Talk:Rachel's Vineyard

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion 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.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organization

Rachel's Vineyard might not be a particularly large organization, but they are national in scope and they do help people. Leaving the article in might just enable someone to get the counseling they need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchman Schultz (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not exist to "enable someone to get the counseling they need". If the organization is not notable, this article should be deleted. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excommunication controversy

The article should probably mention the excommunication controversy surrounding abortion, i.e. women who have an abortion on their own without being coerced in any way automatically leave the Church under canon 1398, which pronounces the sanction latae sententiae. It's difficult to imagine how to minister to people when they have already been told that they are excommunicated. ADM (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should only mention such a "controversy" when independent reliable sources discuss such a controversy in relation to the subject of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That MIGHT be a controversy if excommunication were irrevocable, but it's not. Readmission to the sacrements is addressed by many of the publications of Rachel's Vineyard and this is considered an important part of ones spiritual healing.Dutchman Schultz (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel's Vineyard. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2005/0912/vineyard091205.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]