Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church

Latest comment: 2 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic User script to detect unreliable sources
WikiProject iconChristianity: Adventist Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church.

WP 1.0 bot announcement

edit

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA reassessment of Seventh-day Adventist Church

edit

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seventh-day Adventist Church articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

edit

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Seventh-day Adventist Church articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

At Talk:Adventist studies I have proposed enlarging the existing merge to the goal of merging and deleting the whole article. Let me know your thoughts there, thanks. JJB 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity portals

edit

I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Historicism (Christianity)

edit

Your review of the article Historicism (Christianity) is requested. A new editor has begun to revise it substantially and some oversight is needed in that regard. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Request for input in discussion forum

edit

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011

ARTICLE DELETION NOTICE

edit

An article within the scope of this project, Generation of Youth for Christ‎‎, has been nominated for deletion. You can weigh in here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation of Youth for Christ‎‎. – Lionel (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Appropriate re-directs

edit

I am concerned about two redirects:

both Conservative Adventism and Conservative Adventist redirect to Historic Adventism. I'm personally uncomfortable with this, because in Oregon there was a group called the "Historical Seventh-Day Adventist Church" which was very much against the General Conference. I'm disclosing my personal bias. Perhaps "Historic Adventist" is a label that conservative Adventists in most locations identify with, but most conservative Adventists I know tend to be highly supportive of the General Conference. Would a few of our illustrious editors take a look at this? I know that defining nomenclature in Adventist theology is a minefield, so I apologize in advance for any problems I may be inadvertently causing. 78.26 (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi 78.26, I have a few ideas. Don't worry about the redirects. On the Historic Adventism article notice where it says:
"Historic Adventism has also been applied by some to any Adventists that adhere to the historical teachings of the church as reflected in the church's fundamental beliefs such as the Sabbath or the Spirit of Prophecy. The term 'Conservative Adventist' for these individuals is synonymous with 'Historic Adventist'."
Let's expand this paragraph. Find reliable third party sources that define the terms. Perhaps we can work on this together. Let me know. Also, at some point the main Seventh-day Adventist article should have a section documenting the liberal-conservative divide within Adventism. We would need to find third party sources that describe this feature of Adventism. Again, rather than being concerned about the redirects, work the articles as they currently exist. Find third party sources that say what you think should be said. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks for your thoughts. I guess my concern with the re-directs is that while Historic Adventists would probably consider themselves conservative, many self-described conservative Adventists would not consider themselves "Historic". In fact most of the self-described conservative Adventists I know don't even have a problem with Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. I would rather that these are re-directed to Seventh-day Adventist theology rather than here. All this aside, I agree that expanding the paragraph is a fantastic idea, and I'm more than willing to help, and the section you mention for the main article is sorely needed and probably long-overdue. I feel rather unqualified to edit this. I consider myself a "moderate" SDA (do we need article for this?) but think that the Church needs both the conservative and liberal factions, so long as they remain based in scripture. Anyway, I don't think finding third-party references on the subject would be difficult. The difficulty would be finding objective, academic sources. An oxymoron? <grin> 78.26 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • One person has compared the liberal and conservative factions in an organization to two oars on a rowboat. If only one oar functions, the boat goes in circles. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Militant atheism

edit

Please see the discussion at Talk:Militant atheism#Split article. – Lionel (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Leonard R. Brand AfD

edit

Hi all, I have noted that the Leonard R. Brand article, created October 2007, has been nominated for deletion. Expert advice regarding the article or Brand's notability is welcomed. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

