Talk:Southern Baptist Convention

Info box

Why has the info box categories been changed? Ltwin (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cooperative Program merger proposal

The Cooperative Program article has been an unsourced stub for years. This is not a seperate entity from the SBC (or even a subdivision or auxillary of the SBC) like, for example, the North American Mission Board. Rather it is a single, though important, program of the SBC. It would seem to me, then, that the program is best discussed within the SBC article per WP:NNC and WP:WEIGHT. I propose merging what text can be sourced into the SBC article and redirecting Cooperative Program to the SBC article section dealing with the Cooperative Program, or to the SBC page generally if the discussion of the Cooperative Program is scattered throughout the SBC article as it is now. Novaseminary (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

agree Ltwin (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no dissent, I completed the merge (though the section still needs work). Novaseminary (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to split members list

The list of member is always going to be incomplete and subjective. It is also tangential to the discussion of the SBC itself. If individuals are notable in a way related to the SBC, they should or already are mentioned in the main body of the article. If notable people are notable for entirely different reasons, I see no reason to list them on an article covering the SBC. To avoid or minimize all of these issues, I propose splitting the member list into its own article with a wikilink from the main article to replace or go alongside the exisiting less specific link to the List of Baptists (which, of course, covers Baptists with or without any affiliation with an SBC church). This could then complement the existing Category:Southern Baptists. Novaseminary (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Y Done I have split this section out of this main article and moved it into its own list article, List of Southern Baptist Convention affiliated people, with a link to this new list in the see also section of the main article. Novaseminary (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section missing

This section is missing from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.23.86 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because criticisms are to be integrated into the article, not blocked off into a separate section. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

State conventions

I split the list of state conventions into its own list article at List of state and other conventions associated with the Southern Baptist Convention because the list was quite long and the article is already probably too long. I think this is supported by WP:LIST and WP:STANDALONE. Novaseminary (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Tags

I'm removing the two tags at the top of the article. The citations tag is not needed as much of the article is sourced, and there are "citation needed" notes in the places that need citations. The cleanup tag doesn't make since to me. I don't see any areas of the article that are particularly messy and I don't see any comments on the talk page addressing this. Ltwin (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

SBC 1968 survey

The SBC 1968 survey mentioned must have a cite. The source given had no info on the survey or the SBC; it was about the American Baptist Convention.Parkwells (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Civil Rights Movement

This article should have a section on the '50s and '60s opposition to the civil rights movement within the Southern Baptist church. (One possible source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_34/ai_94160905/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.83.220 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I want more examples of the institutional racism that SBC was part of for years! The Church of Slavery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.11.200 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Colonial Era - April 2011

There is no such thing as a "colonial era" for the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC did not exist until the mid-1800s. The current presentation of a "colonial era" is in need of improvement due to its clear regional bias and insufficient attention to the most important historical antecedents, both institutional and individual.

That's personal POV not upheld by historians or the SBC itself--they discuss the colonial origins because the SBC did not appear out of nowehere--it was a new alliance formed by older churches because of their historic positions. see Robert A. Baker, The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People, 1607-1972 (Nashville, 1974), or look at David S. Dockery, Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal (2008) pp 105ff; Jerry Sutton & James T. Draper, Jr. A Matter of Conviction: A History of Southern Baptist Engagement (2008) pp 55ff; W. Wiley Richards, Winds of doctrines: the origin and development of Southern Baptist theology (1991) etc Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not personal POV. That is a literate interpretation of history. The Colonial history of the United States ended in 1776. Period. The SBC obviously has colonial era antecedents. Those antecedents were Baptist starting with John Clarke and others at the First Baptist Church in America - yes, in the North first and foremost and others in the South. None of those antecedents - institutional or individual - used the name of "Southern Baptist Convention" or "Southern Baptist".

it's personal POV because it is not based on a reliable source. I cited four RS that study the colonial era. Most useful is the one published by the SBC, Robert A. Baker, The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People, 1607-1972 (Nashville, 1974). Notice the dates. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence is a reliable legal and historical source. Date = July 4, 1776. There is also a plethora of reliable source publications confirming the date of American independence as July 4, 1776. Events prior to July 4, 1776 in the American context are colonial era. Events following that date in the American context are post-colonial.

