Talk:Christian Institute

Edit war

This page is clearly under attack by people affiliated (or highly sympathetic) with the Christian Institute. The page that the proper article was replaced with is deeply flawed for the following reasons:

It is written as a soapbox piece: The article is simply an articulation of the group's aims and beliefs. No information about the group is given.

It is a copy of a primary source: The article text is taken from http://www.christian.org.uk/whoweare/index.htm

It is unencylcopedic in style: The article is partially written as a letter addressed to the reader.

It is extensively offtopic: Quotes such as:

The existence of the one, eternal God, Creator and Lord of the universe, who in the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, both governs all things according to his will and is accomplishing his purposes in the world and in the church.

(which comprise most of the article) are of no specific relevance to the subject.

This version of the page has no place on Wikipedia and should not be restored. Hyperdeath (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Pretty flagrant vandalism. This page seems to attract them. 86.153.93.235 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism happened again. ([1]). The page was replaced with exactly the same "content" as before. The edit was made by the same person (or at the very least, another user of Opal Telecom). Our "contributor" also proceeded to blank the comment page (including my above criticism of the content), indicating that the edit was made in bad faith (for want of a less ironic description).

If the vandalism is repeated, I will request that the page be given semi-protected status.

Hyperdeath (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The f-word!

The word "fundamentalist" is being repeatedly deleted from this article again, this time on the basis that

"most readers will take fundamentalist to mean "very religious in a bad way."

Although this has been debated before, in brief:

1 - the f-word (!) covers the very literal beliefs of groups like the CI and Christian Voice.

2 - Some (unless he held a poll, the other editor can make no claim to 'most') readers may not understand the f-word's wider meaning but:

we are not here to pander to the ignorant

the word is linked to its own definition on WP. All they have to do is click!

3 - The CI, like CV, is actually listed in the Christian Fundamentalist groups category on WP, for goodness sake! :-)

This point is not really worth a massive debate, but if it avoids an edit war then fine. That said, I do seem to recall that this issue was covered at length in a previous debate and it does seem a bit wasteful to have to go through it all again...

Please reply here rather than using edit summaries to state POVs. Cheers!81.159.211.87 (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have separated out the f-word, hopefully placing it more clearly in context and lessening perceived impact. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. 81.159.211.87 (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I understand from your comments on my talk page that you felt I was accusing you of good faith. I really had no such intention. You also accused me of violating a number of WP policies regarding - do you mind giving me links to those policies? I haven't come across them before. You also stated that I stated that fundamentalist is NPOV - if I said that (not doubting your integrity, I just can't be bothered to check), it was accidental, probably a typo for trying to say that fundamentalist is NPOV. I'll now respond to your numbered comments.

1) That is if you define the word fundamentalist as "anyone who believes in inerrancy", or "anyone who believes in orthodox Christianity." That is by no means the only definition, and indeed the wiki article that you link to doesn't make that claim. For example, this book is very famous in some circles, and responds at length. To say "some have called CI fundamentalist" is fine - perfectly NPOV, and if I had the time to look up examples of reliable sources who have, I would do that right now.

2) "Most" was based upon experience, I haven't conducted a poll, but I've read hundreds if not thousands of academic books on religion, and have not found the word fundamentalist used in the sense you mean very often, apart from when dealing with the early twentieth century. Your "we are not here to pander to the ignorant" is not listed in any wikipedia policy. To be frank, I have a degree in the study of religion, and primarily the Christian religion, so I can hardly be considered ignorant on the subject, but my natural reading of the word "fundamentalist" is not in the sense you cite. If your definition of ignorant includes those with academic degrees in the subject they are ignorant about, then I would suggest that wikipedia certainly is here to "pander to" us.

You are right that the page links to one of the articles on fundamentalism, and if any reader clicks on it they will understand what it means, but to constantly have to do that on terms like this would be silly. Furthermore, the article links to a page which primarily describes a movement which, among other things, refused absolutely to have any political involvement. Whatever you may say about CI, that is not them!

3) The only reason CI is placed in that category is because some editor placed it there, just as the only reason CI is called fundamentalist is because editors called it that. I will now remove both.

