Talk:The Briefing

"The Beefing" not a parody, certainly not noteworthy

"The Beefing" (http://www.thebeefing.com/) was pegged as a satire of "The Briefing", however, they are counter-attacking on only one point: the magazine's view toward Charismatic theology.

Examples:

• The "Couldn't help Bollocking" section has a disproportionate focus on Charismatics (if it wanted to be a good satirical reflection, there would be more focus on secular society).
• It calls the author- and readership of the Briefing Puritans - a group about as far removed from the Charismatics as you will ever get. Puritan views were also emphasised in "and false are the bretheren who rejoiceth too much".
• The multiple references to common pentecostal/charismatic phrases ("prophesysing", "worship", "glossia"), makes one suspect that the writer has a Pentecostal/Charismatic background. (S)He may be from Hillsong, as seen in the amazingly strong anti-anti-Hillsong sentiment.

Even if the site wasn't designed as a counter-attack by a charismatic church, it still consists of only one sattire, and is not yet noteworthy enough to be featured on Wikipedia.

I have since removed the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.202.106 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2007 July 12

Defence of Briefing's notability

This doesn't really belong in the article proper, and in any case it isn't up for deletion anymore. Tonicthebrown 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Christian organizations and authors consider the magazine's views significant; for example:

1) Cross Rhythms has a substantial discussion about the magazine’s critique of a Hillsong Church event[[1]].

2) Ronald McCaulay’s paper ‘The Great Commissions’ (Cambridge Papers, Vol 7 No 2, June 1998) [[2]] criticises an article in the magazine, clearly treating it as a significant and notable publication whose views (though in this case unhelpful) had to be considered.

3) The campaign group ‘The Micah Challenge’ recommend it as a “gatekeeper for new ideas and approaches”[[3]].

I'm wondering about the tone of this paragraph

The magazine frequently criticises forms of Christianity with which conservative evangelicals (and particularly Sydney Anglicans) disagree. Various articles in the second half of 2006 have criticised liberal theology, Catholicism and Hillsong.

I'm wondering if 'criticism' is the correct phrase to use here. The magazine critiques the teachings and practices of forms of Christianity with which it disagrees. As the paragraph reads now, it seems like they are attacking them, perhaps baselessly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.69.52 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brfg344 200.jpg

Image:Brfg344 200.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brfg344 200.jpg

Image:Brfg344 200.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)