Talk:Denton E. Rebok

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
replies: text: *(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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  The Delafield piece 

message: *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-..."
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)
thread_title:  Third party sourcing 

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *Perhaps Adventist sources demonstrating balanced scholarship, including citations, should be considered acceptable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Rebok's association with Prescott