Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

Seventh-day Adventist Church Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church 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.Seventh-day Adventist ChurchWikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist ChurchTemplate:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist ChurchSeventh-day Adventist Church articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:
edit history watch purge Expand "Glacier View Controversy" section, to include more background, history, theological issues, and details of the Glacier View meeting itself Add to "Adventist Responses to Criticisms" section, ideally with material from Adventist scholars etc.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I have protected the article due to a spate of POV editing and some complaints emailed to WP:OTRS. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I put a note on your talk page about the issue. Feel free to ignore it. Ansell 02:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 20 December 2007, see discussion.
Keep, 17 December 2006, see discussion.

Reasons to delete the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church entry

The claim that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church meets Wikipedia standards is ludicrous. The article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church should be deleted for the reasons listed here. --E.Shubee 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to not delete the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church entry

To respond to the claims of E.Shubee:

1) Claim: That the links on the page Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church are "circular" and "self authenticating"

I am not sure what kinds of links he would expect about a Church. Since a religion is by definition a set of "beliefs" and practices, the only way to know for certain what a people believe is to ASK them; naturally, therefore, links that reference the beliefs of this movement will largely be composed of what they have written about themselves. Mr. Shubee wrongly alleges that Walter McGill (one of the founders of the CSDA movement) is an editor here. This is incorrect, however certain members of the Church (and again, there are more than 4 of us!) are quite capable of recounting the history and tenets of our religion.

Further, if you look at any of the religion entries on Wikipedia, you will find that the majority of the external links are "self-authenticating," since you cannot scientifically test a religion for doctrinal accuracy. In religion, objectivity forbids editors or commentators from saying whether or not a belief is "bad" or "good," but these beliefs must almost necessarily be described BY the religion's adherents in order to ensure accuracy in reporting. Wikipedia seems to understand this quite well without Mr. Shubee's input; for example, the Baptist entry begins with these as its external links: BWA Heritage and Identity Commission, Baptist Press, Associated Baptist Press, American Baptist Historical Society, Baptist History and Heritage Society, etc., etc.

2) Claim: "The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a Wikipedia entry because the squatting Wikipedia editors that control the Adventist pages as if they were their very own, believe in the claims of Walter McGill but only because he refuses to follow Wikipedia standards, claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist, and has no spiritual discernment."

Not only is this a personal attack on both the Church and Wikipedia editors, but it also demonstrates remakable ignorance about both of these. Walter McGill has never, to my knowledge, posted anything to Wikipedia, and independent editors would have no reason to believe any claims he made even if he did. If Mr. Shubee has a problem with the CSDA entry, he undoubtedly has it with me, as I am the one who has done most of the recent work on the page. That the entry is incomplete I freely acknowledge; however, it is not for lack of information or objectivity, but lack of TIME, as our church is currently being sued by the Conference under whose jurisdiction Mr. Shubee operates, and we have to prioritize our resources. I do intend to continue adding information about our beliefs and the current events regarding the litigation against us as time permits, although I imagine I will have to resort to actually writing what CSDAs say about their own beliefs. This is in line with other religious entries in Wikipedia, and I trust therefore that this will be seen as reasonable.

3) Claim: "public records indicate that his academy only has three students."

The academy existed for just a few months in a very rural area of the United States. There was a lack of interest, and it effectively closed down. If Churches are going to be taken to task for every attempt at an outreach that did not work out as they expected, we should have much more to say about every system of faith that ever existed, including mainstream Adventism. The "evidence" collected against the CSDA movement by this editor appear to be a mass of misconstrued and biased snippets from the history of a very young and often-opposed religion.

4) Claim: "Sure, McGill says that he also has church members in Africa and Australia, but they all live in the bush and it's virtually impossible to verify their existence."

This statement borders at least on nationalistic elitism. The moment culturally ignorant people hear about "Africa" and "Australia," images of uneducated, hut-dwelling bushmen come to mind. Even pseudo-intellectuals should know better than to make such charged statements as this while attempting to maintain some degree of credibility in a community striving for objective standards.