AfD

edit

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denton E. Rebok. If anyone can provide more sources for this article that would be good. I am not an expert but he seems to be a fairly important person in his field, but as it is the article does not establish that WP-wise. BigJim707 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Proposed redirection of Christianity subproject talk pages

edit

I have recently started discussion about possibly eliminating the use of a separate talk page for it here. Input from any interested editors is very welcome and encouraged. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nominated for deletion: Homosexuality and Seventh-day Adventism

edit

This article has been nominated for deletion: Homosexuality and Seventh-day Adventism. If you want to weigh in on this discussion go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Seventh-day Adventism. – Lionel (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Proposed changes to main project page

edit

I think it would make sense to maybe alter the main project pages of the various groups and WikiProjects which directly and more or less exclusively relate to Christianity in a broad sense into pages similar to those of the various units of the Military History WikiProject, like, for instance, WP:FMH. Would it be agreeable to the members here to make such an alteration, and, maybe, turn the extant project talk page into a redirect to the new Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard? I think doing so would probably increase the number of editors who see any relevant notices, and might increase the number of editors working on the related content. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Request for a member to volunteer as a somewhat official gatekeeper

edit

More or less as a follow-up to the subject immediately above, I was wondering if there would be any individuals willing to step forward to serve as "gatekeepers" for any matters relating to this topic and its associated articles. They would probably, primarily, just monitor the related content, and bring to the attention of the editors of Christianity related content any extant problems regarding POV, requests for peer review and maybe GA and FA candidacy and review, and similar functions. And, if and when we have elections for coordinators again, like those at WP:MILHIST, for instance, I would myself like to see such individuals be candidates for such posts. Anyway, anyone interested? John Carter (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

AfD - Chapel Records

edit

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapel Records. Can anyone help me rescue this article? The record label has been very significant in the course of Adventist Music, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, heyday of Del Decker, King's Heralds, Heritage Singers, etc. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

edit

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject X is live!

edit
 

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Daniel 7

edit

I was reading the article in the headline, and I bumped into the section Seventh-Day Adventists:

Concerning the "little horn", interpreters of the Historicist school (e.g. Adventist) identify the "little horn" as Papal Rome that came to power among the 10 Barbarians tribes (the 10 horns) that had broken up the Pagan Roman empire. The reference to changing "times and law" (Daniel 7:25) refers to the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The "time, times and half a time" (Daniel 7:25) was the 1260 years spanning 538 AD and 1798 AD, when the Roman Church dominated the Christian world. (See Day-year principle for details)

The text above is pretty good, the problem is that there are no citations or referencences. I do have material supporting the text, but it's in Spanish. If anyone here has a book at home about this topic, I'd be thankfull if he/she provides a nice citation. Best regards, --Cristian ] Yes? 01:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Adventist biographies

edit

I have been working on fixing the pages that link to Seventh-day Adventist Church to avoid redirects. I just ran across about 4 biographies in a row (James R. Nix, George R. Knight, etc.) that all list occupations in a box in the upper right, sometimes with other information. I guess this is okay, though it would be better if the person doing it created a regular biography box instead. But the main issue I have with each of these is that the first line under the "occupation" heading is "Seventh-day Adventist" or "Seventh-day Adventists" (even worse), which, last time I checked, are not actual professions. I agree that being Adventist is an important part of the life of these people, and has significant effect on their professions, but that doesn't make belonging to the denomination into an occupation on its own. On some of the biographies I have left comments on the corresponding talk pages, but now that I see there is a trend, I thought I'd bring it up here. I think that line should simply be removed, though I did try to remove the <br> on one of them, so that it read "Seventh-day Adventist Historian," "Historian" being what was listed as the next occupation. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

edit
You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

 
  • Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in reigion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject scope

edit

I'm wondering if there would be any objection to broadening the scope of the WikiProject to include other Adventist denominations and, accordingly, to renaming the project WikiProject Adventism. While distinct, the other denominations are closely related, and it seems that some (non–Seventh-day) Adventist articles are already tagged by the project. Graham (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

"The Hope of Israel" could not be a Seventh-day Adventist periodical in 1845

edit
The article says "In the Feb. 28, 1845, issue of the Hope of Israel, a Seventh-day Adventist periodical in Portland, Maine, was reprinted in tract form in March, 1845, with the title, Tract, Showing That the Seventh Day Should be Observed as the Sabbath."

