Talk:Raymond Cottrell

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Elizabeth" :
 * "COTTRELL, Elizabeth" obituary in the "At Rest" section. Adventist Review October 24, 2002, p. 30 (1598)
 * ) During the next five years, Cottrell reported he spent over 15,000 hours studying the Bible, covering every verse. As well as holding the position of associate editor, Cottrell also contributed 2,000 pages to the series,"Raymond Cottrell", an obituary in "Newsbreak" section. Adventist Review February 13, 2003, p. 21 (261)

Fixed I believe. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert
I made this revert since the source (which is a dead link) does not even mention the word progressive, hence, including it as proof that he is progressive is WP:OR, and possibly WP:SYN. BelloWello (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then it should be edited, however removing a source is a more serious thing. Rather than reverting it may be better to edit the WP:OR. There are sources however that argue he is a Progressive Adventist based on certain criteria. For example his views on the Investigation judgement line up with the category of Progressive Adventist. As such there is a good argument for him in that category. Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we don't argue about labels here. Unless there is a reliable source that explicitly calls him that, we don't include it. We can have a RS that calls a certain belief progressive, and another (or even the same) that says Cottrell holds that belief, but we still can't include it in the article unless there is a source that actually calls his beliefs progressive. Wikipedia does not strive for WP:Truth, it strives for verifiability. BelloWello (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still better to edit a paragraph than to delete it outright, especially when it includes a reliable source. As for the tagging itself, I read all the wiki articles you gave and would argue that the book seems to fulfill the purpose. No where does it say a "direct quotation" is needed as you are arguing. I would argue the connection has been made enough to pass verifiability. Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph was calling him progressive without a source. What book would you be referring to? The self-published book you previous gave which cites a previous version of this page? BelloWello (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's misleading to say the book "uses a pervious version of this page as a citation (WP:CIRCULAR) for the claim that he is progressive enough to include the word. Yes I will admit that the source is there, however the basis for the labeling is his identification with certain views rather than the fact that Wikipedia said it. This can be seen when one actually reads the book and understands both the connections and context. If this book were only labeling him a Progressive Adventist based on the Wikipedia source then you would be right. It goes much deeper than that, however. Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC
Disagreement can be seen above. In summary, is the source [ provided enough to say that "Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a "[[progressive Adventist]]", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment."? Or would it be synthesis/original research to quote a page that does not use the word progressive once to call him a progressive? As a side issue, would this self-published, web book, that uses a pervious version of this page as a citation (WP:CIRCULAR) for the claim that he is progressive enough to include the word? BelloWello (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's misleading to say the book "uses a pervious version of this page as a citation (WP:CIRCULAR) for the claim that he is progressive enough to include the word". Yes I will admit that the source is there, however the basis for the labeling is his identification with certain views rather than the fact that Wikipedia said it. This can be seen when one actually reads the book and understands both the connections and context. If this book were only labeling him a Progressive Adventist based on the Wikipedia source then you would be right. It goes much deeper than that, however. Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is a reliable sources issue, I will open a question at the appropriate noticeboard. BelloWello (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So far only one comment at the RSN which simply reaffirms my position. BelloWello (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the first link and it strongly connects Cottrell as a Progressive Adventist. The second source is not what I am going off anyways. The argument for him being progressive is based off more than the Wikipedia article. It has context there as well. For example "Cottrell was what is known as a progressive Adventist. He did not actively push his progressive ideas until after his retirement. He was the founder and editor of Adventist Today, a liberal/progressive Adventist magazine which was first published in 1993. According to Ron Corson in an article published in Adventist Today, called “Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined,” he points out that Progressive Adventists commonly believe" and then lists several key points which Cottrell also believed. The sources from this book seem to include a lot of good material that is verifiable. Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than double posting, please see my response at the aforementioned noticeboard. BelloWello (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)