5) Claim: "That Christians must use the names יהוה (Yahweh) and יהושע (Yahshua) for the Father and Son in worship."

Even the statements made about our beliefs are poorly researched, and therefore completely wrong. If this editor had read our statements of belief, which he claims to be capable of critiquing, he would have known that while we prefer to use these names in our personal worship, we do NOT use them exclusively even among ourselves, much less do we say that "Christians" in any kind of general sense must use these names.

6) Claim: "That Christians must keep the New Moons and some of the Annual Feasts found in the Old Testament."

Also false. We do believe that New Moons are important for a Church's cleansing on a personal and social level, but we do not believe that the Annual Feasts "must" be kept. We believe that they are useful teaching tools, and that those united with the movement in spirit will make every reasonable attempt to attend, but these times are seen more along the lines of a spiritual family reunion than a command from Heaven.

Finally, I am saddened to see that Mr. Shubee would go so far as to threaten Wikipedia itself with the SDA Church's trademark. This is one of the primary reasons the CSDA movement separated from the Conference in the first place because, if the leaders are unable to convince people of their position (in religion, politics, or law) by discussion and diplomacy, they quickly and unashamedly resort to force, as evidenced by the lawsuit in which we are currently involved. We do not accept this course of action as Christian, particularly not Protestant, in nature.

I believe that this page represents an important contribution to the wealth of knowledge about Adventism in general and Adventist-related movements, and therefore request that a) the entry be allowed to remain as we continue to add information as time permits, b) that any criticism (we welcome constructive criticism) be of an objective and non-doctrine-driven nature, and c) that we be allowed to pursue our work (at least on this website) without threats of legal action and spiritual damnation. Zahakiel 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

1. The point about circularity and self-authentication is that Wikipedia requires you to have reliable references to back up your article. You just can't quote yourself. Who else acknowledges your existence? You can't use yellowbook.com. The two most authoritative references that you can use are the first two footnotes of The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. You shouldn't be hiding the fact that CSDA is well known for conduct that is unconscionable, unfair and deceptive. Did you notify Wikipedia that CSDA is breaking federal and state law and that this fact might embarrass them in the future? Don't you think that this would be a polite thing to do?

2. I agree that this statement wasn't proven but I believe that it can be proven true. Note however that it's not the main point or overriding theme of The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church.

3. Thanks for clearing that up. Did you notice that the source given in the three footnotes for CSDA Academy come from The Official Web Site of the State of Tennessee? Those records list the private schools in Tennessee and cover the school years 2006-7, 2005-6 and 2004-5. If you don't have the software to view those files, I recommend the open source software called Open Office. It's free at http://www.openoffice.org/.

Do you care to guess why the state of TN has you on record as a school when you're not? If CSDA applied for state recognition or whatever, don't you think that CSDA should set the record straight with the state?

4. You're misinterpreting the sarcasm. Your article says that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a Fundamentalist Christian movement. It is being pointed out to you that four persons do not constitute a movement in the United States in 2003 and that there is no evidence of a Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church in Canada and there is no evidence of Creation Seventh Day Adventists in Kenya or Australia.

5. Claim 5 is based on a direct quotation from the Wikipedia article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. "The group's more notable beliefs include: ... the keeping of New Moons and some of the Annual Feasts found in the Old Testament, use of the names יהוה (Yahweh) and יהושע (Yahshua) for the Father and Son of the Godhead in worship."

Beliefs in a context of describing what a religious group believes are understood as required. If you're just listing a bunch of optional beliefs or the practices of the group, then you need to rewrite your article.

6. See claim 5. --E.Shubee 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Zahakiel

1. Primary sources, ie, the church documents, are not enough on their own. Secondary documents are generally seen in greater light, ie, has someone commented in a published article to back up the claims that you can find in primary sources. This enables the article to be written in a neutral point of view, without bias towards an editors interpretation of primary sources.

Your personal research is not allowed at all. See the No original research policy.

2. I would contend, that, based on numerous lawsuits between Eugene Schubert] and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, that he is not actually acting "under jurisdiction.

