Talk:Inspiration of Ellen G. White

message: === Recent material ===
Link removed from page:
*  Ellen-White.com   Examining the allegations since 2000
Please justify why the individuals behind this site are notable enough to be included. Colin MacLaurin 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material moved from page 

message: Link removed from page:
*  Ellen-White.com   Examining the allegations since 2000
Please justify why the individuals behind this site are notable enough to be included. Colin MacLaurin 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent material 

message: Some of the basic points are helpful, but there is far too much information which is simply not relevant to the topic. Some of it might belong on other pages such as Victor Houteff. Please summarise it drastically. The material does not appear to abide by a neutral point of view.
The site www.gilead.net is linked to several times for the text of White's writings. The site is not a good choice, as it is not highly notable and also appears to represent the POV of Historic Adventism. Please link instead to the Ellen G. White Estate homepage, which is not only far more notable and more representative of mainstream Adventism, but is also the official Ellen White website. Colin MacLaurin 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier material 

message: What is the best title for this article? Some have suggested it is currently POV, which is certainly not intended. As pointed out by anothers, article titles such as Papal infallibility could also sound POV. "Prophetic gift of Ellen White" is a little clumsy. How about a rename to Inspiration of Ellen White (which currently redirects here), which is a slightly less specific title, and shorter? The word "inspiration" could have a spiritual connotation to a religious person and/or supporter of White, or the entirely humanistic connotation of "creativity" to a critic. Another option would be to merge it into Spirit of Prophecy (Adventist), however I strongly disagree with this, as many Adventists themselves criticise the use of this term. Colin MacLaurin 05:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. The proposed title is far more neutral. The current title assumes she had a prophetic gift, which may be contentious to some. MyNameIsNotBob 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. -- Fyslee/talk 08:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the input. I am hoping for more editorial attention to this page. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 12:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I now agree with the change, because the Adventist News Network Glossary recommends White's name be written "Ellen G. White". Please discuss debateable changes like this in future, and at least give a reason for the change. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Was there any discussion of the move from Inspiration of Ellen White to Inspiration of Ellen G. White before it happened? That name change was not indisputable, and should have been discussed first. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I now agree with the change, because the Adventist News Network Glossary recommends White's name be written "Ellen G. White". Please discuss debateable changes like this in future, and at least give a reason for the change. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: If I might direct your attention to the title of this page, which have somehow escaped your consideration. 
*The Prophetic Gift of Ellen White.
This page, was therefore devoted history of Mrs. White’s “gift,” and I have striven  to create a balance perspective of same, with strong historical overtones.
Should one wish to seriously evaluate Mrs. White’s “Prophetic Gift,” in the context of a Wikipedia article, then he must certainly create a balanced portrayal of the history of this “Prophetic gift,” which Mrs. White claimed to possess. 
Perhaps you, as an Adventist, were incapable of writing a disinterested account of Mrs. White’s “prophetic gift;” previous to my editing of this article, I noticed that it was meandering, overburdened with excessive references to redundant and frequently unknown sources.
Your summation of the intrinsic differences between Mrs. Whites partisans and enemies left a great deal to be desired, as well.
If the quotations which I used in substantiation of my case are accurate, then I see no reason to alter the references to them. 
Might I further remind you that Wikipedia is largely patronized by users who are non-Adventists, and therefore the use of accepted Adventist sources is superfluous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luciuscrassus (talk • contribs) 13:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the title, please see my above earlier comment under the section "Title". If you have a recommendation, please supply it. I request that you show me the benefit of the doubt per the assume good faith policy. In my edits I have attempted to give a balanced portrayal. In particular, I have mentioned many critics and linked to their online books, if available. What could have more detail is specific reasons critics give to doubt White's inspiration. Perhaps you could contribute here. I disagree that the sources I have cited are "redundant and frequently unknown" - this could perhaps be argued for a couple but the majority are highly prominent. Regarding your last comment, Wikipedia's NPOV policy is that all major viewpoints be presented. One such major viewpoint is that of critics, one is that of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in this case (both nuanced viewpoints themselves). For the Adventist POV, of course references will be from Adventist sources. Colin MacLaurin 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Additions

message: I added a "citation needed for the following, but I believe that is not sufficient. This section needs to be re-worked. As the article already states, there is a diversity of views about EGW's inspiration among SDAs - including among scholars. Who are the "mainstream" scholars, who made the judgement they were mainstream, and what criteria were used? I think this section should be deleted until it can be presented in more careful detail, but I will simply make that suggestion for now and see what others think.
"Typical mainstream Adventist scholars today believe :
* she was inspired by God... yet she was not infallible (without error)
* her writings are important to and relevant to the Adventist church today... yet must not form the basis for doctrine
* her writings are inferior to the Bible and non-canonical... yet superior to ordinary Christian literature
* she was culturally conditioned to some degree... yet she was not limited to the culture of her day only, but transcended it to some degree
* she borrowed from other authors... yet was not without discrimination in her inspired usage"
Gogh 02:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the applicable references can be found on the rest of the page. See WP:LEAD for what a lead section is all about. In general the lead section is a condensed version of the rest of the page, so if the citations appear in the body then it is sufficient. If you want to copy references so that they appear in both places then feel free, but as such I do not think the statements are totally unfounded. Ansell 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the many applicable references later in the page that you suggest should be there. I do see summaries of various positions, but for the most part I do not see substantiation for categorizing some positions as , for example "mainstream". I think you are in danger here of creating more of a theological article than an encycclopedic article. I think you are better off summarizin what the official church documents say on this subject, and then indicating - briefly - what the range of views within the church might be. If you are going to go into the fine distinctions, and describe some as mainstream or majority, then you better find some pretty good support for these claims.Gogh 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mainstream" Adventst Scholars