You cited the previous conversation on the topic of fundamentalism. It looks like (and I may be missing something here) from the archive that the debate wasn't about including the word in the article (nobody was saying that it should be), and only stopped because it became clear that it was a pointless debate that wasn't related to the article (then.) TJ (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the servers are screwed up again. I keep being shown differing versions of this page with dates covering from 26 March to dat. Ditto the main page. As I cannot currently be certain what the contributors' most recent comments/edits actually are, I feel I should just limit my comments to a few basics.

TJ: you cannot make appeals based "upon experience", books you've read (that's covered by the ban or original research) or your claimed educational qualifications.

The definition on WP does not support your argument in any way. Silly or not, that is what wikilinks are for

Your attitude is high-handed in the extreme. By what right do you decide to ride roughshod over the categorisation of this article simply because you dispute one word in the articles content?

I apologise: the debate on the f-word may well have ben on a different aricle: i have contributed to thousands and mu memory is not what it was.

At this time, I am unable to view an up-to-date version of the article. Nevertheless, I will not revert any of your changes. You are clearly a CI supporter and we have met your type here before. I will therefore give you enough rope... Aiden 81.159.211.87 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a violation of WP:AGF. I am very much opposed to CI, and find them an embarassment to my own Christian beliefs, as I have stated before. It could not possibly be "clear" to you solely on the basis that I disagree with the usage of a single word. If you continue with your uncivil assumptions of bad faith, I will report you, and the chances are you will be banned.

My comments based upon my experience were supplementary to my main point (citing people like Packer to prove that your definition of fundamentalist is not universal, and therefore it is not NPOV to base edits upon it.) They were responses to your assertions, BASED UPON NO EVIDENCE (not even your personal experience), that explaining things in a way that is clear to me (as a holder of an academic degree in the subject) is "pandering to the ignorant" - an assertion for which you provided no evidence.

The only reason the article was ever in that category was because an editor - no more or less an authority than you or I - put it there. In fact, in my experience, people tend to spend a lot *less* time checking categories, so that really doesn't have any authority over the content of the article.

I feel at this point it may be wise to file an RFC, as I doubt we'll get anywhere together. You've already shown you'd rather accuse me of lying than Assume Good Faith. TJ (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

TJ: the last line of my comment was directed at someone else (I think the phantom page-deleter) whose 'contribution' no long seems to be here! I have no idea what is going on with this page! I keep being shown differing versions of it, jumbled up. The only way I could see your most recent comments was to actually hit the Edit This Page button.

For the record, I do not believe you are a CI supporter: you said so in an earlier comment, and I agree with you that they make anyone with even a spiritual bent cringe.

I did not claim that you were ignorant. I stated that we are not here to pander to the ignorant, ie Daily Mail readers who cannot understand the difference between fundamental in its wider sense and Bomb-Hurling Nutters sense! I can't apologise for the phrase as re-reading my comment seems to make it pretty clear at whom it was aimed.

Your educational claims are irrelevant: I hold a PhD in chemistry. So what? Big Deal. We both did well at school.

By all means file an RFC if you wish tho, as I pointed out above, I have not accused you of anything (other than rather high-handedly rv-ing the work of other editors) but I leave it up to you.

Please leave the article as is until consensus is reached via RFC allowing all editors to see disputed content

Forgive me if my replies are perhaps not swift. As I say, right now I have to jump through a few hoops to see anything updated on this site. Will have a word with some technical bods. Please note, I now have an ID as (finally) we have a stable IP address here. Alchemy12 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On a separate note... are there any Mac users having trouble with this page? It seems to be screwed up since I updated Safari. Could be coincidence, but... 81.159.211.87 (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Institute - "fundamentalist"?

Request For Comment Now Closed.

Please comment on whether it is appropriate and NPOV to state that the CI "espouses fundamentalist Christian views" in this article.

Yes, appropriate. Christian Institute states [2] that the Bible is literally true and inerrant and the only guide to life. They the also the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ. By Wikipedia's own definition that is Christian Fundamentalism. For the sake of transparency and declaring my interest, I was the editor who added the phrase to the article.

