Talk:Roger T. Forster

Why POV

This article is written in a way that is entirely too kind with its subject. Forster could be a great guy, I don't know him, but the article is fulsome in its praise and uses un-encyclopedic language to get the point across. V. Joe (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he is a great guy. This is what the texts say. the only praise is found in the last line, which is there for the purpose of proving notability. So be specific, or edit, or I shall remove the POV. Hyper3 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Further objections... i.e. how is POV (and in no particular order)

(1)Forster came to Christ in the 50's- This is un-encyclopedic language. "He became a Christian" or even "he became an Anglican" or "he joined the church of England" would all be much better ways to say that

(2) His liberal Methodist upbringing had not included what he considered to be a clear presentation of the Christian gospel; when he heard an explanation of it by an Anglican bishop at the Christian Union, he decided to follow Christ. This is again highly un-enclopedic...

(i) Liberal Methodist upbringing- this is a sentence loaded with a point of view. Its also very unspecific. Liberal by whose standards? By the Methodists church, by Mr. Forster's own, by Pat Robertson's or by some other standard?

(ii) He decided to follow Christ. Again, became a Christian... or became more interested in following Christianity... Again... un-encyclopedic in tone

(3)He had an experience of being baptised in the Spirit which he described as "sine curves of love going through the room"- I have no problem with the quote, they don't have to be NPOV as they are quotes from a biased observer (namely the subject). It is still a source. " However, I have a strong problem with "he had an experience of being baptized in the Spirit"- The article on St. Jerome for example, does not say, that "Jerome was baptised in the Holy Spirit" or "came to Christ,..." but instead gives two different quotes concerning his conversion, and the language of the article is that of a neutral observer, aka, is encyclopedic in its tone.

(4) The foundations of later commitments began to take shape at this point: a commitment to the poor, and a heart for evangelism emerged. Again, too much loaded language.

(i) The foundations of later commitments began to take shape at this point- Too personal and too close to the article's subject

(ii) a commitment to the poor- Does this means he gave to charity? Does this mean he attended soup kitchens? Or does this mean he was committed to the the poor by volunteering at Job Corps? Again, too unspecific, and too hagiographic. Wikipedia is not a "Life of the Saints"

(5) "His commitment to evangelism led him first to the work of University missions, then later into urban mission. "How about:, his desire to attract people to his church (or to Christianity) lead him to preach at the University and later into Urban missions?...

(iii)and a heart for evangelism emerged.- Again, does this mean he attended and evangelical church or did he convert the masses?

(5) After graduating, he became an officer in the RAF.[5] This is possibly the only non objectionable, factual, NPOV sentence in the entire article.

(6): His commitment to evangelism led him first to the work of University missions, then later into urban mission. Again, just a little biased... but definitely needs a less "in" language. This article, in addition to its hagiographic tone, also needs to explain just what all of these evangelical terms really mean... to a non-informed or non Christian reader.

(7)He is considered to have "one of the finest minds in the Evangelical constituency- This is really too much. Please attribute this quote or consider removing it altogether

Overall

I have made my point, LINE BY LINE about this article. Please don't remove the POV marking without considerable reediting. V. Joe (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done some further editing. Have another round of saying what needs improving. There are some things I've not accepted, but I've tried to cover most of your suggestions. When it comes to jargon and definition, isn't the role of the link supposed to make these things easier? Thanks Hyper3 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I love this "There is a lot of stuff by him, but not so much on him" - with RTF, the substance is much more than the hype! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.207.11 (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Just by doing a google search I have found that RTF is also an author, a pastor and a widely quoted theologian. I have yet to find a date of birth or (for instance) dates for his RAF service or the foundation of his church. These are facts and NOT someones opinion. Please consider finding some of this information V. Joe (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only just started reviewing my material. There is a lot of stuff by him, but not so much on him. I've found a few articles, and chapters in books. I hope to get all this information in the end. He is a key part of the British New Church Movement which has come to make up 10% of the British churchgoing world. Thanks for your contribution. Hyper3 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have substantially rewritten the article, but I still feel that without much like finding good sources on the internet, this article is still highly skewed towards RTF's religious and other good works, but lacks particular detail about his personal life, his date of birth, college graduation and other raw facts particular to his biography. Truthfully, I am not even sure if he is alive or dead. V. Joe (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was rewriting at the same time, couldn't get it to go up and then copied it over the last edit, thinking it was mine. Will you have a look and see if you can agree what I wrote? Hyper3 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove neutrality dispute?

Any other current neutrality issues? If not I will remove dispute tag. Hyper3 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have done so V. Joe (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Article title

The article title "Roger T. Forster" seems awkward. He generally seems to be called simply "Roger Forster". So shouldn't this title reflect that and be, for instance, "Roger Forster (evangelist)"? Any objections to this? Is there anything more appropriate than "evangelist" for the title? I propose a rename along those names. Feline Hymnic (talk)

Forster's early career as evangelist was succeeded by his initiation of Ichthus in the mode of apostolic leader within an apostolic network. Also his work as an author means he is known widely by the bye-line he has chosen, which is mainly "Roger T. Forster." In his own circles he is often referred to as "RTF." I suggest that his career is too varied for (evangelist) and would prefer to keep the present title. Hyper3 (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)