Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church

Appropriate re-directs

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Request for a member to volunteer as a somewhat official gatekeeper

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)

Adventist biographies

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)

WikiProject scope

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)

No category for people who have converted to this religion

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)

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)

Here's an example: List_of_converts_to_the_Catholic_Church

Remove churches that "Observe both Saturday and Sunday"

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)

Change the title of "Sabbath-keeping churches"?

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)

Three Angels Broadcasting Network

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)