Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 2

Church name usage protocol
I propose the following paragraph be added to the project page. The only weakness is the lack of examples, if someone can add some that would be most appreciated. MyNameIsNotBob 11:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The church website specifies clearly that the spelling should be "Seventh-day Adventist," including the hyphen and a lower-case “d” for “day”." It also specifies that the abbreviation "Adventist" should be used and never the abbreviation "SDA". As editors of wikipedia we should respect the organization's wishes and abide by these simple guidelines. For more information see Use of the Church Name (www.adventist.org)


 * That sounds reasonable to me. I went through yesterday and made all the Day's into day's that were linking (with the exception of talk pages) Ansell 11:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly can't see anyone raising an objection. Just checking. I'm tempted just to throw it straight on the page. Southern Adventist University and the corresponding discussion on Fermion's page differ though. I'd like to know what Cromwellt thinks, might go leave a note. I finished the job of changing the Day's into day's on the what links here by the way. MyNameIsNotBob 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking of me in regards to this discussion. I didn't know my input was considered valuable, but I'm honored that it is.  I have abbreviated the term "Seventh-day Adventist" as both "Adventist" and "SDA" all my life.  I was not aware that there was an official policy about it, but thanks to that very useful link, I know now.  Confusion is a bad thing and clearness is a good thing.  I like how the explanation mentions avoiding it in "public and official" places, showing that among church members it shouldn't be a big deal.  I have known the pronunciation of the phrase for a long time, and have been alternately amused and frustrated by the repeated mispronunciation by some people, mostly actual church members, who place the accent on the second syllable of "Adventist."  I have been labelled racist once for mentioning the ethnic group to which I think this alternate pronunciation generally belongs, which led to hurt feelings on both sides and a lack of final resolution (despite my attempts, as well as the fact that my comments were not because of any racial bias but out of curiosity regarding its origin), so I will refrain here.  But I will state that the word should be accented on the first syllable because church members are interested in the Advent, which also has its accent on the first syllable.  I have made a few minor emendations to the paragraph above.  I hope nobody minds.  I'd say throw it on there, and if someone has an objection, they can mention it here on the talk page.  --Cromwellt|Talk 08:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Adventist Schools
I think that the section on the project page should be brought here to the talk page, but I'll let someone else do it. As far as the schools are concerned, there is the List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities which I have done some major work on in the past. That should include all the Adventist tertiary institutions, and is linked directly from the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. I'll add it to the list of pages to work on, though, so that everyone on the project knows it is there. --Cromwellt|Talk 08:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. -Fermion 07:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several Adventist schools that have articles. They need to be kept track of. Two that I am aware of are Brisbane Adventist College and. Prescott College, South Australia.