The Seventh-Day adventist church did not form until 1863, 18 years after the tract was printed. Steven J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.205.132 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it would be an Adventist/Millerite publication. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

No category for people who have converted to this religion

edit

There is no category for people who have converted to or joined the Seventh-day Adventist church on English Wikipedia. But what should this category be called? Category:Converts to Seventh-day Adventism? Category:Converts to Adventism? Category:Converts to the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Please let me know what you think or if there are any better suggestions. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

If we were a stronger army, we might be able to create a list like the Catholic church has, but honestly I read the page on Pathfinders yesterday and came away frightened by how much work we all have yet to do. 95% of the summer camps haven't even got a stub (my current project). I think this is a back-burner issue for me, but you're welcome to bang away at it. Don't forget to add Prince. Rvanarsdale (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Here's an example: List_of_converts_to_the_Catholic_Church

Ichthus May 2018 is available

edit
* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 11:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

edit

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

edit

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ichthus June 2018 is out now!

edit
* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 04:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ichthus July 2018 is out now!

edit
* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 08:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Remove churches that "Observe both Saturday and Sunday"

edit

The template for "Sabbath-keeping churches" includes a final row of denominations which "Observe both Saturday and Sunday". I don't think this should be part of the template, on two grounds:

1. Anyone who has "two Sabbaths per week" is not observing the Sabbath. To observe the Sabbath means to work six days then make Saturday a special day of rest. It is therefore impossible, by definition, to observe the Sabbath twice per week. I don't think anyone would claim to have two Sabbaths per week.

2. The churches listed do not in fact claim to have two Sabbaths per week. Nor do they observe the Sabbath on Sundays. They consider Sunday special as it's the day of the Lord's Resurrection. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sabbath, so those churches should be moved to the category of churches which keep the Sabbath. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Change the title of "Sabbath-keeping churches"?

edit

This is really more of a question or suggestion for others to consider, and reject if they see fit. The template titled "Sabbath-keeping churches" - would it perhaps be useful to change the title to "Sabbath-observing churches", "Sabbath-practising churches", or "Sabbath-maintaining churches"?

I ask because "keep" is a distinctly legalistic word (you either "keep" the rules or you break them). This kind of language fits in perfectly with legalistic denominations such as Adventism. However, it precludes adding Christian denominations to the list who reject legalism but still practise Mosaic Law, including the Sabbaths and feasts.

Then again, I do not know if there are many (or any) denominations like that. I am only really speaking from my own perspective, as a Christian who practices Mosaic Law in the spirit of the New Covenant. To me, the Sabbath is of the utmost importance and I would never wish to do any labor on a Saturday, or even leave the house, yet I certainly do not "keep" the Sabbath, since that kind of language (to me) is an Old Covenant way of thinking which Galatians utterly refutes. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Three Angels Broadcasting Network

edit

Three Angels Broadcasting Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Hello! I came across this article on 3ABN, and I was mystified regarding their affiliation with the Adventist church. Their "About" page explicitly disclaims a relationship, but I did a little research, and apparently they are known as a supporting ministry and have quite a bit of affiliation with the Adventist church! This article, and associated articles as well, have quite a bit of the Adventist trappings: portals, infoboxes, etc. It would behoove the maintainers to include this information in the article, along with reliable secondary sources which accurately describe the Adventist relationship. When I first came across this, I was inclined to delete all the Adventist stuff, because the article contained not even a whiff of an assertion that they are affiliated, much less a reliable source to support that. Thanks! 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

A new newsletter directory is out!

edit

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

MfD nomination of Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church

edit

  Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

edit

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

RfC on ecclesiastical titles

edit

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ron Oden up for deletion

edit

Hard to believe sources aren’t plentiful for this mayor of Palm Springs. First openly gay mayor of a California city. Ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister. 7&6=thirteen () 19:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

User script to detect unreliable sources

edit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply