Talk:Denton E. Rebok

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources about Rebok
This section intends to make available for interested editors sources which may be helpful to this article: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources by Rebok:

 * (none listed yet)

Secondary Sources published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church:
1. Rebok played a pivotal role in the church's christology.

Some facts about Rebok mentioned in this work:


 * 1) In 1949 the Review and Herald Publishing Association requested Professor D. E. Rebok, president of the Adventist Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C. to review the text of the book Bible Readings for the Home Circle,(3) in preparation for a new edition.
 * 2) Rebok oversaw changes in the wording appearing in the 1958 edition of Bible Readings for the Home Circle. These changes altered the presentation of the human nature of Christ.

The copyright page of this book contains a disclaimer:

This book is unusual in that most books published by the church do not address controversial matters so openly. The church is divided regarding the human nature of Christ. Some advocate that Christ inherited "sinful human flesh" while others oppose that teaching. Neither group advocates that Jesus sinned.

Rebok's role in changing the wording to Bible Readings puts him in the midst of this controversy. The wider Christian community have criticized Adventists for holding to the "sinful human nature" of Christ doctrine.



Knight writes:

2. Delafield recommends Rebok's book, Believe His Prophets, to the church.



Secondary Sources published independent of the SDA Church, yet related:

 * (none listed yet)

Secondary Sources with no relation to the SDA Church:
1955, Rebok serves as a General Field Secretary of the SDA General Conference.

This is a minor mention of Rebok as a speaker. It is useful as a third party source to note his leadership status with the church.




 * This is both a mere bare-mention ("Speakers Friday will include Denton E. Rebok, general field secretary of the General Conference") and bltatantly WP:ROUTINE coverage ("routine news coverage of such things as announcements"). It therefore does not add notability, nor is it (per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) suitable for inclusion in the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice the wording of WP:ROUTINE


 * As I look over the WP:ROUTINE paragraph, it seems to me the concern is not to base an article on a routine item. The event announced, in this case, is not the benefit of the news item. Rather, it is a third party source for Rebok's position as a general field secretary of the General Conference. The routine paragraph mentions obituaries. An obituary is not the basis for an article, but certainly it provides a secondary source for information about the person. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (i) Please reread WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, referenced above -- which is about inclusion, not just notability (and 'basing an article'). (ii) Patchworking together an article from slivers of tangential mentions (like Rebok's position) makes for very poor articles. This is explicitly why WP:Notability demands that coverage be "significant" (which it defines as "sources address [that] the subject directly in detail"). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. I have been patchworking, I guess. Your point is well-taken. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1940s, in China, Rebok is described as a severe, dogmatic, authoritarian principal: Gu Chang-Sheng describes his school experiences. Rebok served as his principal in the lower grades. The principal and teachers in the school of the higher grades receive a more positive description.



The school's English name was the China Training Institute. The principal was Pastor Rebok. p. 21

Chang-sheng grew up in an Adventist home and attended the China Training Institute, an Adventist school. His description of the school and Rebok, in particular, is less than flattering, to say the least. Chang-sheng provides a rare insight into Adventist education in China in the 1940s. Though Rebok and a few others are described as severely authoritarian, some of the other teachers receive positive treatment from Chang-sheng.

Rebok preached against evolution for the entire week of "Prayer Week". He pressured students to confess their sins and denounced Chang-sheng for his unsupportive attitude. Chang-sheng describes a disturbing book-burning incident led by Rebok. Chang-sheng next attended an Adventist senior high school and junior college. He found the staff at this school more positive and helpful.


 * "AuthorHouse, formerly known as 1stBooks, is a self-publishing company based in the United States". Please do at least a basic check of the publisher (particularly those with unknown and/or generic-sounding names) before offering them as sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And please observe chronological order on talkpages, and sign your posts -- so we can work out what was added when. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Delafield piece
I took the liberty of OCRing the full piece:

This piece is completely lacking in anything even vaguely resembling objectivity. That it isn't even remotely third-party should be abundantly clear. It is a rather extreme example of why many editors, myself included, do not consider SDA publications particularly appropriate sources on SDA topics (the sort that should be used only minimally, and with care). The article in question is clearly promotional and thus a WP:QS (usable here only to the extent that it meets WP:ABOUTSELF). Whilst most SDA publications won't go so far, they are likely to demonstrate a degree of both partiality and tunnel-vision that makes them less-than-desirable as sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Delafield does not present an objective report. However, some facts can be derived from his report, nonetheless:
 * 1) Rebok worked for the White Estate for a period of time.
 * 2) Rebok's book consists of material he presented in public lectures, including as part of the 1952 Bible Conference.
 * 3) His book is, in part, a response to requests for printed material following such lectures.