 * I don't know where Mamarapha College belongs, it is post secondary, but is more like a TAFE than anything. -Fermion 08:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll do what I can about expanding Southwestern Adventist University's Page. Druidan 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A category has been created (actually two), someone created List of Seventh-day Adventist Academies and elementary schools then created a category with a similar titile. I thought it would make more sense to mirror the name for the universities and colleges page, and as such we now have Academies and elementary schools affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The above schools are now part of that category. I still don't know where Mamarapha College belongs. -Fermion 00:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont see why that can't go in the universities and colleges section. Being post secondary seems to fulfill that, except for the fact that its more like a TAFE situation. Ans  e  ll  01:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Inactive editors
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to create a new section on the project page for inactive participants. I know mssever has not edited anything on Wikipedia since July 4, 2005, so he should go there. Comments and disagreements are more than welcome. --Cromwellt|Talk 08:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Did this a little while ago. Ans  e  ll  00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting
I find it interesting that Perspicacious has not chosen to add himself to the list of participants in this WikiProject, but I'll leave the interpretation of that fact to others for now. --Cromwellt|Talk 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SDA Basics
The founders selected the name Seventh-day Adventist particularly to emphasize two beliefs: a) the seventh day Sabbath as continually valid experience, and b) the expectation of an imminent return of Christ, or the Second Coming. It appears the article omits the Adventist part of the naming formula. Suggest a re-write to so include. Mel 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Seventh-day Adventist politicians proposed for deletion
I thought people involved with this project would be interested in commenting on the proposed deletion of the Seventh-day Adventist politicians category. See here for the discussion about it. Ans e  ll  06:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspamming by anonymous users?
Are the contributions by 74.92.128.218 and 207.79.245.253 classed as linkspamming? Ans e ll 03:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:FAITH. As far as I can see there is no spam. All their links are on-topic and they mostly put only 1-2 links (except on the main article). Only objection I can see with their edits is that they are putting link to Adventist Archives on many articles, but I do consider that useful. Anyway, if you feel they are spamming, go to their talkpages and politely explain to them what you find objectionable about their edits. Shinhan 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I put the query here for some feedback. The only reason I thought it may have been that, (seeing as I did assume good faith in a possible newbie who might not quite understand what the External links section is for) is that the links to the archives site were very common between the articles. Leaving messages on anonymous IP pages isn't really known to do much good, which is why I came to the next best spot... here! Thanks, Ans e ll  11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you see if its possible to link more directly? Ie. in the article on EGW not to link to entire archives but to EGW books specifically. And for main SDA article, maybe it doesnt need *all* new links he added. Shinhan 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a general objection I have noticed around the wikipedia of external links due to Wikipedia 1.0 goals to have a print version - external links don't become very useful there. The links these users have been posting don't appear to be link spamming as such, except for the fact that they are being placed on dozens of sites in one go. MyNam e IsNotBob  21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I have just created two new categories related to the Seventh-day Adventist church. I first investigated some of the categories employed by other denominations. Also, I considered using "Adventist" for "Seventh-day Adventist" to shorten the category names, but the problem is that the term "Adventist" is too broad. Note that "SDA" is not an encouraged abbreviation.
 * New "Category:Seventh-day Adventist leaders". I thought about separate "theologians" and "leadership" (in the sense of administration) categories, but I think that the two are sometimes combined. Includes speakers/preachers as well.
 * New "Category:Seventh-day Adventist theology". No doubt there will be plenty of pages to fill this soon, given the passion of the church about its beliefs! ;-)
 * I have removed many leaders from the Adventist church category, because it will shortly get too big. I have put them in the leaders category above. The major church founders and present conference president I have left in both.


 * Also, we need a category for Adventist "laypeople" - but that term has a negative connotation to some, hence is not as NPOV as possible. For now, I'm just going to add these people not employed by the church to the general "Seventh-day Adventist Church" category.


 * For the theology category, the idea is to link articles specifically debating the Adventist POV. For example I included "annihilationism" because it is very similar, albeit a little broader and some may not like the name. Including a page like "Ellen White" is not the idea here (because this is not about an Adventist theological doctrine), but perhaps a page specifically debating "Ellen White as a Prophet" which debates the authenticity of her prophetic gift.

God bless you! (er... if that's your POV) --Colin MacLaurin 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a new subcategory for media, which would include books, radio and TV. Which name should we use? Seventh-day Adventist media or Media affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church etc.? Colin MacLaurin 08:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case I don't think "Media affliated" works as it does in the rest. "Seventh-day Adventist media" fits under Category:Christian media. Ans e ll  09:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Seventh-day Adventist media created. I also created Category:Seventh-day Adventist churches for church buildings and congregations. -Colin MacLaurin 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just created Category:Former Seventh-day Adventists as a subcategory of the new Category:Seventh-day Adventists, patterned after a number of similar categories in Category:People by former religion. What do you think we should do about people who belong in duplicate Adventist categories, such as D. M. Canright who was notable both as a leader in the church (Category:Seventh-day Adventist leaders) but particularly for his defection (Category:Former Seventh-day Adventists)? Colin MacLaurin 21:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I again raise the question, which category should such people as Jones and Waggoner be placed in? These two did leave the church, however this is not the most notable thing about them. They are more notable for their contributions while in the church, not for their exit. Hence I suggest placing them in the "leaders" category. However others such as Canright and Ratzlaff are more notable for their exit, so belong in the "former" category. Do you agree? Colin MacLaurin 06:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just created a new subcategory Category:Seventh-day Adventist history. Colin MacLaurin 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