4. Thats a joke that we Aussies all live in the bush right? Otherwise I would not have commented on it at all.

6 You are not here to "pursue your work". Wikipedia editors are neutral, and only comment on outside facts. I suggest you review your contributions in this light. Ansell 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ansell

Thank you for your statements.

1) Be assured, as many secondary and independent documents as possible will be utilized to verify that which CAN be verified from outside the Church itself. However, as I pointed out upon reviewing other religious entries, statements about a religion's doctrinal standpoint (specifically) are most accurate from the "horse's mouth." The Baptist entry references Baptist websites, the Anglican entry references Anglican websites, etc., and I am aware of the "no personal research" policy. In looking over the article, I don't find any place where a reference points to any members' statements, except for the "history of the Church" that would only be known by founders (myself excluded) anyway, so I think everything so far is in order, pending additions.

2) I am sure he isn't acting on their behalf, and is as much an embarassment to them as to us, that was not the intention of the statement. I am merely pointing out the likeness of method, and the fact that he is a member of that particular system.

4) None of the Aussies I have met live in the bush... at least not on a regular basis (campers) :) I realize Mr. E's statement was sarcastic, but it was in extremely poor taste.

6) No doubt. If you find any contributions from me that appear to present any of the facts about this Church in a biased light, I will certainly revise them. Thus far, I have merely stated what the history and beliefs happen to be, and have not made any judgements that these are "true," "good," or even "Biblical" in nature; they are simply the things that have happened or are believed by the members. Thanks again.

Zahakiel 01:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Uninvited Co., Inc.

I hereby withdraw my earlier request that the Wikipedia article be removed. I also retract my previous error in saying that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church lacks notability. In the interests of justice, I ask that the article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church be unlocked and corrected to reflect the verifiable sources, admissions and facts revealed on the page Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Notorious deception, delusion and fraud does meet the minimum threshold of notability. --E.Shubee 12:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I have labelled statements which have so far been unreferenced, including possible weasel words with tags so that they can each be individually referenced. Note that the statements which are non-church related cannot be reliably referenced using church material among other categories of unreliable sources. Also, an investigation of the Undue weight policy may be applicable to some statements. Ansell 00:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding References

I have begun to add references from third-party sources regarding non-doctrinal material and on doctrines when the movement is listed with other groups with similar beliefs (e.g., non-trinitarian Churches). Zahakiel 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fundamentalist Christian" title

The first reference at the end of the sentence that the church is a "fundamentalist Christian" one references an official statement of beliefs that includes the statement, "The Bible alone is the standard for all faith-- doctrine and practice."

An antagonistic editor has been insisting on further evidence that the individuals truly believe this, in effect asking for an independent source to verify personal beliefs. I am attempting to follow the evidently more experienced User:Ansel's statement, "Note that the statements which are non-church related cannot be reliably referenced using church material among other categories of unreliable sources." The fundamental, Christian nature of a movement is inherently "church related," therefore I would think that an official statement of beliefs would suffice. If I am in error in thinking that this is is excessive, I wish to be corrected, but as I noted several times in my editing alterations, what is being required by this particular critic does not appear to be a Wikipedia standard of operation. Zahakiel 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you interpret someone placing a citation needed tag immediately following your description of the CSDA Church as a movement, a denial of your fundamental beliefs? Four individuals do not constitute a movement. You obviously think that you have scores of followers but the truth is, you have no proof. --E.Shubee 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement: "A diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal: the antislavery movement; the realistic movement in art." [Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006] You are using an absurdly out of date statement from the year 2003 to continue to insist on this "four persons" nonsense, but the fact that you would even concede "four" is enough to meet the dictionary definition; a "group" under the most narrow of constraints is "two or more." Even by the rigid standards of mathematics, a group is a "non-empty" set. If you are not careful, people are going to begin to doubt your objectivity regarding this entry. Zahakiel 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you agree that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was formed in 1988 [1] and had only 4 members in December of 2003 [2] and there being no objective evidence of notability (other than lawless activities, incredible delusion and marvelous deception), can we agree that your movement is going nowhere really really fast? --E.Shubee 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not agree that the movement had only 4 members in 2003; if you read your own self-referenced forum, you will find that the statement you are clinging to was regarding then-baptized members in the United States only, and affirmed by a witness whose credibility you seem to be making a small career of denying; I have no problem with the statement if it is placed in its right setting, yet you will tout that as a "fact" of the movement in 2006 with little reservation, because it seems to fit whatever agenda you happen to have adopted. I agreed that you accorded the movement at least that many, making your criticism of the CSDA Church as a "movement" groundless. No doubt you will find other things to complain about now that this is established based on a dictionary definition.

