Talk:Baptist successionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Baptist (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group.


What is the evidence for and against this theory? In particular, why have scholars moved away from it? (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this. The Trail of Blood, a booklet written in the 40s, posited the theory based on the following two theories:

1. The only viable Christian Church is the Church that has historically descended from the Apostles. (a statement that has been held true among Christians since the early second century with Irenaeus of Lyons)

2. The Baptist Church is the only viable Church.

With these two assumptions, the author creates a mind-bogglingly complex conspiracy theory that the Roman Catholic Church has systematically destroyed all physical and textual evidence of the early Baptists of the years prior to the commonly held origin of the Baptist Church, and replaced them with textual and physical evidence of heretical groups, naming the "True Christians" heretics.

That conspiracy theory falls apart when one actually, I don't know, picks up a history book for a fifth grader. Sculleywr (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

IP reversions[edit]

With this edit, I reinstated several edits I made around 20 hours ago for the reasons explained in the edit summary. An IP had reverted without explanation. An IP (probably the same person) obviously thinks much of what I had previsouly removed for various reasons some time ago--as explained in those ESs, mostly OR and POV/UNDUE--should be brought back having wholesale reverted to a year-old version several times, even removing categories and interwikilinks. I disagree with those reversions, but I have left all but the worst of it, formatted it more appropriately, and tagged some of it. If anyone has thoughts, please let everyone know here. Novaseminary (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Worst of SYNTH[edit]

With this edit, I again removed inclusion of a sentence that fails WP:SYNTH and an image that does the same thing. According to the ES of the IP adding it: (here) "Restored appropriate illustration and reference showing that the association of the English Baptists with the German Anabaptist is no Landmarkist novelty, facts which are of integral pertinence to the article." That is pretty much textbook SYNTH/OR. The sentence and image are there to "prove" how early the view was held or articulated. We would need a third-party source noting the work's prominence and applcability here and to even establish these are actually examples of this view at all. Seeing as it had been out for quite a long time before the IP added it back, I think there needs to be consensus to include. Would the IP provide a third-party, non-primary source that supports inclusion of this? Novaseminary (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You just want Featley's illustration out because you know full well it damns your whole damnable theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No, WP is not the place to prove your theory. And what exactly is my theory? Anyway, the article (and all of WP) needs to be based on reliable sources (WP:RS), not be original research (WP:OR), and be neutral (WP:NPOV). As presented, the illustration fails at least two of those. It is nothing personal against you or your beliefs. Novaseminary (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Everyone who edits Wikipedia does so with an agenda - you included. My motives are irrelevant as are yours. The information you took out of the article is accurate, non POV and helpful to anyone who wants to understand the theory of Baptist successionism and that is all that matters so far as the article is concerned. You are straining at gnats to get the information out because of your own agenda. If you are the seeker of accuracy that you claim to be, give me a call and I'll show you more about the Featley illustration that will blow the lid off the whole subject. 870-238-0911 or 870-588-6568. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not reinsert the image until there is consensus here. The information was taking out as OR, and you admit you added it with an agenda (to "blow the lid off the whole subject"). Wikipedia is not the place to do that. (Write your own website where you blow the whole lid of the subject; that would be great, doing so at WP is not.) While it is possible to add material to WP becuase you have an agend in favor of the position, with the material itself being neutral, this does not appear to be such a case. Frankly, I don't care or think much about the theory either way. I do care about WP remaining neutral. I never claimed to be a seeker of accuracy; lots that is accurate would be inappropriate for WP (WP:NOTTRUTH), almost every accurate original academic journal article, for instance. As for you edit summary,equating Anabaptists and Baptists pointing to a painting by an Anglican may have nothing to do with this theory. Novaseminary (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Learn to read - I didn't say my agenda was to blow the lid off the subject. I said that if you would call me I would show you more about the illustration which would blow the lid off the subject. But again, my motive is irrelevant if the material is suitable, which it is. The illustration is non POV. I added a reference to a source which uses the illustration and makes the connection between the Baptists and Anabaptists. The illustration is useful to the article in simply illustrating the subject at hand. As for "consensus" - you and I are the only ones talking and therefore there will be no consensus, because I've dealt with you before and know how you operate and "consensus" to you means that you get your way or else. So now you can call in you buddies to outvote me and then you will have your consensus. Well, I'm putting the picture back in and you can do what you wish. When I find a suitable source for Spittlehouse's work I will put that back in as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comments like "Learn to read" are unnecessary. A source connecting Baptists and Anabaptits does not mean this drawing is related to Baptist successionism. Your contention that it "illustrates the subject at hand" is the OR/SYNTH leap that I am complaining about. The image itself is not terribly illustrative of the subject as the sources discuss it today (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE) and it is too busy to be useful anyway. As for consensus, you are right, there is no consensus here yet. The illustration should stay out until there is. I will again remove it. If you would like to bring in others (and are unwilling to wait to see if anyone comments here on their own in the next few days), feel free to go through one of the dispute resolution processes, perhaps third opinion or RfC (WP:DR). Meanwhile, please do not reinsert the drawing. Novaseminary (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)\

