Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Developing Consensus

These links seem to be a hot topic:

===Critical websites===
 * exAdventist Outreach (formerly SDAOutreach.org) Former SDA pastor     
 Mark Martin's research
 * The Ellen White Research Project Independent source of  
 information about Ellen White by Dirk Anderson
 * Former Adventist Fellowship Online Active forum and stories of  
 leaving Adventism
 * LAM Publishing Source of books by former SDA pastor  
 Dale Ratzlaff

I am trying to develop a consensus. I've temporarily removed the links. If you peruse the rest of wikipedia, you will note that the criticism is self contained in it's own section either in the main article or in it's own article. There is no rhyme or reason to have these here and in the criticism article. I say they need to be moved to and remain in the criticism article. And if you want to briefly mention them in the criticisms section, then so be it. Let's discuss this to avoid edit wars and then by consensus of the editors, keep it out or put it back in. First off 1)What value is it adding to the article, 2)Does it do justice here or better served in the criticism article, 3)Would it be better to move it up to the criticism section of this article or keep it where it is.

I would like to see what other editors think. I personally don't see it lending any value to the encyclopedia where and how it is currently set up. --Maniwar (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Another solution would be to include all pro and con websites under a common header "External Links" as is done on the Jehovah's Witnesses page. Not including a balance of pro and con sites on the Adventist Church page makes it unbalanced and one-sided. --1christian January 31, 2007
That's a good suggestion, but again my first impulse is to ask, would that add value to the document. And if it's already in the Criticism document, is it needed in both locations? I do like the neutrality of just listing the links without the pro/con sidedness. --Maniwar (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest you try to incorporate the links into the text itself as references (either here, in the criticism article, or perhaps both). External links should be kept to a minimum in general (see WP:EL). --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Flex, I actually was going to suggest that and got sidetracked. I've noticed that in many other articles, editors strive and ask that the external links be incorporated into the article to justify their being there. That lends value to the article. I'm open to that, but I'm opposed to just listing the links. --Maniwar (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the approach I've been working with at Christian views of alcohol. It has over 100 external links (thanks to all the Bible verse citations and other references), but no external links section. When external links have been added by others, I have worked to incorporate them in the text. On articles like this one and that one, external links are generally not "symmetric," to use the term from WP:EL. The WP is not the place to advertise your 12 step recovery program from alcohol or from SDAism. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those critical external websites are reputable and therefore have no right of themselves to be on the main page. However, informative sites that push a single perspective are acceptable if balanced with opposing points of view. Note how the structure to the external links in the criticism section does that. Do you want the external links on both pages? --e.Shubee 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone said above, "None of those critical external websites are reputable and therefore have no right of themselves to be on the main page." Just because you don't agree with a website doesn't make it disreputable. The sites are hosted by prominent former Adventists including Mark Martin, pastor of a 12,000 member Calvary Chapel in Arizona; Dirk Anderson with his impacting Ellen White website; Dale Ratzlaff, the "fountainhead of the Adventist critics" according to Jud Lake, Adventist apologist at Southern Adventist University; and FormerAdventist.com managed by the editorial team of Proclamation magazine--a magazine that caused the Michigan Conference to address it directly at its annual pastors council. --1christian February 1, 2007
I guess those three links qualify. I therefore withdraw my previous objection. Prominent critics do belong on the main page. After all, the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is promoted on the main page, that church teaches that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is Babylon and there is no evidence that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has more than 4 members. --e.Shubee 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't examined those sites in detail (indeed, this page is not really in my realm of interest), but two wrongs don't make a right. It could very well be that Creation SDA Church should not be listed either. As above, I maintain that the ideal is for reputable critical websites to be cited explicitly for their beliefs rather than simply (and ambiguously) linked to. --Flex (talk|contribs) 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What can be said of individuals who at one time believed in Adventist doctrine but then gave it up? --e.Shubee 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like they're inherently notable (people change belief systems all the time), but if they have become prominent, reputable critics, then they might warrant a citation. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of church corruption

[edit] Opposition to Adventism

[edit] Addressing corruption and opposition claims

E.Shubee, what is the purpose of these links besides trying to post them everywhere in wikipedia. Do they lend anything to the discussion? --Maniwar (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
They're part of an earlier comment: "Note how the structure to the external links in the criticism section does that." --e.Shubee 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going off Topic

