Talk:Old Time Missionary Baptists

Old Time Missionary Baptists received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Christianity: Baptist Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by Baptist work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Redirect

The redirect to the Missionary Baptists page eliminates the distinction between the modern and the old time churches. If you feel information on this page is not accurate, please advise. Otherwise this page should remain seperate. Austin135 —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be clear as a separate subject supported by third-party RSs and not OR, etc., as the pre-July 2011 version had been. Novaseminary (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments

(copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment:

Extensively rewrote Old Time Missionary Baptist, adding my first person knowledge of the organization's setup, principles, and doctrines. Joshuaingram 2113, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Outcome is solid material, but doesn't have a single source citation. First person knowledge is useful and welcome, but does not meet reliable source standards. Article will be hard to upgrade much the article much without source citations. Content regarding the organizational power structure, if there is one, also seems to be lacking. With citations and a bit of information on the structure, would probably easily reach B. Right now, I have qualms going higher than C without them. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here, basically because I'm new and not sure where else to do it. What do you mean about "organizational power structure"? I thought that was covered by saying that each church was locally autonomous, meaning that each church is answerable to no one, only it's own members. Please let me know what else needs to be added. Also, I added my main source of information, but it is not yet available on the Web, as far as I know. Let me know if another source, or just an available source, is needed. Joshuaingram 2203, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To keep this page from getting any longer than necessary, responding here. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand upon what I said above, I was referring to the church's structure. What if anything is located at the church's "mailing address"? Does it have a president of the organization, even if he has no authority over the member churches in any real way? What about secretaries, publications, and the like? That was what I was basically referring to as "organizational structure". Regarding your second comment, any source which meets the standards at WP:RS can be used, whether that was the original source you used when adding the information or not. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if that is better. Thanks for your help. Joshuaingram 2314, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My terrible friggin editing skills

Can someone please tell me why I keep getting a friggin error message? I keep attempting to add certain references, and it won't let me do it. I need help. Joshua Ingram (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I figured it out. All I neglected to do was put quotation marks around the (ref name="blah blah") part. Well, it looks much better now. Hopefully, someone will come assess it quickly. Joshua Ingram (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I just made a minor NPOV sample change in the lead. The entire article needs to have a minor rewording along those lines. I could help if you like. Just let me know. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I have to admit I have a strong POV, since I am a member and I rewrote the page because I found it to be horribly inaccurate. Feel free to call me on any POV problems, please. I don't want this page to come off as a "we think we are right all the time" page. Joshua Ingram (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trick with NPOV is nuancing the way the POV is presented. Every religious group is going to believe they are correct and authentic, so it's perfectly fair to show how they stress their authenticity. In fact, that's probably the most interesting. Jews will stress authenticity to oral tradition. Catholics to canon law. Baptists stress exegesis from scripture. Some Charismatic groups stress authenticity by certain manifestations. NPOV doesn't mean we say "they think they're right but we Wikipedia agnostics know better (wink wink)." NPOV is more like "these are their aims and purposes and methodology." Please present the POV as accurately as you can, and if we need to change "this is" to "this is their purpose" it's an easy switch.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ok, a few comments. One, most names of geographical/political areas, like rivers, counties, people's names, etc., should be turned into links, if articles on the subjects exist. Also, if the two citations for the "Fundamental Doctrines" apply to the entire section, then they should be moved to the end of the section. Otherwise, the doctrines are apparently unreferenced. Wherever possible, a refernce citation should be placed directly after the information cited, even if that means different citations after various sentences. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

The article seems fairly good. The problems I see are in some cases stylistic, and thus my own opinion might not be particularly relevant. If I were the one working on this article, I might try to expand the history section a little. Otherwise, maybe the best option to get a number of views on the subject would be to request a peer review and see what sort of responses you get. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]