accurately describes his eschatology. Listing movements & denominations which are Amillennial, really is extraneous to the article & polemical. The article erred by claiming that the belief that the Kingdom of God was at hand, was a dispensational distinctive. But as a matter of fact, dispensationalists are more likely to claim that the Kingdom of God at hand in the gospels is a offer of the Davidic Kingdom of God on earth to Israel; and while the KOG was at hand in Christ's earthly ministry, it was an offer which has been withdrawn so that the KOG as offered then, cannot occur on earth until after the Church Age and after Daniel's 70th week & after the Great Tribulation. This is called The Postponed Kingdom Theory. The Rapture is what is at hand for dispensationalism (James 5 at hand, judge at the doors). But a debate on this is outside an NPOV account of the life of Vernon McGee. McGee's POV on the Kingdom of God requires careful documentation and citation, as Dispensationalists may well disagree on this -- if it is even worth mentioning in McGee's biography. (AltheaCase (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

The comment about the Kingdom of God was specifically in reference to teachings of DL Moody. I'm not sure what this was sourced to, but we really need to make sure that we're getting that part right, or remove the mention of Moody altogether. BilCat (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Deleted the Contrasting "Although" statement

[edit]

That "although" statement made it seem that McGee might have contradicted himself by advocating both an ancient earth and 6 literal days of creation. I don't know McGee's position, but there is no necessary contradiction, as a belief in the Gap Theory goes back at least to dispensationalist C.I. Scofield, who advocated a (possible) gap in time between ancient creation in Genesis 1:1 and the 6 Days of Creation which (possibly) came later. If one is going to get that specific on McGee, perhaps sufficient documentation & citation can be found to add it to the article. (AltheaCase (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._Vernon_McGee&oldid=1208915767"