We're going off topic. This really is to discuss whether these links should only remain in the criticism section or be incorporated into the main body of this article. As far as comparing the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, that is not comparing apples to apples. The comment After all, the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is promoted on the main page, that church teaches that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is Babylon and there is no evidence that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has more than 4 members. doesn't take into consideration that that article is about the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, but this article is not about the Criticism of the Adventist Church, it is about the main church and there is a separate document which addresses the criticism. Additionally, the use of the sites can be in question. If the sources is not reputable and it is challenged, by consensus, it can be removed if there are no source{s) supporting the site in question. That is for another discussion however.

  • I vote that the links remain only in the criticism article, however if it is to support a point (paragraph), it can be used as a reference in the main article. --Maniwar (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Maniwar. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am persuaded that the critical links are reputable and should be included in the main article, preferably in a paragraph in the Movements and offshoots section, but until such a paragraph is written, their presence as external links would be acceptable. There is no rational argument or justifiable logic in allowing The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church on the main page (and they teach that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is Babylon) while opposing the informative links of others who have departed from the Adventist faith. --e.Shubee 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please keep that The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church argument out of this discussion. As pointed out, it is not applicable and deals totally with an unrelated issue. You have been repeatedly asked by numerous editors to step away from that topic as it stirs too much emotion with you. --Maniwar (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no harm done by my asking the Adventist editors who squat on this page to be consistent. --e.Shubee 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did maniwar remove the links in question before a consensus was reached? I replaced them--and once again remind you that a balanced list of links is the goal--at least that is how I read the rules of wikipedia!--1christian 3 February 2007

1christian, in any other article your edits would be reverted as vandalism. The links were removed because they do not lend value to the article. That's what this whole discussion is about. To add a link, it has to have been mentioned in the article. Besides, these links are links to purchase items. Wikipedia's policy is to not link to sites selling items. For example, if the site is about one of the books, then yes, you can link ot it if it serves to support something in the article, at which point it then needs to be cited properly, however, to just link to a site selling books that are anti Adventist is not balancing out the article. If you want balance, again, add the links in paragraph format and cite them properly. Someone will delete them and arbitration will be requested to quell the POV and lack of proper citing. --Maniwar (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
E.Shubee, the same goes for you. Before you revert something, check the talk page to see why and to keep abreast of the discussion. Your revision was POV and again is not lending to the overal value of a good article. And rather than just creating some biased paragraph, see this discussion through and allow other editors to add input. --Maniwar (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That's your POV. According to Adventist News Network, nearly 1.5 million Adventists left membership during the time period 2000 to 2005 and that for every 100 coming into the church, more than 35 others decide to leave. That is a relevant, informative, encyclopedic fact! --e.Shubee 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Maniwar--The number of "negative" links was reduced from 12 to 4 in an attempt to reach a consensus (see discussion above). Your deleting all negative links is not in keeping with the spirit of this community.--1christian 4 February 2007
You are totally missing what i said above. I restate: 1christian, in any other article your edits would be reverted as vandalism. The links were removed because they do not lend value to the article. That's what this whole discussion is about. To add a link, it has to have been mentioned in the article. Besides, these links are links to purchase items. Wikipedia's policy is to not link to sites selling items. For example, if the site is about one of the books, then yes, you can link ot it if it serves to support something in the article, at which point it then needs to be cited properly, however, to just link to a site selling books that are anti Adventist is not balancing out the article. If you want balance, again, add the links in paragraph format and cite them properly. Someone will delete them and arbitration will be requested to quell the POV and lack of proper citing. As far as keeping with the community, that is what i'm doing, hence my bringing it to the talk page rather than autonomously and whimsically editing as you have. If the consensus is in keeping with the Wikipedia community, I support it. Again, all articles on wikipedia forbid linking to sites selling items. Reread what I said earlier to understand this. --Maniwar (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The "External Links" section is not in paragraph format and they are not cited, as you are insisting that I do with the former Adventist websites. Also, the main purpose of three of the four sites is not sales. I am not "autonomously and whimsically editing"--that is an ad hominem attack.--1christian 4 February 2007
1Christian, you are forgetting Maniwar's first subjective law: Thou shalt not place anything negative on the main Adventist page. They are an abomination unto me because they do not lend value to the article. How are you going to argue against that? --e.Shubee 14:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I honestly can't believe I have to explain this to you two again. All of those sites lend support to the article because 1) They are official sites of the church and or 2) They lend support to this historicity and facts of the article. Drop the attacks and the agenda's and add to the article. I'm done trying to explain. If you can't understand what I said in my earlier post and in this current one, my time is more valuable and I no longer wish to waste it on you. --Maniwar (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have one paragraph in mind to add to the article. It will include all the information that 1christian believes belongs on the main page and which I agree with. Let's do this sentence by sentence. We can argue about supportive links and the order of the sentences later. Is the following sentence acceptable or not? If not, why not? If the sentence is flawed, can it be fixed by a few simple word changes to make it acceptable to you?
"According to Adventist News Network, nearly 1.5 million Adventists left membership during the time period 2000 to 2005 and that for every 100 coming into the church, more than 35 others decide to leave." --e.Shubee 14:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, please answer this question: "There are many gradations in the experience and faith of Seventh-day Adventists. Is it wrong to explain those differences? Many Seventh-day Adventists reject the prophet status of Ellen G. White. Many repudiate the doctrine of vicarious substitutionary atonement. What great difference is there between the Adventists that reject many of the foundational doctrines that Ellen White said were essential yet stay in the Church and those that leave the Church for the same doctrinal differences?" --e.Shubee 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Consider WP:NOT and WP:EL