 * (i) Given that he was apparently Chairperson of the Ellen G. White Estate, that he worked for it is hardly new information. (ii) It isn't in the least bit uncommon for academics to repackage lectures as books. (iii) Given the promotional nature of the piece, the rather woolly and self-serving claim that it was "a response to requests" is hardly useful. I'm really not seeing what, of any particular substance, this source adds to the picture. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. Rebok is somewhat notable as an academic, as the AfD discussion addressed. The Delafield piece documents his prominent role within Adventism. Very few authors get such a strong endorsement in the Review. Rebok's book, "Believe His Prophets", added to his notability within the denomination. Compare this to his role in shifting Adventist christology. His book's promotion of Ellen G. White similarly put him further into the denominational spotlight. That being said, I have no wish to include information in the article without a full agreement, including yours. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, all it "documents" is the complete lack of editorial independence of this publication. Delafield isn't acting as a journalist, he's acting as a PR hack. Because of this lack of independence, it is impossible to ascertain how prominent his "role within Adventism" is without third party commentary. And I'll "compare this to his role in shifting Adventist christology" when you actually provide WP:Secondary sources that explicitly analyse this themselves (rather than relying on your own WP:Synthesis of what appears to be very tangential material). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Third party sourcing
I don't have a subscription for these unfortunately. I will add more as I find them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The LA Times has a 439-word 1953 piece about "Denton E. Rebok, general secretary of the Adventist de- nomination from Washington, " DC, told the delegates that a policy of assistance involving physical ... "
 * And a 215 word 1960 piece about "Too often a minister's work consists of sitting on committees, attending conventions, supervising campaigns and speaking to service clubs, a Seventh-day Adventist leader [apparently Rebok] said at the opening of a ministerial con-..."

Rebok's association with Prescott

 * Yes, I noticed that -- but as Review and Herald Publishing Association is hardly third-party, I didn't think it worth bringing up. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gilbert Valentine is a careful and balanced scholar. Your concern for third-party sources (i.e. non-Adventist) seems too stringent, IMO. I don't think a very informative article can be developed under such stringent avoidance of Adventist secondary sources. Perhaps the question needs to be asked, why is this source unreliable?, unacceptable? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Adventist sources demonstrating balanced scholarship, including citations, should be considered acceptable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the former Chairman of the Ellen G. White Estate would not have considerable influence (even posthumously) with the Review and Herald Publishing Association? I find that hard to credit. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And one of my points is that Adventists write quite obsessively (as you yourself demonstrate) about Adventist matters. This means that coverage in Adventist sources cannot be taken as indicative of noteworthiness. Also, if the vast majority of material about Adventism is written from an Adventist viewpoint, it raises issues of balance. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your concern has not been without its effect. I have been trying to broaden my scope. The John Gribbin article is a recent example. Balance in the SDA articles certainly needs to be valued. In your opinion, regarding this Rebok article, should it be short and dependent on a majority of third party sources? Have we gone as far as we can in improving this article? I have decided that if we work on the same article, I will not get into long disagreements as we have in the past. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although not subject to the limitations of a paper encyclopaedia, Wikipedia still cannot attempt to include all information ever published in a reliable source. Such a collection would most likely (i) be impossible to make coherent and (ii) most probably not resemble anything recognisable as an encyclopaedia. One of the main filtering mechanisms Wikipedia has in place is coverage by third parties (by which we generally mean sources outside the topic's immediate ideological community, so that the predominant viewpoint is that of outsiders not insiders). This is needed not only for an article topic as a whole, but also for major subtopics. Rebok may have been an ardent butterfly collector (or train-spotter or fly fisherman), but if no third party take significant note of it Wikipedia likewise does not cover this aspect. This is to a considerable extent related to Wikipedia's explicit focus on avoiding WP:Original research. Not only do we rely on what reliable third-parties say, we rely on what they think is worth taking note of. I think there's still a bit more to be mined (e.g. the LAT pieces I cited above), but I'm afraid that the way the outside world saw Rebok was largely as 'an Adventist denomination official who spoke at Adventist conferences'. I'm fairly sure that this isn't a particularly well-rounded assessment, but this is perhaps an indication of the SDA's lack of engagement with the wider community. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Chronology and sources for Rebok

 * 1917


 * WE are glad to learn that two recruits are on the way to the Asiatic Division. Brother and Sister Dentoii E. Rebok sailed August 2, on the "Empress of Russia," for China. They have been in attendance at the Washington Missionary College, Sister Rebok was formerly Miss Florence Kneeland, of the Canal Zone, Panama, daughter of Elder W. G. Kneeland, president of the West Caribbean Conference.