In short answer to your question above: No.

And further, what I think about it has nothing to do with what is being presented in this entry, whether I agree with you on this POV or not. I'm not going to get personal with you, Mr. Shubert, other than to point out, in as diplomatic a language as possible, the implications of your behavior regarding this entry thus far. Zahakiel 17:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from Wikipedia 1.0

I removed the template incorporating this page into Wikipedia 1.0. The article states that there are just two main congregations. This is hardly notable at all - maybe enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia (barely, or even doubtful), but certainly not worthy of including with Wikipedia 1.0 WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. -Colin MacLaurin 19:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are talking about. The template does not necessarily warrant inclusion into Wikipedia 1.0. It is more about listing articles that are related to the project. I have demoted its importance to the lowest category. MyNam e IsNotBob 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the idea is to list all articles related to the project, then perhap it merits inclusion; that is, assuming that it is even notable enough to be included in Wikipedia itself. I had a quick scan of the "low" priority articles, and saw many than I consider to be significantly more notable than this one, such as George McCready Price who you could say initiated the Creation science movement. If it is to be included, then there are many many other Adventist-related articles which have currently not been included. I recently added a whole lot more to the relevant categories. In conclusion, I propose:

That either this article be removed from Wikipedia 1.0, or that every known Adventist article be included - that is, all those in Category:Seventh-day Adventist Church and its subcategories. -Colin MacLaurin 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is that every known Adventist article should be included. MyNam e IsNotBob 07:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the street address for the CSDA church in Canada?

It has been alleged that there is a CSDA church in Canada. If that is true, it should be easy to cite a physical address. What is it? --E.Shubee 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could always send an email to the website and ask. I want you to notice something, and I am sure the other editors have already. First you said this Church did not even exist, then when a picture was provided, you said, "It's only the size of a gas station." Then you said it was not notable, then that this, that and the other thing was wrong with it. This article is not designed for your personal satisfaction, and every time you are shown to be wrong about some accusation or another, you find something else to complain about. Your statements have bordered and, at times crossed, the line of personal attacks on individuals in both your website and your statements about various editors here on Wikipedia. I ask you to kindly desist from your current activities. Zahakiel 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly stated why I don't believe that a Canadian CSDA church exists. Note: You are required to prove notability. If you can't even provide a verifiable address, then it should be obvious to almost everyone that your article is a hoax. --E.Shubee 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.Shubee, please stop linking to your everythingimportant.org site. It is not achieving anything. Also please cease the incessant trollsome behaviour on Adventist affiliated pages. If this article is a hoax, it is probably one of the best executed hoaxes I have ever seen. Why would a fictitious denomination have such an expansive website? MyNam e IsNotBob 07:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four persons and a prominent sign on a converted gas station do not constitute a denomination.

What constitutes an expansive website? How large must a website be to satisfy Wikipedia's standard of notability?

There are twelve references used to support Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, none of them even mention a Canadian Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Having a website listed at http://members.tripod.com/torah_zealots/sacred_names/ doesn't make the listee famous does it? If there is no mention of Creation SDA notability anywhere, how do you rationalize the lack of notability? According to Wikipedia policy, a Wikipedia article must be verifiable. The truth is, I am being harassed just for pointing out that there isn't even a verifiable physical address or picture of the disputed Canadian Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church.

