Talk:Daniel Sidney Warner

message: Hi, your Wesleyan link goes to the Wesleyan Disambig page, so I piped it to "Methodism." Feel free to pipe it to something else if I mis-interpreted the usage.
--Asbestos 01:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is not very organized yet. Perhaps we can work to clean it up a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tigerboy91 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Organization 

message: I agree that this page could use some reorganization.  Some of the info could use some neutralizing, especially under the heading "The movement that followed".  Remember, this is Wikipedia.  I say this, not saying that I disagree with the conclusion, (because I actually do agree), but because unbiased searchers should find objective information on these pages, not personal opinions.  Use the links section as a place to direct readers to for personal opinions, and please do not delete those links that disagree with yours.  I added a link that I personally do not agree with, but it gives the reader a chance to "hear all sides" and form his own opinions.
I may clean up the text on this page as time permits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.25 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean up 

message: Please do not continue to deny the objective researcher access to viewpoints that may not match our own.
Is the "Inside Look..." slander or disagreement?
It is simply a research that brings out aspects that some may disagree with.  All of the historical information in it was taken from the web and published articles and books.  It touches areas that the author agrees with, and disagrees with.  It is, admittedly, a different perspective than the "usual" in some points, but that is what research is all about.
To bring out a point about another person or group one disagreees with, is not necesarily slander, or else D. S. Warner himself was a slanderer of the worst sort, as he continually spoke out against against what he deemed to be errors in other groups of Christians.  And he (and I and everybody else) has the right to do that, if we do so in with a constructive spirit).
The link and information about the COG (REstoration) definitely belongs on this page, whether we agree or disagree with it.  It is not an insignificant group.
67.142.130.16 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  slander?  or disagreement? 

message: Please consider the following Wikipedia guidelines:
Religion
NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.43 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuetral point of view 

message: For some reason someone insists on deleting links to books written by D.S. Warner. It could be that they do not believe in what he taught so they wish to put their own spin on his teachings instead of allowing the Wikipedia reader the opprotunity to find the books online so that they can read what he taught if they wish rather than a condensed view that has been spun as a clever politician spins the "truth" to his vantage point. An Encylopedia is a place to find out the truth or what is believed to be the truth. So D.S. Warner were alive, I believe it would be safe to say that he would like for his teachings and beliefs to be within a click of his article! That is a safe belief especially for a man who gave his life, his marriage, and his time, talents and his whole soul to the spread of what is contained in his writings. If you disagree with his teachings, that is fine. However, it is clear that this is an encylopledia, a place to learn. 
For those who desire to learn, go to DSWARNERLIBRARY for a complete library of his writings. 
T.W.
:I deleted them as I commented on your talk page. The main reason was you hit a few larger pages such as [Christian] and [Mennonite] and a bunch with your precious link. If you had stayed focussed, they wouldn't have looked so spammy. I reverted some of them, but not the one on the larger pages. A page as large as [Christian] can't have links to everyone who ever wrote about Christianity... Jebba 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Consider the Links of the Books written by D.S. Warner 

message: SEPT 12, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.157.148 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still wondering what is being disputed in the Article? 

message: It has been over 30 days and no response as to the dispute and the problems with the article. I guess Brother Warner was forgotten about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over a Month 

message: As this article clearly shows, please do not try to use WIKIPEDIA to place a billboard for the COG Anderson. After all, the COG Anderson, clearly rejects most of Warners teachings and would not allow him to preach or teach his doctrines, you would vote him out. The COG Anderson has its own Wikipedia site, so please keep your billboard on that page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Unsure of why this was posted here and not on my talkpage, but I will attempt to address). I am in no way trying to join an arguement about Church of God (Anderson) and Daniel Warner. I am instead attempting to consolidate the articles related to the Church of God. Since Warner is listed as a founder of the Church of God his article would be considered a related article. Sorry if you disagree. I would encourage you to register an account and we can discuss any issues you have.  Be blessed.Absolon S. Kent 13:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absalon 

message: I am requesting a Subject Matter Expert to review this portion of the article and rewrite with appropriate references.<BR>Absolon S. Kent 13:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Movement that Followed

message: Please do not remove the SME request until this issue has been reviewed and resolved or appropriate references have been provided. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 17 January update

message: Absalon, I've reviewed this section but made no changes because I recommend that it be merged with the article on Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) for proper disambiguation. The present article is about Warner and his beliefs, while Warner's successors (E.E. Byrum et al.) began to revise and dispute his teachings immediately after his death. Most of the breakaway movements claimed they were attempting to return to Warner's original teachings when in fact they were trying to return to Byrum's, C.E. Orr's, or F.G. Smith's teachings. I think a researcher should expect to find a clear presentation of Warner's own teachings, based on his writings in the Gospel Trumpet and the books he published, when consulting this article. If you agree with this rationale, I propose to:<BR>
1) Temporarily remove "The Movement That Followed" from the "Daniel Sidney Warner" article.<BR> 
2) Finish providing appropriate citations for this biographical article on Warner.<BR>
3) Draft a rewrite of "The Movement That Followed" with references, merging it with the article on Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), then submit it to you and the writer of that article for review.<BR>
4) If you and the other writer approve that draft, incorporate it into the other article. If not, restore it to this article.<BR>
A few words about my credentials as SME: I've been an ordained minister of the Church of God (Anderson) since 1980 and have served as pastor of Church of God congregations in Indiana and Michigan. I was Managing Editor of Vital Christianity at Warner Press from 1975 to 1978, Coordinator of Publishing for Church of God Ministries from 2004 to 2013, and Director of Curriculum for Warner Press from 2014 to 2015. Earlier this year, I self-published the book "A Life Sketch of D.S. Warner," a compilation of articles by John A. Morrison and me published in Vital Christianity.Hoosierwriter131 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: SME Recommendation