Please consider WP:NOT and WP:EL when contributing to the article. --Maniwar (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please answer the direct questions put to you. --e.Shubee 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
As I stated on our talk page, I think you have a WP:COI and should step away from these topics. You have an agenda and all your edits cause strife rather than community spirit. I encourage you to walk away and regroup. Take warnings from the many editors who have given you tips on this very page. This would be my advice to you. --Maniwar (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I think there needs to be some mediation in this dispute between 1christian, Maniwar and E.Shubee. I'm trying to understand what is motivating both of you to argue your positions. It seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that E.Shubee has a passionate disagreement with some aspect of the SDA church. It appears that he wants to include material in this article which reflects badly on the church (such as the exit statistics).

On the other side, Maniwar appears to be very loyal to the SDA church to the point that he can't tolerate anything negative said about the church. For example, he has placed numerus {{Fact}} tags in the "criticism" section which are in my opinion unnecessary. He is thus also very resistant to the inclusion of critical external links.

1christian seems to be a non-Adventist who wants to point out flaws which he perceives in the SDA church.

Can I please invite you all to take a step back and remember what Wikipedia is here for. The purpose of this article is neither to glorify nor attack the SDA church. It is here to provide neutral, factual information. The majority of the article does that very well. The criticism section, which is relatively short, is also important because the SDA church has many public critics -- that is a well recognised fact. However, in my opinion, an expansive list of critical websites is NOT necessary nor helpful. I agree with Maniwar on this.

E.Shubee, if you want to include "exit statistics", I suggest you write a paragraph in a neutral tone, with adequate citation of facts, and include it under the "Membership" section.