What kind of a Christian gets angry at the opportunity to share the exact location of his church and when sacred services are scheduled? --E.Shubee 20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight... YOU are claiming to be the victim of harassment?? No one is forcing you to attempt to contribute to this entry. I am not angry that you asked for the location of the Church; I merely said you may email the website owner and ask him where the address of the meetings are held - I live in Florida, not Canada, and have never had occasion or desire to ask. If you are unwilling to do this, having a burden to know where CSDAs meet in British Columbia, what you are now claiming amounts to willful ignorance. And again with this "four persons" nonsense from the out-of-date statement of several years ago... this is a childish and foolish misuse of dated, poorly utilized resources in a misguided attempt to disseminate falsehood. By the way, the word "denomination" does not appear in the entry; a "movement" is different from a denomination (the Church does not maintain this as an accurate label) and the two are separated by far more significant concepts than the number of members, so it is a moot point re: the members and the gas station... and we've been over this before.

You continue to switch back and forth regarding whether or not you consider this Church notable, even if it is only for what you consider "fraud;" but it has become abundantly clear that you will say whatever is convenient at that moment to cast negative aspersions upon it, believing that you are on some kind of personal crusade against the individuals and groups that you consider "apostate Adventists." This entirely disqualifies you as an objective contributor to any Adventist-related site, as your past offerings have made manifestly obvious. Zahakiel 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to contact a person who professes unparalleled righteousness yet has been judged by the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center as having misrepresented the Seventh-day Adventist Church in "bad faith." [3]

Furthermore, I'm not required to substantiate any of your unproven claims. You are. --E.Shubee 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude is increasingly stubborn, E.Shubee. Please consider the nature of your remarks before making them, your last comment borders on a personal attack. It would be in your best interest to go and make some constructive contributions to wikipedia before continuing in your campaign against everything Adventist on this site. Then you might earn some respect from other editors. MyNam e IsNotBob 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter McGill believes

Walter McGill believes:

That his group has achieved complete victory over known sins.

That the Seventh-day Adventist church is Babylon.

That he has a mandate from God to call true Adventists out of Babylon to join his organization.

That the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is issuing the mark of the beast, thus fulfilling Revelation 13:16-17.

MyNameIsNotBob's editorial support of Walter McGill's hoax is extreme, militant anti-Adventism. I am a true Seventh-day Adventist. He supports the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church hoax by purposely overlooking Wikipedia rules on notability and verifiability. --E.Shubee 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Walter McGill or the CSDA Church believe are religious issues, and have no place in a discussion of whether or not a Wikipedia article is useful or warranted. That you consider yourself a "true Seventh-day Adventist" is immaterial to anything but your own convictions, which you are free to have... but does not reflect on anything to do with this article. I find it curious, though, that you give Gospel import to the "judgment" of the World Intellectual Property Organization against a religious organization, believing them capable of deciding what is done in "bad faith" (a secular organization judging a church?). This is not something I believe "true" Seventh-day Adventists are capable of doing... but I'd be willing to discuss that with you in a more appropriate setting.

Though I would not agree with your reasons, you conceded that the CSDA movement was notable:

"I also retract my previous error in saying that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church lacks notability." [23 October 2006]

As for verifiable, references continue to be added. This process would have gone a lot faster had there not been a large number of repeated, irresponsible accusations and attempts to include personal attacks against the organization, its members, and other independent Wikipedia editors attempting to retain or include an objective statement of facts. Zahakiel 16:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike what you have written, the judgments of the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center have both notability and verifiability.

Please understand the context. I said, "Notorious deception, delusion and fraud does meet the minimum threshold of notability." But the article isn't written that way. The hoax in the current article is that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church presents itself as a legitimate organization. The facts are that they have been sued for their illegitimacy.

As for your willingness to prove verifiability, I have asked you for a simple street address for the CSDA church in Canada and you told me to get it myself. --E.Shubee 17:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, the WIPO decisions are verifiable and notable; I have no issue with that. My concern is that someone claiming to be a "true Adventist" would give them the authority to determine matters of faith... remember, you are the one who keeps bringing up the beliefs of an individual as a reason to have or not have the entry.

