Talk:List of evangelical seminaries and theological colleges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has been flagged because the listed contents have not been verified by research, and citation has not been provided for each listed item. Additionally, the article equates the terms "protestant" and "evangelical", which may be highly disputed based on definition. The terms evangelical and protestant in modern english are not transitive. Changing the article title from "List of evangelical seminaries and theological colleges" to "List of protestant seminaries and theological colleges" would eliminate the problem of incorrect identification, however would not solve the issue of poor/no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.182.242 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Is this list on Evangelical or Protestant seminaries?[edit]

Since the name of the list is Evangelical and not Protestant, why does the list description say both? I think there should be one for Protestant seminaries and this list to be for solely Evangelical seminaries. Thoughts?Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

ToddSt1[edit]

There is a guy on here who is arbitrarily deciding what institutions should be on this list and what should not. His name is toddst1. Since the definition of evangelical is loose, so also should this list be. If you add to it, he will delete it and tell you that your opinion is not sourced, however the vast majority of schools in this list are not sourced- even if their own entry pages are self-evident. His ranking on wikipedia contributions is #325, so clearly he spends more time on here than you do, and his presuppositions will outlast your own contributions on here.

As a librarian I understand how one can use "facts" and "sources" to uphold any bias. Todd, just a suggestion- if you want to be perceived as an expert editor, don't hide behind obscurity on your personal page- it discredits your authorative manner on wikipedia articles and deciding what should and should not be. It's a major detriment to this platform. Right Essjay? Credentials=credibilityCoemgenv (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)