Thank you all. Tonicthebrown 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tonicthebrown, thank you for your mediation attempt, however you have failed because of the false mislabeling. Before you attempt mediation, you need to learn Wikipedia's policy. I placed {{fact}} tags which is very much wikipedia's policy. I will place them elsewhere when I have a moment. I have placed them in pro and anti sections of various articles. I am loyal to wikipedia and you have thus missed that. Thank you for trying, but no thanks for a wrong solution. I also encourage all to wait for consensus which has not even been on this talk page for a week and other editors have not been given opportunity to comment. Thank you, --Maniwar (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Additionally you asked me about this on my talk page and before I was even given an opportunity to respond to you, you bring it here. Part of the conversation is at my talk page for those of you who are interested, however I would like to keep the discussion here to keep everything streamlined. --Maniwar (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, I am hearing what you are saying. Please understand that I have nothing personal against you, nor was I trying to attack you with my previous comments. Please notice that I agree with you (against E.Shubee and 1christian) that the critical links are unnecessary. But with all due respect, I would ask that you calm down a little too—the way you have spoken to E.Shubee and 1christian is, IMHO, unreasonably harsh (eg. "If you can't understand what I said in my earlier post and in this current one, my time is more valuable and I no longer wish to waste it on you"). Please remember that they are both entitled to their views about this issue, and have as much right as you and I to contribute to Wikipedia. If, for argument's sake, a small number (say 2 or 3) critical sites are included, is that really worth getting angry about? Will it really substantially damage the article, or the SDA church for that matter? I do not think so. So let's all please be willing to make some compromises in the interests of harmony. And please note that I am not trying to offer a "solution" here—just trying to cool things off a little in this escalating confrontation. Thank you. Tonicthebrown 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tonicthebrown, you take things out of context. Your opinion is just that. I stated that if someone doesn't understand after three explanations, then I do have better things to do then to continually repeat myself. You consistently misconstrue and insert false allegations, I have not been angry, annoyed..yes, but not angry so please for the third and final time, I dissuade you from continually mislabeling what is going on. I have pointed out a couple times, and I again point out that you need to be familiar with Wikipedia. If a consensus is reached, and the majority of editors have been against the links, then links can be left out of the article. Go and read how to cite and go and read consensus, I've already posted them above. Additionally, I have given you the link to research Wikipedia's policy on citing. Links are not just to be placed into articles, and wikipedia specifically addresses that. Links have to lend value and support to the article and it has to be an issue of value. Go and take a look at the Cindy Sheehan article and you will note that the editors continually remove links. Reason being, not every detail needs to be added to the article. It has to lend value and it has to be a major issue. Just because one person jeered at Cindy in Syracuse, NY does not mean it needs to be in the article. Additionally, please refrain from playing the innocent party. Several times you have broken wikipedia guidelines and two of them was you edited another editors post. That is a No No!!! You changed and edited mine and you changed and edited E.Shubees. The only escalating issue is that you and a couple editors continue to avoid reading and learning policies. Your edits, if they continue to go contrary to wikipedia, will be reverted or changed. E.Shubee pointed out that you don't have a right changing his post and I think you need to first address that, then secondly learn policies. Overall, I applaud you for wanting to keep things right, but you must atleast know what is right before you attempt that. --Maniwar (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let me respond point by point.

  • Firstly, all I have done is observe that there is a heated dispute going on between yourself, E.Shubee and 1christian. In my personal opinion (yes, it's my opinion), things have escalated beyond what is consistent with Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Civility. I'm not pointing the finger at any one of you in particular, I'm just observing that the overall tone of the interaction has been quite hostile. This is understandable, given that you strongly disagree with each other. My intention was not to take sides, only to try and foster some agreement and compromise.
  • Please notice that I have been contributing to Wikipedia, and particular the SDA church articles, for about 6 months now. Contrary to your persistent allegations, I have read and am familiar with Wikipedia's rules. However, with due respect, I do not agree with you that the letter of the law must be policed to the point that a major conflict breaks out (as has happened here). Even if E.Shubee and 1christian's desire to include those links conflict with (your interpretation) of Wikipedia's rules, is it really worth getting so annoyed about? Will the article really suffer if they are allowed to have their way? (Note that by my observation both of them have been willing to compromise).
  • I appreciate you alerting me if I have contravened any rules. Please be assured that I do not do so intentionally -- I respectfully ask that you assume good faith. The reason I split E.shubee's message was to address specific questions directly. I did not alter any of his actual words. I have seen this done in many places and no one has complained, but if that offends him I will not do it again. And I am unaware of where I tampered with your post; please show me where this was a problem. If I have offended you then I apologise.
  • I respectfully ask that you take a more civil and courteous tone when writing to me. I am not comfortable with you saying this like: "Thank you for trying, but no thanks for a wrong solution", "Go and read", "Go and take a look".