message: Who is the "Subject Matter Expert? Are you a member of the Anderson COG, or do you attend a Anderson COG?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.10.144 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, unsure of why this was posted here and not on my talkpage and unsure what my current membership would matter. I'm requesting a review by someone with a better knowledge of the topic. Absolon S. Kent 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject Matter Expert? 

message: Where we attend church matters. 
It matters for the simple reason that it will affect the way that we view history. 
If you were a Muslim then you would maintain a favorable viewpoint of the current situation and issues pertaining to murder suicides that happen on a daily basis around the world. 
If you are a Roman Catholic, you would deny the 70 million individuals (= or -)that were killed during the "Dark Ages". So since you attend a "Anderson" church it would be justifiable to understand that you are defensive in this matter of "The Changes that Followed" in the Church of God(Anderson) article. We do not try to hide from the truth, but rather try to explain the changes that followed Warner with the scripture. Perhaps you should add a heading as to explain why Anderson no longer espouses theses teaching anymore. After all, this is a place to learn and to understand what has happened in the past, not a place to "rewrite" or "change" history.
===RE: Current Membership Matters===
The discussion pages are provided for article improvements.
Absolon S. Kent 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Membership Matters 

message: The discussion pages are provided for article improvements.
Absolon S. Kent 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Current Membership Matters

message: I have made some major changes to this article.  It can still use some help, of course.
Some of my changes include:
*I removed a couple of individual congregations from the list of church groups.  This list should only include links to groups of churches, not individual congregations.
*I took off most of the links to dates in the biography section.
*I reorganized the information in the biography section, and added a few more details.  this section can use some more info specific to his life
*In the list of books by Warner, I only kept books that were written BY him, not about him, or the link to the whole library.
*I did not mess too much with the Movement that Followed section.  This section could use some more information about the movement as pertaining to the Church of God (Anderson) as this is the largest part of the movement.  As it stands, the uninformed reader could begin to think that all the splinters make up the mass of the movement when in fact they are the minority.
There are probably more things.  I have worked at this for a couple of hours, so my thoughts are blending together in my mind.  Let's see if we can keep improving this article.
One thing should be made clear, if anyone knows for certain.  Was Daniel's middle name spelled Sydney, or Sidney?Mikeatnip (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Tom Wingate
I've heard of you before.
I would like to speak with you. I have many questions about the Church of God!
I am new to Wikipedia how can we communicate? 
Jonathan Duncan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdunc04 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Wingate 

message: I have worked briefly at restoring the integrity of the article.  Please do not make this article propaganda for the 7th-seal movement.  The Movement that Followed section needs more work to include a broader encyclopedic view of the movement.  I removed the blog links, as blogs are not generally considered good Wikipedia links.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeatnip (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring article

message: Could we have a discussion concerning the continual insertion and deletion over the 7-th seal movement.  Generally speaking, Wikipedia discourages links to blogs, so the link to the 7th seal blog should be left out.  On the other hand, the 7th-seal churches are a derivative of Warners movement and should be left in the list.  If someone want to create an article specifically on those churches, then he/she should go ahead.
Concerning the insertion of the word "repented": This is an encyclopedia, and if there is verifiable evidence that Slacum himself said he repented, then that could be included with a reference. Otherwise, it seems to be too subjective of a comment for an Encyclopedia.
The above are my views on the article.  I have worked on it over the last year or two, trying to keep it NPOV.  My reversions are not based upon the fact that I agree or disagree with the material added, but just trying to keep the article from degrading.  It still needs some help.  Let's work together to provide objective material.  Mikeatnip (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of article concerning 7-th seal

message: On Sept. 21, 2011 I reverted this to the version previous to an editor that made broad changes to the article. The changes moved the article away from a NPOV and degraded the encyclopedic quality of the article. A few details in the edits were probably good, but it was easier to start over than try to fix the many changes the took away from the quality. I may try to add a few of those details back in. Any discussion on these edits can take place here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeatnip (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest reversion

message: I have removed all the links to the dswarnerlibrary site as it appears to have been hijacked and no longer conatins the information past editors were trying to convey. If there is a newer site to reference, that complies with the external link requirements, please add it somewhere. DoctorG  (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of dead links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Sidney Warner. 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/20070823234641/http://www.churchofgodeveninglight.com/articles/From_the_Diary_of_Daniel_Sidney_Warner.htm to http://www.churchofgodeveninglight.com/articles/From_the_Diary_of_Daniel_Sidney_Warner.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) 08:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified