Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 9

message: * Origins section has too many details, which would be better placed in the main article. Also, the "to do" list has far too much history in my opinion, which doesn't all belong in this article.
* Sabbath activities also could be shortened, maybe new article possible, but be careful of POV forking as there is already a Sabbath article (see my comments elsewhere)
* Mission needs expanding
* How about merging Mission, Outreach, Publishing and Membership into "Membership and Outreach" or similar? (Why do we publish? It's for members and outreach.)
* Also, it doesn't have much of an international feel.
Main sections could be: Origins, Doctrine, Membership and outreach, Lifestyle and customs (subheadings: "Sabbath activities" and "Health, diet and sexuality"), Structure, polity and institutions, Movements and offshoots and Outsider criticisms. I think this would improve the structure of the page.
Having said that, the article is coming along well. Good job everyone! -Colin MacLaurin 20:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat - the "origins" section has too much detail and should be trimmed. Also we need recent history of the church. Perhaps would be clearer if we develop the History article first, and then summarise it. Colin MacLaurin 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I definitely agree the History article needs major expansion, with more details on the period between 1900-2000. But I respectfully disagree that the "origins" section here needs significant trimming. I think all the details there are quite important, and in any case it is one of the shortest sections in the whole article. If anything, I think that the Mission section needs a bit of a trim. Tonicthebrown 09:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Colin, can you please explain further why you think that "origins" section is too long? Which parts do you think should be omitted? As I have said above, my opinion is that it isn't too lengthy, especially relative to the article as a whole. Tonicthebrown 10:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tonic, I take my comments back - I'm not so sure about its length - perhaps its fine. What is needed is more recent history though. It would be helpful if one of the history experts who edit here would start us off. By the way, I also noticed you trimmed the section a little. Colin MacLaurin 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested major improvements 

message: Brief explanation for my recent editing of the intro:
* Moved historical detail back to first paragraph. Think it is better there, seeing as the article itself has the history come first
* Don't think it is necessary to mention all 3 founders; they are listed in the main origins section
* I think it's worth having a small amount of doctrine/theology in the intro. So I have included 2 aspects of common protestant belief (Trinity and scripture), and 2 aspects of distinctive belief (soul sleep, IJ) which I think are most noteworthy.
* Don't think there is need to emphasise Ellen White twice.
* "Separation of church and state." Don't think this is really that important, and it isn't mentioned further down in the body of the article. Replaced it with "promotion of religious liberty", which I think is more pertinent, and underlies the impulse to keep church and state separate. Religious liberty is mentioned several times in the article.
* Got rid of "local churches", since they do not really "administer"! 
As it stands, the intro now captures something from each of the main sections of the article: History, Theology, Practices/customs, Structure and polity, Mission, Membership, Criticisms; and is therefore appropriately balanced. I'd suggest that we please try not to upset this balance by making major changes without prior discussion on this talk page. Cheers, Tonicthebrown 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those changes were good ones. The intro is much more concise now. I request that we can also mention annihilation or conditional immortality, perhaps piped as rejection of eternal hell to avoid technical jargon. Colin MacLaurin 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, but is conditional immortality really a distinctive Adventist belief anymore? In light of the ACUTE article, which suggests it is growing more popular in the wider church... Just wondering. cheers Tonicthebrown 08:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I'm not sure why membership and mission/outreach has been merged. Could you please explain the rationale for this? Thanks Tonicthebrown 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there were too many headings, and still are. Sorry - I should have discussed it on the talk page first. I don't have an emotional attachment to it so modify it if you wish! Colin MacLaurin 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Minor comment - "independent ministries" section is similar to "offshoots..." IMO, but these do not appear in proximity in the article. Swapping 4 and 5 above would fix this, but this is only a minor consideration... Colin MacLaurin 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: What about including more statistics into the article, like number of hospitals operated etc. See http://www.adventist.org/world_church/facts_and_figures/index.html.en. This page is from 2005, so maybe we could wait until the 2006 version comes out (I don't know when that would be). What do you think? These would need updating once a year, which I don't think is too big a task. Colin MacLaurin 12:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I can see the idea behind the new section however I am concerned about how encyclopedic it actually is. Our biggest problem on this article at this point in time is its severe lack of references. This needs to be addressed ASAP, and adding more unreferenced material just makes the problem worse. MyNameIsNotBob 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the material is OR as is. Focusing on references is a definite first step. No time here right now, sorry bout that. Ansell 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Colin, I've changed the word to "neutral", but if you still don't think that's appropriate please feel free to modify. I probably should have discussed this change with you first. I appreciate your attempt to place the various organisations relative to each other on the spectrum; however, I think this could easily be accused of being based on personal opinion. I think that it could only be justified if you can cite official statements from ATS, ASRS etc. saying "we are on the conservative end of mainstream", etc. Tonicthebrown 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I am increasingly feeling convicted that the various organizations should not be characterised in this fashion, in the main article. It is detail which is not relevant in an article already overloaded with information. Details regarding the diversity within the church can be covered in subarticles. Also, I think the editor (it wasn't me) who inserted the ASRS and ATS comments did an excellent job. By stating that the ATS meets with the ETS and the ASRS with the AAR and SBL characterises them quite strongly (forgive the abbreviations)! The AAR and SBL are more liberal than the ETS, which hints that the ASRS is more liberal than the ATS, even though this "fact" will be lost on most readers. But this important insight is stated in the most factual manner possible. The BRI is currently mentioned 3 times. I propose that we delete the first reference. I don't think the definition of "moderate" as those who aren't in the extremes is fair. There is huge diversity within this so-called "moderate" group. Within it, various entities are much closer to one end than the other. Colin MacLaurin 07:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcultures section 