'Former members' category
Please see comments at Category_talk:Former_Seventh-day_Adventists-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Subcategories
The Category:Seventh-day Adventist leaders is growing larger. I propose breaking it up into smaller subcategories. I have suggested a possible division below. But please don't put your favourite individual into every category just for publicity! e.g. George Knight might be a speaker, but he is primarily an author. Mark Finley may have written many books, but he is more notable as an evangelistic speaker:


 * ministers/pastors/clergy (fairly straightforward - whether or not they have completed a theology degree. However some ministers haven't, and in the developing world I imagine this is common)
 * theologians/academics/scholars/philosophers
 * evangelists
 * administrators/presidents (of Conferences, Unions, Divisions, GC etc. or of church-owned institutions such as Colleges)
 * writers/novelists, for popular-level works, and for those individuals who do not fit well into any of the above

There could be a category for church founders, but it would be hard to know where to draw the line chronologically. What about missionaries? Should they be bundled in with another category, like pastors or evangelists? Keep in mind that numbers will be limited, as it is a small church and we cannot simply write an article for every known individual, as they may not be notable by Wikipedia standards.

Other Christian groups categorise their lay people by occupation, however I don't think we have a need to do this in the foreseeable future, apart from the existing politicians category, due to low numbers of these individuals currently.

See Category:Christians by occupation and its subcategories such as Category:Roman Catholics by occupation to get an idea of what others have done. Your input is important and welcome. If you can think of a classification with fewer divisions, please suggest it. Colin MacLaurin 03:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has replied after nearly a month. I'm going to create Category:Seventh-day Adventist theologians for those individuals who are primarily theologians. Let's see which people remain. After this, it should be easier to see which other categories are needed. Colin MacLaurin 05:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not so sure now. Someone like George R. Knight is a scholar of church history, yet I would not call him a "theologian". I can see two main categories ATM - theologians/scholars, and administrators. Other churches seem to have a theologians category. The administrators category would be the equivalent of "bishops" categories for other churches, or similar. Perhaps it is the existing hierarchy which should be changed. "Scholars of religion" or "Religion scholars" would be an accurately named, better, and more useful category IMO. Colin MacLaurin 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Seventh-day Adventist Church WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see, definitely Seventh-day Adventist Church and probably Ellen G. White, maybe Pathfinders (Seventh-day Adventist)? There are probably a lot more, I just can't think of any right now. --TorriTorriTalk to me! 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I was supposed to but have added a couple of the key articles to the list. Can I get some sort of feedback on whether I have followed the correct approach? Also I would be interested in creating a worklist like what the Anglicanism project has. Some advice on the best course of action would be appreciated. You may notice on the project page a fairly hefty collection of articles plus on the /related (or something like that, there is a link you can follow) a more organised list. There are also a number of related categories under the parent Category:Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thank you for your interest. MyNam e IsNotBob  12:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Yes, you uploaded things nicely into the list.  If you would like to set up a more extensive list, then it is probably worth considering using the bot (which does the tedious work for you, and only takes a few minutes to set up - see instructions).  If you expect to have less than 100 articles on the list, then a manual worklist is feasible too, (though the bot can still be used and often is for short lists).  Let me know your preference, and I can help you if needed. Thanks, Walkerma 22:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Church page deletion discussion
The Springwood Adventist Church (sic), also known as the Springwood Seventh-day Adventist Church, page is currently under discussion here. Ans e ll 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Attention please
Will everybody please pay more attention to 'Top' importance articles? Today somebodies has been adding vandalism, inflamatory remarks and outright junk into Ellen G. White article. Although, I've removed stuff like "SDA church's routinely present "Revilation Seminar's" during which church members are very explicitly coached not to "Spill the Soy Beans" regarding the primacy of E.G. White.", the entire article needs to be fact checked to see if anything else (esp. something more insidious) is left in. Shinhan 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * this entire sequence is of variable quality, and as such I am reverting to 30 August version by MyNameIsNotBob. Ans e ll  02:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Assessment
Hey just asking that everyone help out, you may notice that I have gone and moved our related article list to the WP:1.0 project automated bot process. The way this is done is by adding the and uses the parameters CLASS (which are stub, start, B (b-class), GA (good article), A (a-class), FA (featured article)) and IMPORTANCE (low, mid, high, and top). If you notice any articles that I have incorrectly classified feel free to change it. Also if you notice any articles not tagged with the template, at least just put the template there without the classification. Thanks, MyNam e IsNotBob  11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC related to a project article
Hi, for those who may not have noticed, an RfC has been filed about one of the project articles. Feel free to contribute. Ans e ll 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Coming
You obviously have an interest in the Second Coming article. Could some of you please comment there on my question about the number two and how it might be better set within a wider understanding of Christian eschatology. I wonder from where the second part of second coming comes and whether this language importnat to Adventists. --Just nigel 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on particular articles

