Talk:Presbyterian Church (USA)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Opposition to right to bear arms?

This sections seems wildly inappropriate, as its author conjectures about members leaving the church over support for gun control initiatives. I think it should be removed entirely, or at the very least heavily edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.46.214 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PCUSA.gif

Image:PCUSA.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

List of "Notable American Presbyterians"

At what point does this list become unwieldy? Perhaps it could be split off to its own article? Or removed from the article entirely? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, it should be replaced with a category, "Notable American Presbyterians" or "American Presbyterians" which would make it easier to maintain. You could combine this with an in-article list of people whose Presbyterianism contributed directly or indirectly to their notability or to very notable people such as world leaders. For example, several of the Founding Fathers were Presbyterian and they included Presbyterian principles when drafting the U.S. Constitution. There is a weak argument for including Fred Rogers, but I would argue that the fact he was a minister contributed to his work with children, but that he was Presbyterian was anecdotal. Also, how do we integrate this list or category with other Presbyterian denominations? That's another reason for either making it a category or making it its own article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored it long enough to have a discussion. This is a big enough change that it should be discussed for a few days and everyone on the list should be verified as a member of the category before it is removed. I added Category:American Presbyterians to the See Also section so it will be there when this list is removed. Once everyone on this list is verified to be in the category is there any reason to keep this list here? I think not, but keep it around until we are sure it is no longer needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It needs to go. Furthermore even today PCUSA is not the only Presbyterian denomination in the US and it certainly wasn't during the time of some of those on this list. As a result I think the whole thing should just go. --T-rex 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start verifying names are properly categorized, please join me in that effort. I think if all the names are done then in 5 days - May 6 - we can nuke the list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The easy work is done. The remaining names did NOT claim to be Presbyterians in their respective articles. They need to be researched and if they are American Presbyterians of any denomination, please add that fact to their articles with a proper citation and add them to Category:American Presbyterians. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

2 PCUSA logos, both fair use, one should go

There are now at least two PC(USA) logos. We should keep one for use by the denomination and by PC(USA) churches, and the others should go unless there is a legitimate fair use reason to keep them.

• Image:Presbyterian Church USA Logo.gif, cross logo, recently added to Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
• Image:PCUSA.gif, Circle-text around a cross logo, previously used for Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and still used for Edgewater Presbyterian Church plus a user's sandbox.

As an aside, I have asked Edgewater P.C. to confirm that this logo is their primary logo. If it is not, I will remove it from that article, leaving it an orphan and speedy-deletable. Of course, if we as editors decide to revert PC(USA) to PCUSA.gif, then Presbyterian Church USA Logo.gif may become orphaned and eligible for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Remaining names from List of notable American Presbyterians

These names appeared in the now-removed (see discussion above) section "Notable American Presbyterians," but their articles did not state that they were Presbyterians. If they are Presbyterians, please add that fact and citation to the person's article and add them to Category:American Presbyterians.

• Christopher Reeve - actor, movie star famous for his role as "Superman"
• Debbie Reynolds - actress, singer
• Carol Lawrence - actress
• Frank Gifford - football player and sportscaster
• Mark Twain - influential American author
• William Faulkner - influential American author, married in a Presbyterian Church, that doesn't mean he is one
• David Brinkley - journalist, broadcaster
• Sally Ride - astronaut; first American woman in space, sister was a Presbyterian minister, that doesn't mean she is Presybterian
• Rutherford B. Hayes - 19th U.S. President, raised Presbyterian, baptized Methodist, practicing Methodist, does that count?
• John C. Calhoun - U.S. Vice-President under John Quincy Adams and Jackson
• John C. Breckinridge - U.S. Vice-President under Buchanan
• Adlai E. Stevenson I - U.S. Vice-President under Cleveland
• Bob Dole - U.S. Senator from Kansas, Viagra spokesman; former Republican United States Senate Majority Leader; Republican nominee for President in the 1996
• Elizabeth Dole - U.S. Senator from North Carolina; former head of American Red Cross; wife of U.S. presidential candidate Bob Dole
• Andrew Carnegie - American businessman, philanthropist; at one time the wealthiest man in the world
• Ross Perot - billionaire businessman; third-party U.S. Presidential candidate

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Belhar Confession, pro- and anti-homosexual-ordination group deletion reverted

I just reverted a deletion of several paragraphs that start off "At the General Assembly of 2004 an overture to consider adoption of the Belhar Confession...."