message: Could we remove the statement about the BRI being moderate? This is a revision of an earlier edit by myself in which I commented it was conservative mainstream, and I propose a middle-ground compromise. If we just leave it as "The BRI is the official... of the church", then this is the least disputed way to characterise it. Implicit in that NPOV statement is that it is mainstream, at least in some senses of the word. Mainstream Adventism is highly nuanced, and I'm not sure that because it fits into this band that it could be called "moderate", although of course being official it is institutionally moderate. Colin MacLaurin 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Colin, I've changed the word to "neutral", but if you still don't think that's appropriate please feel free to modify. I probably should have discussed this change with you first. I appreciate your attempt to place the various organisations relative to each other on the spectrum; however, I think this could easily be accused of being based on personal opinion. I think that it could only be justified if you can cite official statements from ATS, ASRS etc. saying "we are on the conservative end of mainstream", etc. Tonicthebrown 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I am increasingly feeling convicted that the various organizations should not be characterised in this fashion, in the main article. It is detail which is not relevant in an article already overloaded with information. Details regarding the diversity within the church can be covered in subarticles. Also, I think the editor (it wasn't me) who inserted the ASRS and ATS comments did an excellent job. By stating that the ATS meets with the ETS and the ASRS with the AAR and SBL characterises them quite strongly (forgive the abbreviations)! The AAR and SBL are more liberal than the ETS, which hints that the ASRS is more liberal than the ATS, even though this "fact" will be lost on most readers. But this important insight is stated in the most factual manner possible. The BRI is currently mentioned 3 times. I propose that we delete the first reference. I don't think the definition of "moderate" as those who aren't in the extremes is fair. There is huge diversity within this so-called "moderate" group. Within it, various entities are much closer to one end than the other. Colin MacLaurin 07:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Research Institute 