 * Joseph Bates (Adventist): If we know his middle name, let's change the article title. Also, needs development. -Fermion 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I sampled a few books in the Avondale College library but couldn't find it. -Colin MacLaurin 13:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Joseph Bates did not have a middle name. See George R. Knight's recent biography on Bates. -Thewalkingstick 22 February 2007


 * Some needs to go and fix the dump of information on Hell in Christian beliefs -Fermion 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This still needs fixing. It is hard to read, and not set out in a standard way. -Colin MacLaurin 13:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2 This page badly needs an image. We Adventists have been teaching about this prophecy since the 1800s, can anyone here get a hold of one of those posters our evangelist used to carry with them to campmeetings?  One of those would be PD.
 * I uploaded two pictures some time ago. They have the statue vision, but also other information. Include them if you think they are suitable: Image:Millerite 1843 chart.jpg, Image:Adventist 1863 chart.jpg. Colin MacLaurin 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The LLU Archives & Special Collections (of which I am chair) owns the only 1850 prophecy chart in existence, and two of the very rare 1843 charts. Our department reprinted the chart a few years ago. I'll see if we can get a nice scan of these two charts to use in Wikipedia articles. The only original 1863 chart that I know of is in a historic church (that I am not going to publicize because of its rarity). It is going to take some time but I think we can get color versions uploaded for all three of these charts. Thewalkingstick 22 February 2007


 * Could someone investigate this for its copyright status . Ans e ll  10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * this seems to have been copied verbatim...definately a violations, see: PDF or View as html. --Maniwar (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy: Sourcing Seventh-day Adventist theology
I propose a policy which can be migrated to the project page after consensus is reached. This guideline is needed both to improve the current state of the articles, and for the reference of future editors. The WP:NPOV policy states articles
 * "...must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."

To represent different points of view fairly, we need to be aware of the best sources and their point of view (POV). The church does not have an official statement on everything! Instead I suggest that the spectrum of current views be mentioned in proportion, with lowest notability assigned to ordinary church members, more notability for pastors and administrators, and the most notability given to scholars (the professionals regarding theology).Colin MacLaurin 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I disagree with this approach. I do not think it is fair to give scholars more weight than ordinary members, especially given that members are numerically more significant than scholars. We need to represent all 3 categories (members, pastors, scholars) equally IMO. People who access Wikipedia want to learn more about the church and what its people believe. If what they read here is dominated by progressive scholarly opinions, they will be confused when the local SDA church puts anti-Catholic, perfectionistic material in their letterbox (full of EGW quotes), or they attend an anti-Catholic, perfectionistic prophecy seminar (full of EGW quotes). Thus we need to accurately reflect what people in the real world will actually encounter, as well as making the scholarly opinions known.


