Talk:Every Nation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
|||
| Archives | |||
|
|||
| About archives • Edit this box |
I think its time to go after the Maranatha section. The only big thing we are missing is the doctrinal differences in detail. I'm going to start 2 pages
- Talk:Every Nation/Archive Maranatha which contains everything Maranatha related from this page and
- Talk:Every Nation/Maranatha which will be the live debate on that section.
jbolden1517Talk 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please add all these pages to your watch list.
[edit] Article Reads Like A Tabloid
I am really disappointed with the quality of this article. It reads a little like the National Enquirer.
It seems like the group of disgruntled folks from Factnet have come over and set up shop here at Wikipedia. The article reads very much like their posts. They are trying to present all the arguments and everything they dislike or feel is wrong about Every Nation.
"The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge"
This article is the epitome of imbalance. It is not neutral. And I think it fails miserably at approaching encyclopedic.
They even put links to their Anti-EN site at Factnet as External Links
Because the article is so anti-Every Nation slanted, it fails to grasp the essence of the organization or help the reader understand what the organization is all about. In that, it is a disservice to its readers and Wikipedia.
But this is my perspective. At this point, I think I'd like to ask Seraphimblade if you think that this article is "balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TKirby (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC) TKirby 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
