Talk:Colorado Springs Guidelines

Notes

I removed what appeared to be the full text of the guidelines; these should be summarized, not copied in whole. The sources don't appear to be significant writing about the Colorado Springs Guidelines, and the article still needs that kind of sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You removed a different text 4 minutes after I created this article with material from another one. The text included in what I pasted was long and irrelevant to this article. On the other hand, the actual Colorado Springs Guidelines themselves are short and suitable for quoting in full. They are technical and suitable for expanding upon, using the many reliable sources available for doing so. There is a huge volume of literature on this subject. I work on Bibliographies before the main text of articles. I'm sure you'll understand, 4 minutes of editing does not produce a featured article. ;) All will become clear, in not so very long, thanks for your helpful advice. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you're a fairly new editor here- welcome to Wikipedia. New articles are reviewed immediately by new page patrollers like myself, usually within a few minutes of creation. Many users like to use their own userspace to work on an article until they think it's ready to be part of Wikipedia- Here's a version of my own sandbox with several half-finished articles waiting to be added to encyclopedia space. In general, you should expect at least one person, and more usually two or three, to check out your new articles as soon as they're added, and they'll often make tweaks, add tags for what it still needed, or take any other action they think ought to be taken . -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I am new, only 10,000 edits and 2 years here, so I'm still learning. One thing I am familiar with, though, is how exceptionally good new page patrols are. Alex's NewArticleBot is also a regular friend of mine. ;) Sometimes I work up articles in my own space like User:Alastair Haines/Church Fathers, or Popper and After, before I sent it live. But when I'm only making a stub I usually don't bother. The sooner a stub is out there, the sooner others with more knowledge, motivation or time than myself can get to work on it. That's my thinking anyway.

But congratulations again on your speed, suggestions and tact. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The text of the guidelines should be in Wikisource, not the article. See Wikipedia:Do not include copies of primary sources. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your idea.

The policy you cite actually supports inclusion of text like that of the CSG: "Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles" [emphasis added].

It goes on to note that: "Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias" [emphasis added].

Fairly clearly the CSG are rather shorter than many national anthems.

What I would note, in broad agreement with you, is that ideally this article should be expanded to cover the scholarship regarding each of the points of the guidelines. There is plenty of reliable secondary literature to do this, I actually own some of it and have ready access to more. When this is achieved at some future point, I can imagine some arguing the text of the actual Guidelines might be redundant, while others could argue it provides a natural summary. Clearly deciding such an issue now is premature.

In the interim, the text of the CSG provides readers with reliably sourced information in the most obviously direct and neutral way.

Regarding Wikisource, the CSG cannot be copied to Wikisource since it is not public domain (or GFDL). Permission to copy the Guidelines does not extend to adaptation, modification or alteration. The text of hymns and national anthems, depending on age, has no such protection. Such texts may be downloaded, modified and performed without breaching copyright. This is not true of the CSG, they may be quoted in whole or in part, but they may not be modified. As such the text belongs in 'pedia not 'source.

Alastair Haines (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. If it can't be copied to Wikisource, I'd be surprised it can be copied to Wikipedia. And I appreciate your reasoning (for simply dumping the text in as a first pass of the article), but the real fix is to find some commentary, and not include the entire text (which I still think is on the long side to include in full). Maybe I need to find a tag which says "this article needs work". Peter Ballard (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Between you and me, the "[edit]" buttons invite work on all Wiki articles. ;)

I've dumped a bibliography at the bottom of the page to give a kick-start for anyone interested in working here.

Eventually, I personally will expand the article. As I mentioned I own a couple of long books discussing the CSG in detail. Though my normal method in anything that might end up being controversial is to write up summaries of the secondary sources in their own articles before using them in the primary topic area. That gives Wiki an article on a secondary source, and allows anyone caring for discussion an oportunity to utilize the secondary source if they wish. Plus, it tends to help people see any work I do is coming from sources, not my own opinion.

Anyway, feel free to drop a stub tag back on the article. On the scale from non-starter to featured quality, this article barely registers. Is it a stub? Is it start class? Is it "B" grade? ... I rate it a bare start class article.

The only thing it has going for it is genuine sources and an absence of edit wars regarding editorial opinions rather than sourced commentary. Sure, it needs work, i.e. it needs people to get hold of the books and read them, then we're cooking with gas.

If you're interested in the subject, the Carson and Koestenberger books are written for educated Christians, not scholars. The two sides of this debate are articulately represented by conservative evangelical Christians, because they care that laymen get involved in the discussion. The Bible does not belong to scholars, but the people.

If you grab the books any time in the next year, there's a good chance you'd get around to writing up this article before I do. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Poythress and Grudem (2000)

Considering that this book spends 20 pages on this topic (according to its ToC available on Amazon), it is surprising that only a single sentence, in this very badly sourced article is cited to it. I don't have access to it myself, but if somebody does have access to it (or the 2003 edition), they might want to consider using it to flesh this article out. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado Springs Guidelines. 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/20080313145354/http://www.ps.edu/FacultyStaff/ResidentFaculty/WayneAGrudem/Media/tabid/223/Default.aspx to http://www.ps.edu/FacultyStaff/ResidentFaculty/WayneAGrudem/Media/tabid/223/Default.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wts.edu/publications/articles/200212poythressa.pdf

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) 22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)