Thank you Tonicthebrown 05:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon examining this article and the discussion, I'd like to add my comment that Tonicthebrown is right on track as far as everybody cooling off. Although words may not be meant to sound snippy or angry, it certainly wouldn't hurt to be more careful with word choice and tone. We are editors, not crusaders. That said, here is my view on the text in question. With regards to the [citation needed] tags, I've found a total of seven (correct me if I'm wrong). The article is to be commended on its references thus far, and the statements that have those tags on them certainly need references, as they are either statistical, or significant in characterizing the religion and cultural system surrounding it. I therefore approve of the current status of the article's CN tags. As for including opposition, let's have a balance. The fact exists that there are objections to things that the Seventh Day Adventist church teaches. It's a religion, welcome to reality — people will object to everything. On the other hand, let's not make mountains out of molehills (am I using that cliche properly?). It is sufficient to note that there are objections, to list them and provide references or a few external links, and then leave it alone. People who come to the article looking for good points in the church will find them; people who come looking for negative points will find them. Most of all, I hope that people who come looking for facts, referenced and unbiased, will find those. Let me know if I am unclear in anything I've said. V-Man737 09:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

V-Man737, nice of you to lend a helping, a most welcomed, helping hand. I would like to however clarify something to you, Tonicthebrown, and any other welcomed impartial editor: if you look at the edits, I have been mislabeled and, albeit, I am a bit defensive at this point, but the charge is false. This is actually humorous because Tonicthebrown is trying to portray himself as a mediator, but if you observe his edits, he has contributed greatly to the frustration and the edit war. 1chistian has been silent and falsly charged, and one will see that Tonicthebrown has been the/a strong vocal one. I see his good intentions, however, I have consistently pointed out that he needs to be more versed in Wikipedia. To mediate, you do not immediately charge the editors, especially when the charge is false. You also do not start off in the controversy then try to portray yourself as neutral and innocent as he has. Contrary to, in my opinion, his belief, Wikipedia specifically says it is not a democracy. Having said that, many of the editors refuse to learn wikipedia, and as you have heralded, to make a strong statement in an article deserves support and citations and thus I added the tag. Editors are trying to make this a FA, but to do so, facts must be supplied, and the WP:LEAD must conform to wikipedia standards. I stand by my edits, and if any third party looks at them, they will see that I err on the side of following policy rather than the false claim of Tonicthebrown that I do not want any negative comments; that has never been an issue. I agree that cooler heads must abound and I welcome other editors and have asked for their assistance as soon as I saw where this was going, long before it became an issue. Thanks for feedback and true unbiased 'out of the gate' observation. --Maniwar (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Greetings all. I have been absent from wikipedia for a while. I will freely confess that I have not followed closely the debate above and have only given it a cursory glance. What I would like to bring to the discussion about links is a little bit of perspective of how the links have come to be the way they are.
In my experience, every so often the links need to be trimmed down. I don't think it is necessary for this article to be a collection of links to every page on the web that refers to Adventists. In the past the list has become very long and there has been vigorous debate about where links should be included (for example there was a link to a Dies Domini article that was considered critical by some and neutral by others, including myself). At various stages, myself and other editors have severely trimmed back the links. My criteria has been this, if it is an official Adventist page it may be worth including, if it is a definite neutral reference it should be included. If it is a link to a page critical of the church, then it belongs on the criticisms article. If it is a link to a page critical of Ellen White then it either belongs on the Ellen White article or a criticisms of Ellen White article. If it is a link to a church department or institution, it should be on an article about that institution. For this reason I am sceptical of the merits of including a link to the geoscience research institute.
Again, what I have said is an explanation of how I have removed links in the past. Often I have removed links with a comment inviting discussion on the talk page, and it rarely occurs. My belief is unless someone is willing to defend the with clear and logical reasons as to its relevance, its inclusion is not warranted. -Fermion 08:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have also been away--but after reading the discussion, it seems interesting that the Adventist editors here want to be sure and include links that are supportive and neutral but not critical. In this age of the internet, the Adventist Church can no longer control information about its (false) doctrines, shady business dealings, or the expiriences of a large number of Adventists who have left and are leaving and have found a new life in Christ. Read the "critical" sites that I have promoted here and you will find people who are not angry at the Adventist Church--they are only interested in their Adventist family and friends finding what they have found in Christ. Here are the links I believe should be included on this page, to make the list of links more balanced:
In conclusion, for this page to truely be a balanced statement concerning Adventism, members and former members should both have a voice in what is presented. -1christian 7 February 2007
Thank you for your comments 1christian. Please be assured there is no attempt to censor critical websites. My viewpoint is that they belong on the article about criticisms of the Adventist church. Although I am an Adventist, I have supported the development of the criticisms page, and have attempted to prevent it from becoming an apologetic page for Adventists. -Fermion 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This conflict has been brewing for a few months now (although generally at a low level). I recently cautioned E.Shubee that I am fairly close to requesting a community siteban for disruptive editing. Prior to this I have blocked E.Shubee for as long as 1 month for policy violations. He entered the adopt-a-user program at my recommendation and was later un-adopted by his mentor, who then supported the one month block and considered E.Shubee the primary aggressor in a dispute where the other participants were attempting to be civil. I have not issued any blocks or warnings toward the other editors at Adventism-related pages. DurovaCharge! 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus Results