message: 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 :) 
* "Samples" :
** Samples, Kenneth (2007). "Evangelical Reflections on Seventh-day Adventism: Yesterday and Today". Questions on Doctrine 50th anniversary conference
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: :The following comments were merged here from Adventist studies, as this article and Progressive Adventism received the biggest chunks of the merge. My best guess for a redirect target was, however, List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. JJB 05:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You will notice that Ronald Graybill redirects to the section "Ellen White studies" of this article. He was a prominent scholar in this field. The redirect is a "redirect with possibilities", which means it is "possible" he will have or deserves his own article sometime in the future. For now, some barebones details and references are provided here. If two people have the same name, a disambiguation page or a disambiguation link will be needed. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I do agree it was unclear. I have made a subsection just for him, with a view to expanding this at some point. An equivalent option would be to place him on the Ellen G. White Estate article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk merged from [[Adventist studies]] 

message: Why does this page redirect from Ronald Graybill for no apparent reason?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.83.137 (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You will notice that Ronald Graybill redirects to the section "Ellen White studies" of this article. He was a prominent scholar in this field. The redirect is a "redirect with possibilities", which means it is "possible" he will have or deserves his own article sometime in the future. For now, some barebones details and references are provided here. If two people have the same name, a disambiguation page or a disambiguation link will be needed. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I do agree it was unclear. I have made a subsection just for him, with a view to expanding this at some point. An equivalent option would be to place him on the Ellen G. White Estate article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Graybill

message: Since a heavy chunk is already slated for merge, my first impression of the article is that the entire item and talk should be merged and deleted. Targets: Inspiration of Ellen White (main and talk catchall), Progressive Adventism#University controversies, and Avondale College. Very little beyond those 3 topics indicates any AfD notability. Not bothering with additional templates because of little traffic. JJB 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge and delete

message: This is too wordy.  I'll be seeing what I can do from time to time.  CedricElijahHenry (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs some rewriting 

message: Substituted at 18:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Inspiration of Ellen G. White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214221522/http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/ramik.html to http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/ramik.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214221522/http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/ramik.html to http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/ramik.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031119080712/http://whiteestate.org/ to http://www.whiteestate.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Inspiration of Ellen G. White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721212151/http://www.adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1009&page=22 to http://www.adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1009&page=22
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19981205024026/http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm to http://www.ellenwhite.org/canright/egw16.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is written apologetically and is promotional of White. Wikipedia articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View. NewBluePencil (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I did not quote Schwartz because I would believe what he stated, but because his point of view is so ridiculous that even bona fide Adventists who studied history at an university will admit that it is completely ridiculous, and that it betrays his desperation to deny objective facts in favor of theological dogma (ideology vs. reality conflict). tgeorgescu (talk)  06:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV missing 

message: As an Adventist religious studies scholar with a PhD (Chicago) in biblical studies, I highly recommend that this article be deleted as completely inappropriate for a general, user-generated encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It is an unabashedly apologetic piece that is certainly more suited for a denominational publication or some kind of SDA evangelistic document. As if this were not enough, the published page includes a very significant, two-fold set of technical problems with the article that Wiki editors identified in 2013 as follows:
This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
	
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
This technical problem is noted six times in the article! In my opinion, this "Inspiration" article would never be approved if submitted today (nor should it be) not only because of its inappropriate content but also for its serious technical problems. How the editors have let this slip for nine years is beyond me.
If it is deemed necessary to mention "inspiration" with reference to EGW (which I don't), a sentence identifying this as the position of "many" Adventist could be added to the main bio article.
Wctrenchard (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Point about WP:OR granted. But prod is not the way. You may submit a formal deletion request if you want. tgeorgescu (talk)  01:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for replying. I assumed that the PROD would not work, given that it had been tried before, but my little essay didn't work either or even garner a reply until now. Nevertheless, I really want this article deleted for the stated reasons. How do I "submit a formal deletion request"?Wctrenchard (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I submitted it for discussion, noting that I don't agree with you. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspiration of Ellen G. White. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I have removed stuff with too much WP:OR. If it gets WP:CITED, then I have nothing against it. tgeorgescu (talk)  05:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think my comments refer to quite a few years ago. I recall there were editors who added (way too many) block quotations of primary source material, particularly of White herself, while blanking good material. Often others removed this added text, but did not restore the blanked material. (By the way, my comment was not intended for you nor Wctrenchard specifically, but as a general comment on the deletion discussion, which is now archived.) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, saw it at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inspiration_of_Ellen_G._White&type=revision&diff=1098712858&oldid=373974540&diffmode=source . However, that is very much an WP:IN-UNIVERSE view, with too few mainstream WP:RS, and I mean both defenders and opponents or Mrs. White are often published in non-mainstream outlets. tgeorgescu (talk)  07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renomination for deletion