Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization

Christianity: Evangelical Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

It seems that the original article was not a legitimate attempt and it was deleted. I plan to make a real attempt because this topic is linked to from many other articles and it seems necessary. Floundering (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Cape Town 2010" has been added but it repeats information already listed in the "organization" section. Add the extra information to the original sentence and delete the new section, or delete the old sentence? Floundering (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Christian Zionism

Given the strength of criticism, I have added a short, referenced section on this subject. Cpsoper (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a single statement from the movement and a response from an Israeli group. I see no criticism. I see two differing views and nothing more. Find sources that support a criticism and a controversy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement above is extraordinary, there is the whole article, published by Lausanne, on Zionism, which makes clumsy comparison to the Spanish Inquisition, and the crusades, and two responses, one from the UK, the other from Israel, both of which express strong offence and outrage. I am surprised this is not regarded as controversial, but even it were not, please explain the removal of the whole referenced section, without attempting to modify or correct any perceived deficiency. Cpsoper (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nothing to support that it's controversial. Just because it goes against your opinions doesn't mean it should be included. I could likely find just as many blog posts to support that it's the right position and that Christian Zionism is wrong. Shall we plat tit-for-tat or will you remove your violation of WP:V and WP:NPV? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of personal opinion. If the terms 'all-out assault', 'deliberate deception', 'the toxic mix of ignorance, and half-truths that drive the global movement to delegitimize Israel have washed up at one of the most widely known international Christian aid organizations', ' Lausanne denounces other people’s theological fascination with Zionism, yet its own theological fascination with Zionism is not discussed', 'Lausanne needs to rebalance its agenda, and steer away from admiring Islamist terrorists who murder Christians, because they are an “anti-secular force”. Currently, Lausanne is too busy channelling its energy into delegitimising the Jewish state' etc etc indicate no controversy, I do wonder how one proposes to recognise controversy when it arises? Have you weighed these sources? I have no intention of entering a 'tit for tat', but accuracy does matter, and if you prefer, we can call for external comment. Cpsoper (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is one person who published a statement and a different person who rebutted. That does not really meet the criteria of a controversy. Find a source that calls it a controversy and we can restore your preferred wording. You might also want to learn how to insert references correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more references, you may wish to refine the citations. Cpsoper (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the context of the original statement and then added three more references to restore balance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my references, and the new ones, which add perspective. I still wonder whether 'denouncing' is appropriately encyclopaedic? It now seems to me somewhat perjorative to the speaker, given WV's statement, perhaps a more neutral term would be better - but I will leave this for now, given your dissent. You may agree, it may be WP:UNDUE to add much more material. Cpsoper (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'criticism' instead of controversy? It seems appropriate and NPOV to me. Cpsoper (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the text referring to this being an 'attack', but left the reference, since we seem to have some agreement on using the section title 'criticism...', which seems more encyclopaedic. Cpsoper (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Steve Haas' recent article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Insufficient input to draw any conclusions. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the material made by the origanization's Vice President, Steve Haas, and responses to it be included in the article? If so, what should the heading be? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, controversy or criticism seem an appropriate subtitle, the material was published by Lausanne and came from its VP, it has been highly newsworthy, and other sources can be added to show this. Cpsoper (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the correct place for hyperbole. I didn't see any coverage of it on any of the nightly news programmes where I live. I have not seen any in the daily news publications I regularly read. Are we expecting a detailed story in Time? Please define what you mean by "newsworthy", preferably with links to where it has been discussed, and strike the term "highly". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of other RS sites, I've added just one higher profile one, SWC. 'Highly' still seems appropriate given the nature of the language used. Cpsoper (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes It is one of the most noteworthy and news worthy aspects of the comittee. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest a title for a section heading. I Think the current section heading works as is. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ecumenical Activity

I have added a short reference to the invited address by the WCC general secretary in 2010. Cpsoper (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lausanne.org/cape-town-2010/faq-basics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lausanne.org/cape-town-2010/faq-basics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended changes

Hello, I am the Communications Editor of the Lausanne Movement and would like to suggest some changes to this Wiki page for accuracy. I'm aware that there are guidelines about editing pages if there is a potential conflict of interest, so I would like to disclose here that these contributions are made on behalf of the Lausanne Movement and in consultation with them, and I intend to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, very closely. My aim is to work with and seek advice from impartial editors to make positive contributions to the Lausanne Movement's article, hopefully leading to a much improved article. On any pages where I look for assistance, I will be sure to disclose my relationship to the Lausanne Movement in the interests of transparency.

A few of the changes I would like to suggest are: -Updating the mission statement to the current one, "Connecting influencers and ideas for global mission", and perhaps including the current vision statement as well -Under the "Organization" section: update to the current chair of the board, Bob Doll; perhaps could reference the issue networks and regions as well as the associated leadership; could add two other major gatherings since Cape Town 2010: the Younger Leaders Gathering in 2016 held in Jakarta, Indonesia, and the 2019 Global Workplace Forum held in Manila, Philippines -A key ongoing publication, Lausanne Global Analysis, appears to be missing from the "Publications" section -In the section on Cape Town 2010, articles like this one could be referenced: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/september/34.66.html

In addition, the section on All of Me, which feels much too long in comparison to the rest of the article, could be improved for accuracy in several ways: -Steve Haas is the vice president of World Vision, not the Lausanne Movement. -It would improve the section to add a reference to Lausanne’s official response which was sent to publications that attacked Lausanne and the article (here’s a main one: https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/28765/leading-evangelical-movement-calls-on-christian-zionists-to-repent-for-supporting-israel-biblical-zionism/#fH502dkO5c0lQlO1.99), and they then published our response (https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/29274/letter-editor-ceo-lausanne-movement/#S81szuAxyfeOL84A.97)

SaraK8 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]