Ok, I'm sure you know how to read - so please exercise your ability and don't accuse me of saying things I didn't say. As for consensus, where was the consensus in removing the illustration in the first place? I will continue to reinsert the illustration at will. You can do as you please. And the invitation to call still stands. What I will show you is "deeply" profound to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
The image was out for a long time. Its reisnsertion was objected to immediately. Consensus is needed to reinsert, especially because its usefulness to the article, not to mention its POV and OR nature in this context, is obviously disputed. Please use dispute resolution if you are unhappy rather than inserting challenegd material "at will." We cannot do as we please, we need to follow the rules and guidelines here to edit WP. Do what you will on your own website, not here. Novaseminary (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What you really mean is that only you can do as you will. Well, this isn't your seminary class and I'm not your student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I will again revert an IPs wholesale reversion to a much ollder version without consensus, or constructive engagement, here. Novaseminary (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To you, "consensus" and "constructive engagement" means everyone else bowing to your will. I'm not bowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Please at least make an effort to follow the rules. You have blindly reverted (unless you also have something against proper categories and citation format) from a version that was relatively longstanding to a version that does not have consensus, and, I think, violates several rules and guidelines as discussed above. All without making an effort to show how this does not violate the guidelines. I am not asking you to bow to me. If you follow DR, I will more than happily bow to consensus. But please respect Wikipedia enough to at least go that route, or leave the article alone. Novaseminary (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have made an effort to follow the rules. I respect Wikiepedia and have not violated their rules. I have only violated your biased attempts to use the rules to enforce your own agenda. I don't respect you. I've been through all this before. I have no more to say to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Then you should have no problem going through WP:DR since you must be sure others will agree with you. Meanwhile, I will again revert you. This is getting silly. Novaseminary (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────An IP from the same range as above, and from the same range that caused this article to be semi-protected, again reverted to a problematic version with no edit summary or discussion here. With this edit, I reinstated the stable, non-OR, etc., version. Novaseminary (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line here, Novaseminary doesn't want anyone to know anything about the concept of Baptist successionism. He wants a bare bones article with a disclaimer making sure that no one takes the idea seriously. And in case you haven't noticed, Novaseminary always gets his way. Thank God there will be a judgment day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind that it was yet another editor who quite rightly reverted your latest attempt of many over the past months or longer at imposing your will over that of the consensus arrived at by several other editors ([1], [2], for example) and which led to the article being semi-protected because of your behavior (I presume it was you, at least). Speaking of judgment, the judgment of the Wikipedia editors is clear. As for your latest contention about my motives (despite you claim towards the top of this section that "My motives are irrelevant as are yours"), believe it or not, I truly don't care how long this article is. I do care that it complies with WP policy and guidelines. A few posts up (where you noted you don't respect me) you said "I have no more to say to you." If only we were so lucky. Novaseminary (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)