message: 1. Removed vandal abuse (ie: spreading membership by raping)
2. Removed the entry in criticisms about Adventists requiring only Adventists to marry.  This is incorrect and is not found in any of the fundamental beliefs or church manual.
3. Removed the entry in criticisms about Adventists considering other Sunday churches as antichrist.  The overall doctrines suggest they hold a similar view to Martin Luther, that the pope is the antichrist.
I'm also questioning some of the sources that are not neutral who in turn quote non-official church documents.  For instance, while Adventists believe they are part of the remnant church, they do not believe they are the only ones going to be saved in the last days.  We need to understand what the remnant means to an Adventist versus the traditional view of a cultish remnant (ie: they think they are the only ones going to heaven).
"Remnant and Its Mission:
The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)"
Source: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
(OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENT)
"This is the only statement from E. G. White where she uses the term "remnant" to designate believers outside the Adventist Church. She called them "a remnant who trusted in the Word of God," individuals who are holding communion with God. Interestingly, she uses the story of Elijah to illustrate what she means, namely, that God has His instruments everywhere else. Yes, only the Lord knows who they are, but at the end they will be visible as they become part of God's eschatological remnant.[52] "
Source:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/remnantSDAchurch.htm
(OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENT)
Conclusion -- the remnant that the SDA preaches is not all inclusive but rather a communion with God.
--Jbanning22 08:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, legitimate crticisms (those with basis) can reasonably be presented. Antyhing else requires a counterpoint and risks devolving into finger-pointing. --Belg4mit 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you all very much for your comments. As I see it, the criticism section (which is really quite small next to the article as a whole, which portrays the church in an overwhelmingly positive light) describes 3 legitimate strands of criticism. (By legitimate I mean that these are criticisms that have been regularly and publicly made against the official church.) These are (1) in relation to doctrine, (2) in relation to Ellen White and (3) in relation to exclusivism. All three of these areas have point and counterpoint included (I recently added counterpoint for the final area). Therefore, from my POV, the section is both fair and appropriate, and should remain in the article. I fully agree that there is no need to include absolutely everything negative that has ever been said about the SDA church -- this was never my intention! :-) Tonicthebrown 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are trying to focus too much on the criticism section. I realize it is needed, but not to the detriment of the article or the church. Every single minor critcism does not need to be mentioned. I'm curious to know if point#2 is more of an Australia issue, and not an international one. It is not a significant issue here in the US. --Maniwar (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticms: Minor changes 

message: Might something about demographics be relevant? I know there are caucasian adventists (many participated in germ warfare experiments as pacifists, both of these tidbits are incidentally missing from the article) but in my own experience every adventist I've known has been (the descendant of) a black immigrant from the Carribean. Is this as common as it seems? --Belg4mit 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something about demographics would indeed be very interesting and worthy of including in the article. Your experience is not typical of the world church. Adventism started among predominantly White Americans. However over time the North American church has became the minority numerically, as the church expanded in other parts of the world. Recent statistics for the 13 world administrative divisions of the church show that most members are in Central and South America, and Africa. Perhaps you live in England. Jon Paulien said, if I recall correctly, that 90% of the church there are immigrants from such places as the West Indies, as you say, and not Anglo-English (forgive the tautology)! Colin MacLaurin 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Does the church have an official mission statement or similar? See . I know that the South Pacific Division has its own, which I just added to that page. Colin MacLaurin 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission statement 

message: The sda church has a long history of anti-Catholicism. This should be mentioned more explicitly in the article. There certainly isn't a problem finding evidence of it in sda history and theology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.180.117 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-Catholicism? Hmm.... no.  Anti-Papism perhaps. ;) --24.107.9.33 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism 

message: Ive recently learned about SDA since becoming a vegetarian and having long since been a christian id like to know how to become a member and if there is a structure near me. I have looked at your websight but cant find an email address or a location finder. Please help.
l84ad874@yahoo.com
Thank You,  God Bless
Kimmy
68.249.108.64 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kimmy, thanks for your interest in the Adventist church! You can try this site: http://adventistdirectory.org/. Just select churches or congregations under the "type" field, enter your city and state, and click search. Churches do vary in terms of worship style etc., but try a few and hopefully you will find one you like. I am a baptised church member myself, and am more than happy to help or answer and questions you might have. I also recommend Wikipedia articles such as this one and Seventh-day Adventist theology, which have been edited by various people with varying points of view. Cheers and may God bless your search, Colin MacLaurin 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Emailed just now. Colin MacLaurin 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  im interested 

