User talk:Augustine Paul Fitzgerald

Please revert

Your edit at the Two by Twos article should be reverted (see diff here). The group is not a new religious movement at all, rather, it has been in existence since the 1800s. -- ψλ ● ✉ 12:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only a narrow band of scholars restrict NRMs to the 20th century. Most accept that any sect which deviates from orthodox theology and has origins substantially later than the main religion are NRMs.Jsrkiwi (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that supports the Two by Twos being classified as a NRM? If not, the classification does not belong in the article. If so, please provide the reliable source and put it into the article to support it. Further, if you include content into the lead of the article, it has to be covered in the body of the article (which it is not). Also, please be sure to sign your posts/comments with four tildes. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the various scholars' definitions are met by the characteristics of the 2x2s is sufficient without specific categorisation by a scholar. In any case, the 2x2s already appear on the page 'List of New Religious Movements'.Jsrkiwi (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Novichok agent, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil S Walker: Deletion has been partially reinstated with valid reason. Please check whether removal was valid before reverting. Jsrkiwi (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. The removal was not valid. The use of the term "generation" with regard to chemical weapons is widespread. See Talk:Novichok_agent#Fourth_generation for examples. A moment of your time on Google Books or Google Scholar would have demonstrated this. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil S Walker: As an expert in the field, I can say that that terminology is not widespread, and categorisation is inconsistent between academics. Jsrkiwi (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]