Jump to content

Talk:Nudist Christian Church of the Blessed Virgin Jesus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian organization?[edit]

You'd think it would be self-evident that a church named after Jesus would be considered a Christian organization. But if not, check the Melton source in the article Zevs Cosmos, where it talks about how it's a Christian org. He sought to lead "Christian Nudists" to a holy land in the western U.S. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Blessed Virgin" is the common title for Mary and not Jesus, it sounds a bit like a joke.
In any case, I do not own the book containting the article, and the burden is on you to make your case.
Even if you do show it is a "Christian organization" that does not make it a denomonation. One camp, commune, or church-- nudist or otherwise-- does not a denomonation make.--Carlaude (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the case. The fact that you don't own the book is your problem, not mine. Would you remove cited information from an article in every case just because you don't own the book that is cited to? That's tough. If you revert it again after knowing this, you're essentially vandalizing the page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What most normal people do is quote there source.
Not only have you not made the case-- you have not even stated what case it is that you are trying to make. What is the Nudist Christian Church of the Blessed Virgin Jesus? is it a camp? a commune? a church? a religion? Have you even read this source you will not quote?--Carlaude (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the article yet? It's relatively well-explained in there. It's a Christian denomination founded in 1985 by Zevs Cosmos. It was my understanding that this is what you were disputing—whether or not it is (1) Christian, and (2) a denomination. According to the source, it's both. It's referred to as "Christian"; it's followers as "Nudist Christians"; and it's referred to as a "denomination". I'm not going to reproduce the entire page from the Melton source. It's readily available for those who want to find it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{R with possibilities}}[edit]

{{editprotected}} I'd like to have added {{R with possibilities}} to this page. __meco (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done; sorry about the inconvenience but an editor has been removing categories from the page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we've been through this before I think[edit]

Yes we have bee there this before. I had hadn't bothered to correct this since I was able to confirm your malfeasance. While this may be a Christian organization, as I stated above, that does not make it a denomonation.

By cheaking your "source" I have been able to discover why you could not quote there source to support your claim. First of all hugh sections of the Zevs Cosmos is plagiarized wholesale from from the source,J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions 1996, 5th ed. (Detroit, Mich.: Gale) ISBN 0810377144 p. 958. Basicly the entire prose text of Melton's encyclopedia entry was typed in verbatim, but without attribution as a quoted. While itself doesn't make it "not a denomonation"— you also claimed the entry "referred to as a denomination" and the encyclopedia entry does not.

What Melton's encyclopedia does do is provide a format to record the number of loctions— and none of the editions have any infomation on the number of loctions. In fact the latest edition stopped providing even the one address for the headquarters where prevous editions had. So all J. Gordon Melton verifies is that is does or did in the past exsiste at a least one location. Of course it doesn't really verify for sure that it is anything really more that an one person that sends out a newsletter.

An entitiy that exists at one loction could be a "religion," or could be a "church," or a "commune"— but it cannot be a denomination.

Of course when you did all this-- and jumping to edit protect such a minor page in one day-- it comes across as if you have some conflict of interest. --Carlaude talk 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it is not "plaigarized". If you're going to make such claims, please provide evidence. It uses Melton as a source; that doesn't mean it is "plagiarized". You might want to brush up on what constitutes plagiarism and what constitutes use of a source. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "church" vs. "denomination" rationale—that is flimsy at best. In WP categorization, there has been no strong distinction between the two, with different editors using "denomination" categories for churches and "churches" categories for denominations. There is no consensus for how the distinction is to be defined. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now that you lack a source, and are found in error or in a lie, you are calling the removing NCC-of-the-BVM from Category:Christian denominations— because it is not a denomination— an change for which editor make no distinction, or no strong distinction? Is that the best you can come up with? How do I tell you how ridiculous that sounds. Do you really want to claim that there is no strong distinction between Category:Methodist denominations and Category:Methodist churches?
This isn't a case where Wikipedia dosen't have a better category. We have categories for religions, churches, and communes.
As for your comments on plagiarism, since you have not learned what constitutes plagiarism— most plagiarers haven't, and since that is not really the issue— I will save my save my comments for my talk page.
So you want to pretent that you are unfamilar with Wikipedia categorization and that it 'does make a distinction between the two? Fine. It is because they can both be called "churches" and are often named with the word "church" that the Wikipedia categorization tree does go to great lenghts to make a distinction clear, and which categories are for which.
Just because some of church congregations might be found in with denominations or some of denominations might be found in with church congregations does 'not mean there is no consensus. Based on the % of correcly placed articles, there is overwelming consensus-- which is why you did bother to not claim this before when you thought did you had a source. Even if some are wrong-- you have no right to revert edits so that this one can also be wrong. --Carlaude talk 01:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments appear to me to be quite tendencious—I've no desire for confrontation. Perhaps instead of focusing on proving why your POV interpretations are the correct ones in this case, maybe you could suggest another category that in your opinion would be more appropriate. Up until now you've just removed the other category but haven't suggested a replacement to keep it within the appropriate category tree. That's all I'm really interested in, not arguing with someone who wants to prove a point or repeatedly accuse me of lying and plagiarism. I ask you to just be careful in choosing your language—such allegations (lying, plagiarism) when repeated numerous times could be perceived as being quite uncivil. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is in a couple categories and I didn't think it needed another, as it is not even an article. I also expected you might know more about it if you did want to add another. The issue is the basic lack of infomation on the group, but maybe...
--Carlaude talk 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to try Category:Churches in Iowa out, but from just a brief perusal through that category it seems to be 100% composed of church buildings, so it's not a great fit as to the way the category is being applied. The others (except the parent one for churches in the United States) don't capture the same idea because it doesn't place the org. in North America. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that no category will seem that great a fit if we want other things like it in there also-- except maybe Category:Religious organizations established in 1985-- other than the fact that the text does not even claim it was established in 1985.
If it makes you feel better, it was never in any North American category until after I found it, back when you wanted left in the main Category:Christian denominations. --Carlaude talk 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we can just put it in Category:New religious movements and be done with it. I'm not going to press the issue anymore. I may search around for another Christian one to include it within, but I believe I originally settled on this one because there were none others that were a very good "fit". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being I've placed it in Category:Christian communities to retain it's presence within the Christianity tree. I'm sure a better one will eventually come along ... before too long we'll have a category for Category:Christian nudism, no doubt. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nudist_Christian_Church_of_the_Blessed_Virgin_Jesus&oldid=789545159"