 * As an example, the Uniting Church in Australia is extremely liberal at the scholarly level but still quite conservative at the lay level. Most UCA scholars will probably believe that it is ok to ordain homosexuals, while a significant proportion (possibly a majority?) of laypeople are probably opposed. The article on the UCA I think does a good job of fairly representing this spectrum of views. Tonicthebrown 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Colin MacLaurin 05:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Tonic, your comments are insightful and have given me something to think about for the last few months. I agree that what is actually taught in church is one of the most important things, not what the scholars say from their "ivory towers". In that line of thought, much of the highly detailed theological information in these pages is not typical of what would be heard at church. For example, I think I can remember hearing one sermon on the investigative judgment in the past 7 years. One editor recently suggested this (John McLarty, Adventist Today Nov/Dec 2006, p.2). Would this information be worth including as well, i.e. a comment that the IJ and other topics may not be expected at a typical worship service in church? Colin MacLaurin 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Historic, non-mainstream beliefs are currently given too much weight, and contemporary mainstream through to progressive views are given too little weight, and often no mention at all. In particular, articles mentioning the sinful nature of Christ, perfectionism etc. sometimes give the impression that such debates are split about 50-50 in the church today, which is simply not true! The policy states, "The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can." The following sources represent groups of scholars and authors, with their POV included so contributors understand who they are referencing:

Official statements
These represent a consensus of scholars, administrators, pastors and other church members.
 * 28 Fundamentals, the official beliefs of the church. Most notable source
 * Official statements.

These are highly notable, but not the only part of the picture. If a major portion of the church/scholars disagree, then quote that POV as well, in due proportion.

Official departments
These have been set up by the church, but a statement by them does not constitute an "official" viewpoint.
 * Ellen G. White Estate
 * Biblical Research Institute. This department deals with theological dialogue with other denominations and examines theological issues within the denomination.
 * Adventist Review
 * Health and Temperance
 * Communication
 * Legal Counsel
 * Ministerial
 * Adventist Risk Management
 * ADRA
 * Sabbath School
 * Adventist Mission/Global Mission
 * Secretariat
 * Publishing
 * Education

Other major sources

 * Ellen G. White. A statement by her does not represent an official belief of the church. Her view is highly notable, but just one POV nevertheless. The scholars are united that the Bible has precedence. She stated that she is not infallible, and the White Estate and even many conservative scholars today admit she was fallible.
 * Adventist Review, the official church magazine.
 * Ministry magazine. Reasonably centrist.
 * Adventist Theological Society, which publishes the peer-reviewed Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. This is not an official group, despite its name, and is more conservative than centrist Adventism.
 * Spectrum (magazine), which is more progressive than centrist Adventism. It is the most notable progressive journal. See also Adventist Today.
 * Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.
 * Scholars/lecturers/professors. Scholars range from a small minority holding to historic beliefs, through to 28 Fundamentals views only (majority?), through to progressive (significant minority?). Their books are helpful. If you do not have access to many books, you could try looking for online articles. I believe that the majority of scholars today exhibit some sort of progressiveness on some issues. I have often written "Adventist scholars believe..." rather than just "Adventists believe" in edits. I propose that the spectrum of scholarly opinion be given much more weight than it is currently.

What about variation due to geography? Rumour has it that developing countries are more conservative in their theology. This may be worth mentioning, but on the whole the United States scholars are the most notable. (This is certainly true in Australia)

Colin MacLaurin 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent thoughts
Tonic and others, I have done a lot of thinking about our discussion on sources to use for Adventist beliefs. I remember a Wikipedia policy stating something like: if there is debate as to which view is the best, just include all the points of view, with citations. I hope that much of our conversation can actually be transferred into articles, e.g. scholarship not always reflecting the average church member etc. We could just say, "There are several angles from which to consider the theology of the church such as official statements, Adventist scholarship, and "popular" material or presenters." I thought of some major Adventist figures who are not scholars but form a major face of the church, like 3ABN, Mark Finley (most well known evangelist? His book Studying Together is a reference for his views), Dwight Nelson and Doug Batchelor. Another good one would be the prophecy seminar, which is often used for outreach, and should be featured in the Eschatology (Adventist) article IMO (I know of several new prophecy seminars currently being developed, so this would probably need some updating in the future). Colin MacLaurin 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders
The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(Please discuss at Category talk:Seventh-day Adventist leaders). Colin MacLaurin 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous Adventist's
I've been adding people like Hugh Martin, David Lewis (singer), Wintley Phipps, etc to the section. Some of them are only stubbs and need to be expanded. I'll help where I can. --Maniwar (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)