message: The AYS edit may have been warranted. Here at Avondale College, I associate it with those of Pacific Island heritage, who run a youth-focused program on Saturday afternoons. They pronounce it "A Y's". Perhaps a North American editor or other editor could give another international perspective. Colin MacLaurin 05:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AYS 

message: Moved from article (improper additions which need to be sorted before adding to article)
Former Adventist Websites:
* http://www.ellenwhite.org
* http://www.ex-sda.com
* http://www.formeradventist.com
* http://www.gospeloutreach.net/sda.html
* Life Assurance Ministries at http://wwww.ratzlaf.com
* http://www.macgregorministries.org
* http://wwww.sdautreach.org
* http://wwww.theotokos.co.za/adventism
* http://wwww.truthorfables.com
* http://www.apologeticsindex.org
-- Fyslee/talk 21:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a debate earlier about critical links. Anyone wanting to add a critical link - please read the debate first and then request on the talk page. This article has undergone many revisions and much discussion, and is rated highly ("Good article") by the Wikipedia community. Any editors wishing to make major changes should read up on Wikipedia policies to understand contributions, and then discuss them on the talk page here first. Colin MacLaurin 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I just took a look at the archive of that debate. It was a sickening experience! Non-wikipedian criteria were used to justify improper POV forking. While a separate article is perfectly proper, using it as an excuse to move the criticism and links away from this article is improper. It certainly sounded like a coverup was being advocated. I'm not sure if the end result was satisfactory, but the arguments used by Maniwar were improper and not based in Wikipedia policies but on what Maniwar considered as lending "value" to the article, which is nonsense and certainly not in support of NPOV, which requires that this article present (not sell or advocate) all significant POV, including the negative ones. The article must present what Maniwar considers as contributing "value" and must also present what critics consider as contributing "value", which Maniwar would then probably delete because it doesn't contribute "value" according to Maniwar's criteria and POV, thus ensuring the article represents Maniwar's POV. A sorry state of affairs, but not surprising and as long as such viewpoints continue to exist in the church and at this article, it's no surprise that some SDAs would rather not be members. Who would want to be in Heaven with such attitudes present? -- Fyslee/talk 07:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand. Such discussions are rather disheartening. I see WP:OWNERSHIP issues and cover-up issues. "The truth has nothing to fear from criticism" (EGW paraphrase), so why the fear? -- Fyslee/talk 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Adventist Websites 

message: I see that my edit was removed with the edit summary:
* "SDA is an incorrect abbreviation."
Maybe this matter has some history here, so I'd like to hear it.
Wikipedia is not about "correct"ness, but about any piece of notable information - pro, con, true, false - that can be documented from V & RS. While any official positions should indeed be mentioned and sourced, and worded in an NPOV manner (IOW not as the "truth", but as what the church says), all other POV should also be included if they are notable or otherwise documentable from V & RS. The article is not and must not be the "church's" article, but "about" the church, from "everyone's" POV, otherwise it violates NPOV and is not encyclopedic.
If the church has an official position (documented by direct reference) on what it considers to be the "proper" or "correct" abbreviation, then that certainly deserves to be in the article. Having said that, that does not prevent the inclusion of the factual statement that it is often abbreviated "Adventist" or "SDA". That is a historic, simple, and undeniable fact, regardless of what the church or some of its members prefer.
So what's the story on this matter? -- Fyslee/talk 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin, thanks for the Solomonic solution. The footnote reference serves the purpose fine. I have added the commonly used "SDA" to make the footnote complete. The actual reference says nothing against the common (relaxed and unofficial) usage of "SDA" at all, but makes it clear that "Adventist" is the official abbreviation, which is just fine. -- Fyslee/talk 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations: SDA, Adventist..... 