From the discussion of this section, which took a deviation for a bit, the editors have been more in favor of leaving the links out. As a result, the temporary removal of the links, by consensus, will be permanent. I'd just like to take a moment and encourage all parties to familiarize or re-familiarize themselves with WP:NOT and WP:EL. If a link is to be placed into a document, it has to be justified and lend support to something in the article. Citing them as a source is the best way to accomplish this. Additionally, since they are already a part of the criticism article, and the main article refers them to it, then the coverage is there. Lastly, any item can be called for consensus in wikipedia, and by consensus it can be removed or added. Consensus comments:

  • None of those critical external websites are reputable and therefore have no right of themselves to be on the main page. However, informative sites that push a single perspective are acceptable if balanced with opposing points of view. Note how the structure to the external links in the criticism section does that. Do you want the external links on both pages? --e.Shubee 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I vote that the links remain only in the criticism article, however if it is to support a point (paragraph), it can be used as a reference in the main article. --Maniwar (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Maniwar. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In my experience, every so often the links need to be trimmed down. I don't think it is necessary for this article to be a collection of links to every page on the web that refers to Adventists. In the past the list has become very long and there has been vigorous debate about where links should be included (for example there was a link to a Dies Domini article that was considered critical by some and neutral by others, including myself). At various stages, myself and other editors have severely trimmed back the links. My criteria has been this, if it is an official Adventist page it may be worth including, if it is a definite neutral reference it should be included. If it is a link to a page critical of the church, then it belongs on the criticisms article. If it is a link to a page critical of Ellen White then it either belongs on the Ellen White article or a criticisms of Ellen White article. If it is a link to a church department or institution, it should be on an article about that institution. For this reason I am sceptical of the merits of including a link to the geoscience research institute.
...Again, what I have said is an explanation of how I have removed links in the past. Often I have removed links with a comment inviting discussion on the talk page, and it rarely occurs. My belief is unless someone is willing to defend the with clear and logical reasons as to its relevance, its inclusion is not warranted. -Fermion 08:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon examining this article and the discussion, I'd like to add my comment that Tonicthebrown is right on track as far as everybody cooling off. Although words may not be meant to sound snippy or angry, it certainly wouldn't hurt to be more careful with word choice and tone. We are editors, not crusaders. That said, here is my view on the text in question. With regards to the [citation needed] tags, I've found a total of seven (correct me if I'm wrong). The article is to be commended on its references thus far, and the statements that have those tags on them certainly need references, as they are either statistical, or significant in characterizing the religion and cultural system surrounding it. I therefore approve of the current status of the article's CN tags... -V-Man737 (agreed that changes need to be made)
  • However, in my opinion, an expansive list of critical websites is NOT necessary nor helpful. I agree with Maniwar on this. -Tonicthebrown (Tonicthebrown agreed that changes needed to be made)

(forgot to sign my post) --Maniwar (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why the last edit was made

I reverted a previous edit by Tonicthebrown in which he edited my post. This seems to be causing some confusion, so I reverted it to correct the problem. If you look here [1] and here [2] you will see how he edited my post. Here is the original post [3] before the edit. --Maniwar (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exit Movement

E.Shubee, what value does this section lend to the entire article? Is it adding value? Someone researching this, will it aid in their understanding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? I'm temporarily deleting it. You are usurping the consensus question above to insert your own agenda. Why don't you wait until a consensus is developed and then contribute? In the national scope and importance, what does it lend to the article? Perhaps some of this could go in the offshoot and schism section.