You write: "The hoax in the current article is that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church presents itself as a legitimate organization. The facts are that they have been sued for their illegitimacy." This is not true. They have been sued because they continue to use the name "Seventh-day Adventist" FOR their organization. That there IS such an organization, and that it has members and operates as a Church is the reason why the Conference took an interest in the first place. They may not want the Church to call itself an "Adventist" Church, but they are not questioning the existence of said relgious system.

You write: "As for your willingness to prove verifiability, I have asked you for a simple street address for the CSDA church in Canada and you told me to get it myself." That's right... get it yourself; it's available, I am sure, from the site owner. I don't know it. By the way, laziness and/or unwillingness to dialogue with people you consider "beneath you" is not evidence for the non-existence of something. Now, I think this has gone on long enough... you are the only person raising such absurd objections, so I do not consider it a matter worth wasting time on. Zahakiel 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verify

If a reliable source is not found to substantiate the existance of this movement in a very short period of time I will nominate it for deletion. None of the current sources substantiate the existance of this movement. JBKramer 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious deception, delusion and fraud does meet the minimum threshold of notability. Legal documents have been cited on a despised website [4] that proves to a high degree of certainty that Walter McGill a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church misrepresents himself as a legitimate Seventh-day Adventist Church. [5] [6] The author of the Wikipedia article admits that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was formed in 1988 and had only 4 baptized members in the United States in December of 2003. The current article need only be amended to state the true facts of the case. --E.Shubee 17:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the church is listed among several others that use "sacred names" by an independent site, http://members.tripod.com/torah_zealots/sacred_names/ would indicate that they are known to other communities. I do agree, however, that more should be added to bolster this singular reference. I will include the facts of the WIPO arbitration about the CSDA websites and the legal documents regarding the current lawsuit by the General Conference of SDAs in a neutral tone (this is not been done before), time permitting. Zahakiel 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tripod sites are not reliable sources. JBKramer 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the photographic evidence that Walter McGill is the pastor of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and has a respectable following? --E.Shubee 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To JB - Understood. There are a number of references not currently available on the internet (e.g., newsletters by independent Adventist groups) that mention court cases and disputes over domain names to be added. There are also official documents pertaining to those cases;they were previously added by a hostile editor in a non-neutral tone, so I will re-add them using more acceptable terminology. See below:

To Shubert - you have been repeatedly warned by a number of editors and administrators about trying to use that link for anything productive. Zahakiel 22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter McGill, the link that exposes you meets Wikipedia standards. Your article does not. --E.Shubee 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name is David Aguilar; contrary to your constant allegations, I am not the same person as Walter McGill, nor am I updating this article (I did not initiate it, as the history shows) on his behalf. Please take your personal conflicts with individuals (especially if they are not me) off of this site. Zahakiel 22:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim to not be Walter McGill is irrelevant because Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a church of mirrors that fraudulently masquerades as an association of multiple churches. [7]. In other words, your personal endorsement of Walter McGill and everything else you say can't be considered more honorable than the hoax he promotes through supposedly independent domain names. --E.Shubee 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way. But now I would prefer (in the future) if you must address me, that you call me by either my editor handle or my real name. Thank you for your courtesy in this regard, and you would not wish to be promoting false information, I am sure. Now, I don't have the energy to invest in an edit war at the moment, so your patience is appreciated. Zahakiel 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a verification that this church exists from a reliable source. Please provide one below. Do not provide anything else. Do so now. JBKramer 01:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a court case, as previously noted above and on the page, is sufficient notice that the church is not a made up entity. Ansell 07:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal Controversy section