Original question above was inaccurate and misleading and has been corrected. Specifically: Article states that CI "espouses fundamentalist Christian beliefs" not that the Ci is fundamentalist in an undefined way - that would be meaningless. Double exclamation points also deleted. RFC is informal, but not that informal! Question also now placed within this section as required by guidelines (and also plain common sense) It is a shame that the person proposing the discussion cannot take the time to phrase the questions neutrally and accurately. Alchemy12 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Double exclamation marks were automatically added by the template.

I will grant that I used slightly less precise language than the article itself (although we are debating both the category and the phrase in the article - the category is calling the organisation fundamentalism). I will not grant your accusation that it was not neutral. It is supposed to be a brief summary of the debate, and as such cannot contain every shade of meaning discussed. That is what reading the art

The wikipedia article about fundamentalism does not define fundamentalism as those beliefs, it defines fundamentalism as a movement that began with statement of those beliefs. There is a significant difference. There are many figures that argue against fundamentalism being defined in that way - I've already cited J I Packer, who is quite a major figure in many religious circles.

Please stop criticising me in every single comment you make about this. It is not civil. TJ (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are too thin-skinned. If you genuinely believe you are being bullied, please begin the appropriate action and I will defend myself. If not, accept reasonable criticism of poor edits with the grace the rest of us manage to find. Alchemy12 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not appropriate - there are a number of opinions on whether the CI should be describes as fundamentalist, therefore meaning that we should represent all sides of the issue. Furthermore, the word is ordinarily used as a perjorative, and one which carries little precise meaning - meaning little more than "very religious in a 'bad' way".

For the sake of clarity, I am the person who deleted it - although the archives show that it has been opposed in the past - just before the word was introduced! TJ (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On advice, I have decided to alter the allegedly offending word to TJ's choice: Christian conservative. For the record, this action has nothing to do with any contribution made here, but a reliable outside source has suggested it's appropriateness. The RfC is therefore now closed. Alchemy12 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not appropriate, because the word "fundamentalist" has no generally agreed meaning, but is used in several different ways. While it does have a semi-technical meaning in the USA, in that some protestant groups do describe themselves as "fundamentalist", one does not find British groups describing themselves as "fundamentalists". Wildernessman (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In as much as British Christianity understands there to be a difference between "fundamentalism" and "evangelicalism" - and I refer readers to John Stott, the Christian Institute would appear to be evangelical rather than fundamentalist.

In terms of American usage, the Christian Institute would definitely be described as evangelical rather than fundamentalist. Any article which describes the Christian Institute as fundamentalist will simply look sloppy.

Case against Google

Can I suggest that the CI's case against Google is included in the list of activities since it is probably one of their more high profile cases and has had ramifications world wide? If no one has the time or the inclination to do this I'd happily write it. Thanks Fritleyfrisp (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Charity vs. Pressure Group

I've change "pressure group" to "charity". Some may disagree, so I'll lay out my logic. Although I am personally a liberal catholic, I agree with The Christian Institute on many fronts, so I am not neutral. Hence my initial interest in the subject. Nevertheless, I examined the Stonewall(UK) page to see whether or not they were described as a pressure group. It is described as a charity. Each group was on the opposite side of the repeal of Section 28 and other issues regarding gay rights in the UK. If you think that The Christian Institute should be accurately denoted as a pressure group, then Stonewall should also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huckfinne (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no logic in this claim at all. We do not edit based on "what we think" or what appears on other WP articles but on the nature of the subject at hand. If Stonewall is incorrectly tagged (no idea - never read it, never heard of them until now) then the Stonewall article should be tweaked, not this one.

Nevertheless, the CI is both a charity and pressure group and I will edit the article to reflect both.

Please remember to sign your contributions. 86.172.92.192 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As an object lesson in the meaning of subjectivity, the quotation, Although I am personally a liberal catholic, I agree with The Christian Institute on many fronts, so I am not neutral is hard to beat.

I am a liberal Catholic, and I find practically nothing upon which I can agree with them. I don't even think they ought to be described as Christian - crypto-fascist might be nearer the mark. But that's only my subjective opinion.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804054721/http://www.christian.org.uk:80/briefingpapers/section28.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313155730/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk:80/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041109/debtext/41109-18.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041109/debtext/41109-18.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202091913/http://christian.org.uk/whoweare/basisoffaith.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/whoweare/basisoffaith.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728195320/http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/counterfeitmarriage.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/counterfeitmarriage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)