Many churches that comprise the SBC were founded and developed their identity and values during the colonial era, which is what the article says. Indeed the southern Baptists were especially proud of and insistent on the critical importance of their pre-1845 history. The USA did not appear out of nowhere in 1776, it had a colonial history too. Rjensen (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

These edits were reverted as failing Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. It seems to me that they are fine, and fit the article well. Images don't have to strictly depict the subject of the article. (Obviously, there can be no picture of the "Southern Baptist Convention", just as there can be no picture of the "United States".) No - pictures, need to be relevant. But a picture of worship at Saddleback, a major SBC church? It seems relevant to me. Both in terms of Saddleback, and in terms of what a baptist worship center might look like. Is there anyone else who objects to this apart from User:Novaseminary? StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If there were such a thing as a ”typical” SBC building or photo of a typical SBC worship service (and that was supported by an RS), then fine. (I don't think there is.) Or if a particular building or what have you is associated with the SBC, then fine (also sourced, of course). But I do not think that including a photo of one particular, certainly not representative, service and one church that was large in the 50s is substantially enough about the SBC (the subject of this article) to justify inclusion here; maybe in article about those particular churches it would be fine. The purpose of photos (per WP:IMAGE] is not to make the article look pretty, but to explain the subject in a way that words alone could not. Novaseminary (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the opinion presented at Wikipedia talk:Images#Pictures of individual churches in denominational articles applies here - "It is perfectly typical and acceptable for any article about an organization or type of organization to include images like this. Since we can't include an image of every single building associated with this church organization, we use basic editorial judgment to pick one or more." StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the pictures in and of themselves. Maybe we should have a balance between megachurches and more average sized churches. Also, it may be nice to include "historical" Southern baptist churches as well. Older churches especially will tend to have notable architectural merit in addition to any influence the congregation itself has had in Southern Baptist history. Ltwin (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ltwin's approach seems reasonable to me. I've never been against all photos, just indiscriminate insertion of photos (or ELs or See alsos or Further readings). I agree with what is but one Ed's opinion at the IMAGE discussion, that we use editorial judgment. But that implies one can articulate why their judgment leads one to favor inclusion (along the lines of what Ltwin proposed above). StAnselm still has yet to say why these photos in particular belong. Since this was not even started here but at another article where I initially removed the unexplained insertion of photos by an ed who had been inserting POV into the article (whether on purpose or not is another question), I propose both StAnselm and I stand down on this issue and leave it to others for now. Novaseminary (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So... what was wrong with the pictures? StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The pictures of First Baptist Church (Augusta, Georgia) and First Baptist Church (Charleston, South Carolina) are good. But the consensus here is that there was nothing wrong with the other ones. StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus? Only three editors have weighed in. The only rough consensus is that the sorts of photos I added are ok (not to speak for Ltwin, but I tried to go the route Ltwin suggested). As a compromise, I added them. I thought you cared more about the general priciple that some photos of buildings are ok in a denominational article rather than any particular photos. Or is it something else? Novaseminary (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you disagree, it doesn't mean there isn't consensus. I have added it back in. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not act like children. There is no reason to violate WP:3RR. Why not send it to RfC or at least let the discussion mature here? At least we have narrowed it to one photo. Novaseminary (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

With two editors, a third opinion is more appropriate than WP:RFC. But you've ignored the third opinion proffered here., as well as ignoring the comments at the centralised in-principle discussion. Maybe that's not quite fair - you've conceded that photos of churches in denominational articles are OK. Well, let me say it again: there is nothing wrong with the Saddleback photo. StAnselm (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added back the Bellevue Baptist Church, but User:Novaseminary still disagrees with its inclusion. Where do we go from here? NS is the only editor who doesn't like it, despite the discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Pictures of individual churches in denominational articles. Obviously, we don't want dozens of images in the article, but for its size (60kb), four is hardly too many. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss it specifically in the section I created immediately below this one. Novaseminary (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Bellevue Baptist Church