I have added a section called "Legal controversy" intended to summarize the legal issues facing this organization, both on and off the internet. The usual hostile editor has been attempting to split the two issues described into separate sections for the sole purpose of introducing more derrogatory terms in the article than is warranted (the WIPO decision, for example, is quoted verbatim in several places), and has shown himself unwilling to listen to other editors' warnings and advice regarding his contributions. In order to keep this article as short, but informative as possible, I believe it is reasonable to simply summarize ALL the appropriate data under one heading, and avoid using unnecessarily prejudicial terms simply because one individual happens not to like this Church and its members. The editor in question has made work on this article something of a trial, at every turn seeking to provide information that is either false or of an inappropriately inflammatory nature. I would prefer that as neutral a set of terms be used to describe the issues involved without unnecessary "help" from an individual who has already made some serious accusations against this Church, other editors, and myself personally. Zahakiel 19:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no controversy. The World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center found Walter McGill a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church guilty of misleading consumers. It's a direct quote taken verbatim from their published judgment. No one with any notability says otherwise. --E.Shubee 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting it into two is okay; I just do not want the article to have undue length. In any event, I agree with the third party alteration; I have removed the now redundant subheading under WIPO. Zahakiel 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WIPO ruling is clearly against Walter McGill and not against domain names. --E.Shubee 21:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling is ON the domain names, as the section heading rightly states. Your alterations have the appearance of pettiness. It was unnecessary and reflects your personal biases. Zahakiel 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call on a senior editor to decide. The WIPO ruling against Walter McGill is precise and directly relevant. The title, "WIPO Ruling on Domain Names" is gibberish. --E.Shubee 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind if another editor decides it. I think both are "correct," but that the original is less personally worded. I disgree that it is "gibberish" since it uses standard English and conveys exactly what the ruling was on. In addition, the article is about the Church, and not Walter McGill - you seem to believe that one is limited to the other, (and highly dislike both) but that is not so. The domain names in question were official Church domains, and therefore I believe the first heading is more relevant. I am not looking for conflict, but I believe entries on Wikipedia should be worded as professionally as possible. Zahakiel 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Eugene. I'm the one who changed the title to "WIPO Ruling on Domain Names" (and started the article in the first place). I am not a member of this Church, have never even met a person of this Church in real life, and don't *want* to be a member of this Church. This isn't a conspiracy to give the CSDA Church a good name, it's an attempt maintaining a completely neutral point of view. I don't understand your personal vendetta against these people, but please leave your bias out of the article. Oh, and I changed "WIPO ruling against Walter McGill" because Mr. McGill wasn't introduced before that section heading and the WIPO case dealt with the issue of the CSDA domain names.Camael 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts in Doctrinal Position

I am sorry for using the "Everythingisimportant" website. I didn't know there was a prohibition on it. Why though are the facts regarding the church members being removed? These facts are important to document the growth of the movement. What policy is being broken by them? Since it is such a small movement, these members are indicative of the direction the movement is taking. Also, the background of McGill and Aguilar is relevant to their claims and the position the movement takes on Prophecy. Finally, those other differing beliefs are important as they are unique amongst Adventist offshoots and are fully cited from their own website, which is being used as one evidence for the groups notability.--PaulTaylor7 09:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information relied on the forum on User:E.Shubee's site to back up an original research statement about the users web-editing habits. As it would be incorrect to assume that any internet forum user was infact the user in question, references to them as such is not for wikipedia. Information about their history that can be found without using everythingimportant.org would be useful. 59.167.104.40 10:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sympathetic that E.Shubee has exibited a poor spirit in some of his dealings here. I am interested though that his non-forum webpage dealing with the CSDA movement is not permitted to be used as a relevant link. It is rather biased and one-sided that the offical website and forum alone is permitted. --PaulTaylor7 11:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the origin of the statements, but the errors in the statements themselves. I have removed several statements that, if not deliberately misleading, are terribly misinformed. The Academy was not "closed due to legal action," the current school year has been suspended, I believe, due to the time required by the local TN members to deal with the lawsuit - the Academy is neither closed down, nor is its suspension the direct result of action taken against it. I have never heard anything about Brimsmead and Wright taught in the CSDA church, and no reference has ever been posted for this repeated assertion. I absolutely and heartily deny being a "former spiritualist" - the link used to reference that was my Wikipedia user page, for some bizzarre reason. The names of members is irrelevant and the number of baptized members in 2003 (it used to read 2005) is not an accurate statement. I hope this will not be a continuing trend - I consider most of what has been added to be a very unfortunate misstatement of the facts of this Church, to put that very kindly.