message: This project editors have been using the name "Seventh-day Adventist Church", with a capitalized "C" for church. The church doesn't seem to list extensive style guidelines on its website, or at least that I came across in a 10 sec glance, but capitalizing the "C" seems to be the norm. It is important to have a consistent look and feel across Wikipedia articles. With the abbreviated version, "Adventist church", I personally think it does look more natural to have it as non-capitalized. Is there a preferred style? Colin MacLaurin 08:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the capital C in "Seventh-day Adventist Church" is correct, because it is the official name of the church.  When we talk about the "Adventist church," we are not using the official name (and may be referring to a particular church building), and therefore the capitalization is at least unnecessary and perhaps inappropriate, but might be acceptable in some circumstances.  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church name 

message: The recent new edit, "After a ten year study of White's book "Desire of Ages," Adventist scholar Fred Veltman found that about 30 percent of the book was derived from other sources without citation." This is ambiguous and potentially misleading - e.g. one could read that statement and think that 30% was verbatim quotations. That is decidedly not true. Big verbatim quotations are rare (percentage wise), I understand. Most were subtle parallels, often with different meaning. Don't have time now to change it, but someone please improve. Colin MacLaurin 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellen White 

message: When the contents to this page are hidden, the second infobox comes up next to the first one and looks really ugly, forcing the text into a tiny column and leaving white space on the other side of the second box.  Is there any way we can fix this, perhaps by moving the second box down a bit?  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding contents 

message: Hi all, you may have noticed that I nominated this article for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.  That approval has come through recently.  A big congratulation to everybody and thank you for your involvement.  Let's keep working to make it better! Fermion 06:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 1.0 

message: Who know something about the Seventh-day Adventist Church community/Aдвентиcты Ceдмогоь Дня in БиробиДжан (Jewish Autonomous Region, Poccия)? The German article (Jüdisches Autonomes Gebiet or Birobidschan) deals with the Adventist prayers, but it is not very sure that the information is true!?--84.169.254.133 08:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birobidzhan 

message: Bold text'Italic text'''
My question is what are you'all beliefs I mean I am a batized christian and I asm dating a seventh-day adventist belief person and I am wondering can two different beliefs be invovled!
Shay  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.115.2 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Is SDA Kinship International notable enough to be mentioned on the main page? According to its website, "Its current list of members and friends includes over a thousand people in 20 countries." It surely deserves to be included somewhere (in addition to a page of its own, that is), perhaps History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Colin MacLaurin 04:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Colin, it has already been mentioned under the offshoots and schisms for some time. Tonicthebrown 09:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SDA Kinship International 

message: Why do the adventist categorized articles have william miller as its icon. It needs to have the church logo instead. How do you go about doing this? Please respond here or on my user talk page. Thank-you. Globalinfo 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only free images may be used on templates, per one of the policies or guidelines. The logo is only "fair use". Of course there are many public domain images apart from ones of Miller. Colin MacLaurin 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Icon 

message: How about merging the section "Offshoots..." into "History"? This would reflect the structure of the sub-article History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Colin MacLaurin 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I support this. Offshoots like the Davidians, SDARM and SDA kinship have absolutely nothing to do with the church. They are tiny, virtually inconsequential minorities who are not recognised as legitimate by the SDA church, and I personally question their inclusion in this article at all. The "history" section should be reserved for events pertaining to the real SDA church. Tonicthebrown 10:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: (Also, this talk page needs to be archived as it is very long - would someone please carefully move expired discussions to an archive page. I'm not sure of the precise procedure, but should a summary of the conclusions of major arguments be left somewhere - at the very least, in the title of the archive?) Colin MacLaurin 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival needed