Talk:The Shouters

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: China Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Christianity in China work group (assessed as High-importance).

Reliable Source

Just coming back from a long (two-year) break from Wikipedia, so I'm going to need some time to re-familiarize myself with important policies, such as WP:RS. That being said, I have some issues with this article being entirely dependent on an article whose verifiability I cannot determine and that I can't even check for backing up the statements it supposedly enforces. If someone else could double-check this, that would be great. As it stands, this article seems to be based entirely on a single, nearly-useless source. I don't have the strong desire to delete it, but if it goes too long without different, usable sources, the current ones will need to be removed and the article will qualify for speedy-deletion. I'm not even certain the subject meets WP:NOTABLE. Please excuse my ranting, it's clearly going to take some time to get me back into being an editor. Khalfani Khaldun 16:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it. The Shouters IS a cult, and the local churches distance themselves from it.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A publication of the Center for East Asian and Pacific Studies at Trier University in Germany is as thrustworthy as any German state university. I don't see an reason not to trust it. Metron (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Overhaul with Citations

Based on thorough research, I have taken the liberty of overhauling this article. The original content was minimally informative, sometimes inaccurate, and lacking in key areas. For example, the origins of this group were not thoroughly explained and no cultural, political, or religious context was provided to help explain why this group came into existence.

Additionally, the relationship between "The Shouters" and other important organizations was not well delineated. Political entities such as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and TSPM (Three-self Patriotic Movement) played vital roles in the development and history of this group. Also, the relationship, both historical and present, between "the Shouters" and "the Local Churches", the entity from which they are alleged to have originated from, was not treated in any detail.

It is important for readers to understand the prevailing attitudes, both religious and secular, that exist with respect to this group today, particularly with respect to the current Chinese government. Finally, the current status of this group in relation to contemporary Chinese Christianity as well as the global Christian landscape was largely ambiguous.

Every effort has been made to thoroughly research and document the article. I invite any who have expertise concerning this group to review this article for accuracy but ask that changes be referenced with the same meticulousness that I have tried to exercise concerning this important topic. Abishai 300 (talk) 17:34, 24 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Why do you remove the template? It IS written like your essay; for example Wikipedia does not need something like "Conclusion". Please see WP:NOT.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement regarding the conclusion is valid. I have removed it and revised the article accordingly. I am not sure that your categorization of the remainder of the article as a “personal reflection or opinion essay” is valid, however. The overall revision is simply an historical account of the development of the controversy from available contemporaneous primary source documents and acknowledged authoritative commentators. If there are further matters that need adjustment, we should undertake them in the spirit of collaboration that Wikipedia seeks to engender. Abishai 300 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]