With this edit St Anselm added (again) this photo of Bellevue Baptist Church. I don't think it belongs in the article. It is not particularly representative, doesn't illustrate anything discussed in the article, and there are already other photos of churches actually mentioned in the article. I'm going to remove it again. Novaseminary (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Y Done with this edit. St Anselm, rather than getting blocked again, why not send it to RfC. As noted (and per the iamges I added), I am not opposed to all church images on denominational articles, but I think there should be some particular reason to include it. Novaseminary (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And as noted with this comment, the editor that commented to StAnselm's general inquiry at the MOS talk noted that one or two images of churches should do it. Novaseminary (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the picture of Bellevue Baptist Church be included in the article? 02:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, for the reasons I gave prior to the RfC immediately above the RfC tag, and it is not a good photo, to boot. Novaseminary (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There is a need for more images in this article - it would only be the fourth in a 60k article. The picture is clearly relevant as it is of a Southern Baptist Church. StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you not sign your RfC, and then remove you signature after I inserted it? Anyway, why this photo. There are many churches that have played significant roles in the history of this denomination (and are mentioned in the article). I think the current two photos are enough, and others should only be added if the church played some role in the story the article is telling. Novaseminary (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article could certainly use a few more images. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes: There may be an ownership issue with this article; the image in question seems to be a welcome variation from the other pictures of older churches. From a layout perspective, the images may work better alternated between right and left instead of all down the right side of the page.--Miniapolis (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC Comment: If the text description can be verified by an independent reliable source, maybe. Personally, I myself don't think that being one of the larger churches in the 1950s is necessarily enough reason for inclusion of the picture. "One of the larger" churches doesn't really indicate how many of those "larger" churches there were. Maybe several hundred? If it was a number of roughly that size, then the reason for its inclusion is weakened. Also, the qualifier "in the 1950s" points specifically to bygone days. Is it a smaller church now, or, perhaps, no longer included in the "larger" churches today? Is it, perhaps, not even Southern Baptist anymore? Personally, I think the nature of the photo, being a long shot to show most of the front of the building, doesn't really do anything to make me more sympathetic. I would guess my final opinion might be that the picture is not necessarily of a significant enough church of the SBC, until and unless its inclusion is more thoroughly supported by independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, no, but only because there are better pictures: see at Commons, and take your pick. I'll say this: the pictures in the article look like the could fit in the Episcopal Church (United States) article for crying out loud (except for the Charlestown Massachusetts one). How about a pic or two of clapboard churches from the Baptist heartland, which is typical of where most Baptists worship? Herostratus (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Herostratus. For example, this interior photo of First Baptist Church (Columbia, South Carolina), the site where a state convention voted to secede from the Union. Ltwin (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since the RfC was posted, I've added several more photos to the article. The general ”this article needs photos” comments above have been adressed, at least in part. One other thing to note is that this article is about a particular organization with which churches affiliate (and some churches affiliate with more than one association, or change their affiliation over time). The article is not about Baptist churches in the South or Baptist churches more generally, or even conservative, fundamentalist, moderate, or any other subdivision of Baptist churches. Any photos should fairly illustrate some aspect of the subject organization - the Southern Baptist Convention. And to loosely echo John Carter's comment above, the photos should illustrate the RS-supported text, not get around WP:V or serve as a visual version of OR. Novaseminary (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC Comment: No, I cannot see any valid reason to include the Photo of Bellevue Baptist Church in the article; agreed, it is not a good photo of a church ~ a photo of lawn and roads, maybe. The article has sufficient appropriate images as it stands.Whiteguru (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Does seem to matter to me I don't recognize the building from the picture so I do not think it is a problem in the article. Now that there are multiple pictures, does this still need to be the subject of an RFC? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes As User:StAnselm stated, this image would be a great addition to an article which remains wanting in images. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion the photo itself has far, far too much negative space to be anywhere near attractive, and even cropped down that would probably look worse. Even if the article needs photos, that's no reason we should use an inferior one, and even settling for such I fear that the addition of such an aesthetically unpleasing image would detract from the overall article. Recon Etc (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)