Talk:Ligonier Ministries

Non-encyclopedic Content

I'm surprised that this article wasn't deleted. There's been absolutely no cooperation on the part of editors to make this article conform to Wiki policies and the manner in which the deletion discussion took place broke down into little more than a popular vote. Wikipedia deletion policy: "A deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This isn't a Wiki article because it's not encyclopedic. It's a marketing puff piece that's worded as though it was written by Ligonier's advertising/promotional department. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. While I agree that Ligonier Ministries should have a Wiki I object to this article continuing in its present form since it so obviously violates Wiki policies. It must be cleaned up. The fact that prior discussion resulted in a decision to keep this article doesn't eliminate the obligation for this article to conform with Wiki policy. --Frame-work 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, here. Take a stab at it. --Flex 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Flex, I don't know enough about Ligonier myself. Someone else should really do it and if no one does then the only recourse is to probably delete it. --Frame-work 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If we can't come up with anything better than the "puff piece," I think we should just redact it down to a stub, not delete it. --Flex 13:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you wish to do the honors? --Frame-work 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll try to take some time over the weekend to cut out the "puff" parts. I'm a Reformed Christian with at least some knowledge of Ligonier, so I should be able to do a reasonable job of leaving the facts intact. I'll report in once I've finished, and hopefully someone else will point out anything they think I've missed. Arathon 17:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! --Flex 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. Schoolwork and all. I will put this on my list of things to do, but if someone else feels like doing it, feel free. I'd request that even if the article ends up seeming disjointed, only remove pieces that are obviously fluff. It seems to me there's a lot of factual statements swimming around in there in the midst of all of the other stuff. Arathon 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we've all shown great patience about this toward the "editors" who've created nothing but a marketing puff piece for Ligonier. Now it's time to act. If someone doesn't completely rewrite this Ligonier entry to conform with Wiki policies by 9-22 I'm just going to delete everything and leave it as a stub. I think I'll also create a notice warning editors that they'd better not just put back up another puff piece. Agreed? --Frame-work 17:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. --Flex 18:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll post a notice at the top of the Article page to give everyone fair warning. --Frame-work 18:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the notice because this discussion is fair warning. The advert template has been there for a while. --Flex 19:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone just isn't getting it that these kinds of statements are marketing puff pieces, "CONFERENCES are a wonderful opportunity to engage thousands of people in God’s Word." What to do? Time to make another stub. --Frame-work 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit

What are everyone's thoughts on the Ligonier Ministries vs. Frank Vance lawsuit? Should it be referenced here? It does appear to have historic encyclopedic value. It's been reported twice in the Orlando Sentinel and also as part of a front page article in USA Today as having significant implications for the First Amendment rights of bloggers. Apparently Ligonier officially withdrew their lawsuit on Sept 27 so the matter now is settled. --Frame-work 03:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Doctordido emailed me: "I reverted your addition in the Ligonier Ministries entry. Please don't include such an irrelevant blip as this in a ministry whose work has spanned three decades. There are a load of more-relevant blips than this, probably just not as well documented. Its inclusion smacks of a predisposed disdain for the ministry itself."

This was not "my addition." Check the page history -- I just reverted your unexplained deletion. Now, let's discuss what (if any) of that "blip" should appear here. I'd suggest it be dropped since the case itself was dropped unless there is an article for lawsuits or rights of bloggers that makes (or should make) reference to it. If there is such an article, then a briefer mention with the appropriate wikilink should suffice. --Flex 15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI the deletion of this section on 26 October 2006 came from Ligonier's office. 68.208.86.4 is the IP address for Ligonier Ministries. --Investigatorguy 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ligonier Ministries logo.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ligonier-logo-og.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)