 ==The exit movement==
 While many are joining the Adventist Church in North America each year, a sizable percentage of  
 Adventists are leaving out the back door. According to the General Conference Office of Archives 
 and Statistics, in the past ten years alone, over 1.6 million people have requested that their SDA  
 membership be dropped. The annual growth rate within the church has gone from approximately 6%,  
 ten years ago, to a record low of 3.98%. Prominent among the former members who have left the 
 Seventh-day Adventist Church are Mark Martin,[44] pastor of a 12,000 member Calvary Chapel in  
 Arizona; Dirk Anderson[45] with his impacting Ellen White website; Dale Ratzlaff,[46] the 
 "fountainhead of the Adventist critics" according to Jud Lake, Adventist apologist at Southern 
 Adventist University; and the group FormerAdventist.com[47] managed by the editorial team of 
 Proclamation magazine--a magazine that caused the Michigan Conference to address it directly at  
 its annual pastors council.

what say the rest of ye? --Maniwar (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the editors are trying to improve the article and so far, this has worked contrary to an improvement. --Maniwar (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As the main article recognizes, there are many gradations in the experience and faith of Seventh-day Adventists. Is it wrong to explain those differences? Many Seventh-day Adventists reject the prophet status of Ellen G. White. Many repudiate the doctrine of vicarious substitutionary atonement. What great difference is there between the Adventists that reject many of the foundational doctrines that Ellen White said were essential yet stay in the Church and those that leave the Church for the same doctrinal differences? --e.Shubee 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

E.Shubee, could you please explain what you are trying to accomplish here? I agree with Maniwar that most of your edits are counterproductive. It appears to me that you are pursuing some kind of personal agenda. Remember, Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral resource for the benefit of the general public, not a forum for airing your personal opinions and grudges. Tonicthebrown 03:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
What isn't neutral about this?
The exit movement
While many are joining the Adventist Church in North America each year, a sizable percentage of Adventists are leaving out the back door. According to the General Conference Office of Archives and Statistics, in the past ten years alone, over 1.6 million people have requested that their SDA membership be dropped. The annual growth rate within the church has gone from approximately 6%, ten years ago, to a record low of 3.98%. Prominent among the former members who have left the Seventh-day Adventist Church are Mark Martin,[1] pastor of a 12,000 member Calvary Chapel in Arizona; Dirk Anderson[2] with his impacting Ellen White website; Dale Ratzlaff,[3] the "fountainhead of the Adventist critics" according to Jud Lake, Adventist apologist at Southern Adventist University; and the group FormerAdventist.com[4] managed by the editorial team of Proclamation magazine--a magazine that caused the Michigan Conference to address it directly at its annual pastors council.
It was requested that the critical links be put into paragraph form. I wanted to help. --e.Shubee 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that you intended to help. However, your "exit movement" entry comes across as an attack on the SDA church. For example, the phrase "Adventists are leaving out the back door". That is not appropriate encyclopedic wording. The paragraph as a whole has a sustained negative tone. If you rewrote it in a more neutral/factual way, it might be acceptable. Regards Tonicthebrown 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind if anyone here would want to improve the paragraph. I can't do everything. Since the context is based on critical links and unwelcome facts, of course it's negative. How many word changes do you believe are required to state the exact same facts yet be fully encyclopedic? --e.Shubee 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The talk page is for talk. Please answer my question:
As the main article recognizes, there are many gradations in the experience and faith of Seventh-day Adventists. Is it wrong to explain those differences? Many Seventh-day Adventists reject the prophet status of Ellen G. White. Many repudiate the doctrine of vicarious substitutionary atonement. What great difference is there between the Adventists that reject many of the foundational doctrines that Ellen White said were essential yet stay in the Church and those that leave the Church for the same doctrinal differences? --e.Shubee 03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that these differences are already adequately explained under theological subcultures. There is no need for greater detail in this article, as such detail can be found in other articles: Historic Adventist, Progressive Adventist. Tonicthebrown 06:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess I do not fully understand your question, nor why you are asking it. Can you please reword it in a more straightforward fashion? Tonicthebrown 06:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ exAdventist Outreach (formerly SDAOutreach.org)
  2. ^ The Ellen White Research Project
  3. ^ Life Assurance Ministries
  4. ^ Former Adventist Fellowship Online