User talk:Dbcjr

Word of Faith

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Word of Faith. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to add information to the article, please make sure that it is neutrally worded and referenced to a reliable source. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article as it exists is highly slanted. It neglects to site scripture under "Origins", instead citing critical works. If the movement is a "Word" of Faith movement, by chance could its origins be from the Word? Under "Teachings", it almost entirely cites criticism, not the actual teachings which I provided.

Your article "violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia." I demand that you balance that article, as well as the articles on Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, and Oral Roberts Univeristy. If you want a more formal tone, then I can work on that, but what you have provided tells your readers nothing about what WOF people believe. No one could understand those beliefs in the least from reading your articles. Why are you doing this? This is so blatant that it appears intentional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbcjr (talk • contribs).

Please interact with fellow editors civilly; I hope you understand why making blatant demands of other editors might not be seen as civil. It's not "my article" (in fact, I didn't write it).

When falsehoods are asserted, and repeated attempts to have them corrected OR provide supplemental information have been rejected, making "making blatant demands of other editors" is not only civil, it is the last course before external actions need to be taken. The assertion of erroneous and highly slanted information defames those of the Word of Faith movement. That those involved with Wikipedia seem callous to this injury indicates that progressive measures must be taken.

The article doesn't cite bible verses directly to discuss Word of Faith because doing so, without reference to a reliable source on point that has already done so, qualifies as unpermitted original research of the synthesis variety. If you want to expand the article to include further explanation of what Word of Faith is, please provide sources (such as published works by prominent Word of Faith adherents) for any additions. Of course, remember that additions must adhere to neutral point of view and not provide undue weight to anyone or anything. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, my contributions allow the Bible verses to stand on their own, without synthesis, interpretation, or explanation. When references to original works is precluded, all one has is "synthesis". How you have criticized my contribution is, thus, absurd. Additionally, the application of rules and guidelines on Wikipedia is, at best, arbirtrary and capricious; at worst, discriminatory and prejudicial. For example, in the article on Glosslalia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia in the section on Speaking in Tongues in the New Testament, ONLY Bible verse references are made. These sort of exceptions are rampant in Wikipedia. The result in the Word of Faith article is a gross distortion and what appears to be an intentional bias.

j e r s y k o talk · 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC) I did "expand the article to include further explanation of what Word of Faith is". As for "please provide sources (such as published works by prominent Word of Faith adherents) for any additions" you are asking something that is counter WOF, as the Bible is the ultimate source, more prominent than any other source. In the interest of being fair and objective, I did not touch the criticisms, except in two places where there is blatant error: under Healing the statement that prominent teachers encourage not seeking medical treatment is categorically false, and another I cannot recall at the moment. If you cannot allow the substantive work that I provided, will you please take off the very slanted, heavily critical article that you have there?

Another blatant erroneous statement is: "The central doctrine is that health and prosperity are promised to all believers, and are available through faith. For this reason, it has also become known as Health and Wealth and The Gospel of Greed, although these are terms usually applied pejoratively by its critics.[citation needed] Other names, reflecting major aspects of the movement, include Name it and claim it, The Prosperity Gospel, and Positive Confession."

Note there is no citation for these statements. The central doctrine is not as described. The central doctrines are: 1) God's word is true. 2) God's word contains covenant promises for blessings spiritual and material. 3) You can believe God's word. 4) You need to act on God's word, one way is confession.

This article zeros in on the criticisms. I have criticized the WOF movement, but this is a hatchet job, and it makes Wikipedia look like yellow journalism.

Notability of Father's house tulsa

A tag has been placed on Father's house tulsa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)