Since the 2008 General Assembly is meeting this month I recommend leaving the material as-is until then, then replacing it with something that reflects the outcome of the 2008 GA.

The reverted text also included information about organizations which have taken stands on the issue of ordination of homosexuals in the PC(USA). This information should stay, but it might be appropriate to split it off into a section of its own and to condense it to a list-as-prose format, without editorializing. Words like "rallying place" are unencyclopedic. I simply restored the previous text, I did not change it. In light of the upcoming 2008 GA, I recommend leaving it alone until 6/28 as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC) I agree: "rallying place" is unencyclopedic and not NPOV

Changes to Section 4.4

I made several changes to Section 4.4, currently "Revision of Interfaith Relations Resource on Church Vigilance Against Anti-Jewish Bias in Materials Related to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". This title is a bit long, and perhaps should be clipped, or some other more significant change made, such as including this section in the PC(USA) Divestment from Israel article.

My changes, with explanations:

1) Removed "Controversy Regarding" from beginning of Section 4.4 heading. Section 4 heading is "Current Controversies". In starting with the word "Controversy", the "Controversy" in the old 4.4 heading is redundant. The word "Regarding" is unnecessary.

2) Changed "Shifting Stances" to "Revision" of Section 4.4 heading for NPOV. Claiming that the difference in documents represents a "shifting stance" by PC(USA) is an opinion, not fact.

Changed "did an about-face" to "revised this document" for the same reason.

Deleted "revising the document extensively" because with change #2, the term "revised" is already used. With regard to "extensively"... The point being made is that the revisions resulted in a change in attitude by certain Jewish organizations towards PC(USA)/OIR's stance. Rather than debate whether the revisions were extensive (in any sense), I focused the effect of the revision: that it prompted the rebuke from said organizations. Stating the effect of the revision is more factual and less disputable than the issue of whether the revisions were extensive.

3) Based on a comparison of the May and June versions of the OIR's document, changed "revised" to "revised and expanded", as the latter document contains far more information and commentary.

4) Changed all occurrences of "Office of Interfaith Affairs" -> "Office of Interfaith Relations". See http://www.pcusa.org/interfaith/index.htm for definitive word on the correct title of the organization.

5) Added "Vigilance against" to Section 4.4 heading/citation correctness, as per the current title of the resource cited, "Vigilance against anti-Jewish bias".

6) Moved reference 21, as the link to the May version of the document now points to the June version of the document. Changed reference 21 name by removing "ideas and" as per the document's revised title (see change #5). Piranhabros (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rating of this article

I removed the existing ratings, but I don't have time at the moment to properly assess the article. My gut tells me it's probably class=B and importance=medium. What do others think? If 3 or 4 people agree on a rating with no major objections it's probably a valid rating. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ecumenical dialogue

It might be a good thing if the article could mention the extent to which PC (USA) has engaged in ecumencal dialogue with other Christian bodies, notably with the Catholic Church. [1][2] ADM (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal: The Service for the Lord's Day

The article, The Service for the Lord's Day is written almost like a how-to guide and details a narrow, very variable part of the topic of Presbyterian Church (USA). Its contents could easily be summarized in the #Worship section of this article. Intelligentsium 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, I would ask if "The Service for the Lord's Day" is similar in other Presbyterian Churches, and if it is, would it be appropriate to make the article more about Presbyterians in general? If not and then yes this should be merged with this article in my opinion. Ltwin (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The Service for the Lord's Day in BCW (1993) reflects the revision of the Directory for Worship, which gives the theological and structural mandates for PC(USA) congregations. If this article is to be helpful and add depth to the PC(U.S.A.) link/merger, then it needs to be less an outline and more an article on the Directory for Worship.--Cdboyd1 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Reorder Article

Would it be possible to re-order this article, specifically moving part 2 on current controversies down to right after missions? For me, it would seem more logical for an encyclopedia to give the general overview of an organization before getting into the controversies (i.e. the controversies would not make sense unless one understands the basics).--Cdboyd1 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with it. I think I'm the one who moved that section after history because it just seem logical to me to have the current controversies (which is recent history) after history. I would suggest moving the history section with it. Ltwin (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecumenical relationships

The second paragraph needs to be summarized or returned to bulleted list form. That is a full sized paragraph all in one sentence! Also, this section needs to be written in past tense. Ltwin (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2