Talk:Unreached people group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unreached people group article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Restricted Countries

I am not sure about the sentence, "However, some national governments with state sponsored religions such as Saudi Arabia or more authoritarian regimes such as North Korea have prohibitive policies regarding toleration of religious expression as well as proselytizing that may limit such access." This confuses the distinction between people groups and nations. Unreached people groups are not only limited to nations that restrict Christian evangelism. I'm not sure that this sentence is relevant to the topic at hand.--Son of thunder 00:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article is littered with POV. Expressions such as "embraced the message of Christianity" make me wonder if there was any real attempt at neutrality.

Since this article is defining a term that, in itself, is not a neutral term, the article should focus solely on defining the term and leaving it at that.

Made some changes to hopefully address your concerns. Please change what you feel is still POV. Help is needed with citations, but the concerns are valid.Brian0324 15:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If this discussion is resolved, the neutrality tag should be removed. Please comment.Brian0324 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The term in itself is tied to a specific POV (evangelical Christianity), so of course it will have heavy Christian overtones. However, specific expressions that unnecessarily promote this POV (such as the example above) seem to have been cleaned up. The article seems to be a fair definition of the subject at hand. --Son of thunder 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The claim "However, some nations have restrictive policies regarding toleration of religious freedom as well as proselytizing that severely limits such access." are not neutral as well as being uncited as to who says this.
  1. "restrictive" - who says it is restrictive ?
  2. "some nations" - weasel wording - which nations ?
  3. "toleration of religious freedom etc" - presumes this is a good thing and that the severe limits on such access is a band thing.
The use of the word "message" presumes someone reading this would be conversant with the concept. Consider if the word "message" was reworded to "propaganda" - both are equally non-neutral. Ttiotsw 11:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Made some edits to address the above concerns. Please comment.Brian0324 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is much improved from the last time I looked at it. I still have a few POV concerns. Pianoguy 00:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "access to the Gospel" is used throughout the article as though it is a good thing. Maybe a better term might be "Christian influence" or "a history of Christian influence" or something to that effect. Again, in the last paragraph "still remain without practical access..." needs to be reworded. The last sentence is not needed, I have removed it. The source citation is much better. I don't think it is fair to say the 10/40 window is "often cited" since most people have no idea what this term means. Maybe "evangelicals use the term 10/40" or something. I don't think citing evangelicals is a good idea when saying that "every recognized nation-state has experienced some degree of Christian influence." This needs a more reliable source, maybe check the CIA factbook or some more reliable source. Pianoguy 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


I have done some editing and consider my POV concerns addressed in the current incarnation of the article. I realize that this trims the article considerably, but I think this version is more solid and makes less judgment calls. Pianoguy 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of "Ralph Winter" ?

If "Ralph Winter" isn't Ralph Winter then why is he a notable commentator or user of this term ? (which is looking like a neologism given the lack of cites). Ttiotsw 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Ralph Winter. He doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet. Certainly passes the notability test.Brian0324 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
...as a young earth creationist; and you question my use of the word "Mythology" ?. Reading [1] in "Part II: Restating these ideas as a very brief scenario",
  1. God created intelligent angels with free will who,...
  2. One day about 500 million years ago, by which time angels in general had acquired a very advanced understanding of life, of DNA, RNA, protein structures,
  3. The good angels, with God's guidance, simultaneously fought back with....
  4. Good angels continued to develop new forms of life but they have often been distorted into destructiveness by the evil angels.
  5. God again and again stamped out much or even nearly all forms of life through sixty major asteroidal collisions in the last 500 million years (since the fall of Satan), the most recent large collision being 65 million years ago ending the reign of terror of the truly atrocious violence of the thousands of different predatory "dinosaurs."
  6. The “Edenic Plan” now was launched, perhaps eleven thousand years ago, in precisely the area where a much smaller asteroid impacted the Middle East,...
For people to be taken seriously we need something a little bit more substantial than a link to his own web site. I guess he's another who glosses over indigenous groups like the Australian Aborigines pre-date his "Edenic Plan" by 30,000 years or more.
OK that little amusement aside, all we need is the ISBNs for anything he's published and 3rd party references from notable sources, then he's notable. Ttiotsw 12:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is quite a tangent. I'm going to have to resist the urge to comment, here. But, yes, his body of work will define the notability and relevance as a voice concerning missions, all personal theories of creation/evolution aside.Brian0324 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First use of this term ?.

This is a neologism issue. On balance I suspect it isn't a neologism but would like this worked out. First use of the term is implied as a lot earlier than the dates so far listed in the article, in China_Inland_Mission#History the first Missiological Distinctives of the C.I.M. listed as, "1. Priority is given to unreached inland provinces while seeking to evangelize the whole of China." and the word "unreached" is wikilinked here. This is not a contemporary list of the CIM as number 3 on the list refers to "Chinese dress and queue (pigtail)" implying that the list is a lot older than modern day China (pre-Boxer at least but I could be wrong here). The use of the wording "unreached inland provinces" implies it was a matter of physical distance rather than availability of the message. It is unclear if the C.I.M. use is the same as how modern-day evangelists use the term. If it isn't the same then it is [[WP:OR] to wikilink the two articles and if it is the same then the term is clearly not a neologism but the C.I.M. is a good reference to its early use. Ttiotsw 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent observations. The term "unreached" or "unreached peoples" has been around since at least the early 1800's. So, yes, the article needs to have a better grasp of the history of the term. It was not "coined" by Ralph Winter, but popularized, I am assuming. More work is needed. I found this quote by Hudson Taylor of the C.I.M. in 1887:

And it is not too much to say that very many of the people are still utterly destitute of the gospel; and must die unreached unless more missionary effort is put forth.

And, you are correct that the term is not "unreached people group" but simply "unreached". But it would be difficult to find an instance where the term is being used in a different sense. Taylor was addressing both the physical distance as well as the lack of access. I think that to change the article to simply be "unreached" would be a bit confusing as it is understood that the "unreached" are a group or groups of people. So, due to the common usage that is found in missiologic circles that has made its way into contemporary evangelical language, it seems reasonable to use the most contemporary expression of an older term.Brian0324 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)