Re: Mr. Taylor's statement that the use of only the official page and forum is permitted is not accurate - most of the references that deal with what the Church believes is taken from the Church website, but information validationg the existence and practices as they related to other groups are taken from independent sources. Mr. Shubert's statements, particularly if they are the origin of the misinformation I have removed, should obviously not be allowed because his bias tends to have him reporting faulty information, as has been demonstrated on several occasions. Zahakiel 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Academy", I quote from the official page [[8]] that "2006-2007 School Year Suspended by General Conference Lawsuit." A lawsuit sounds very much to me like "legal action". From my understanding, Wikipedia is meant to be a non-biased reference work. If it is true, then there shouldn't be a problem with it. This admission on their own site, as well as the sources which are available on E.Shubee's site (regardless of the problems with the man, they are still sourced). The matter of the Academy is not irrelevant to provide indication of past endeavours of a movement which considers itself "the Church".

As to the matter of the history of Mr. McGill, I think that a little background is important where there is a man claims to be a prophet. The Shepherd's Rod page contains background information about Victor Houteff, it's founder. As well as this, it is not as if the information about Mr. McGill is incorrect - it was all adapted from his own testimony page. Also, does Mr. Zahakiel, who I understand to be David Aguilar, one of the "prophets" of the movement, deny that he has a background in the occult? Does he also deny that his books, the Sar'im Chronicles, a major evangelistic tool of his movement, are claimed to be revealed, eyewitness accounts of angels?

As to the matter of the members, does Mr. Zahakiel deny that there were about 4 constant members between 2003 and mid 2005 and that there is a member of that movement called "Light Fox"? If that is so, then the forum of E.Shubee's which contains posts by Light Fox and also one by "Pastor Chick", would become legitimate as a source of information, since the "Official online forum" is linked to from the wiki page. The admission found there that there were only 3 members as at December 2003 was made by "Light Fox" whose signature shows him to be Lucan "Luke" Chartier. This information about membership is relevant to the history of the church. Does Mr. Zahakiel deny any of the facts so far presented?

As to the matter of the more "unique" understandings, from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective, are these also not factual? Are they not referenced also to your site? These are relevant to show other differences between this movement and the mother church. As I see, this wiki page is becoming an advertisement for their movement and not an unbiased source of factual information.

As to the matter of Fred Wright and Robert Brinsmead. I understand that they are not sourced, for the information would come from a collection of people who have previously been affiliated with this movement. Not that this is without source material, it just has not been uploaded to the internet. Does Mr. Zahakiel (who may wish to discuss with Mr. McGill) really deny that these movements are seen as predecessors of their understanding of the Victory message?--PaulTaylor7 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question should not be "does he deny", which relies on an editorial opinion in the matter. It should be , is this information needed, in one hundred years will anyone want to know what the internet forum name was for a member, or what was their myspace profile, or who are you claiming a wikipedia editor is in real life.

The last one is particularly worrying, as it hits the centre of the editing community, and can be taken as a personal attack, or worse. Please do not link to ones wikipedia user page (or myspace profile for that matter) as a "reference" for any claims. Ansell 01:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I can concede the comments regarding the internet names. However, whether this movement persists for 100 years or fizzles out, it is of historical interest who four early (and at one time only) members were. It is also important that they had some unique interpretations on different matters, especially where they are distinct from the mother church. It would most certainly matter about the background of two of the most influential of this movement, those who are claiming a prophetic gift. Please. If you are going to edit all that I put up there, please give an adequate explanation for it all so that I can be sure that this is not just a "kangaroo court" style setup, where those who wish to add to this article must not put anything which is going to shed a negative light (however factual that is) on the organisation.--PaulTaylor7 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to make this a "kangaroo court". The question of what negative information cannot be put in, and how it can be represented, must go through both the neutrality and the verifiability criteria. If information is able to pass both of those filters then it is likely to fit. The information that I was removing was not all negative information. I was removing information that was not verified as it used profile information as references. This information is neither published, not reputable as anyone can make up a profile, or a wikipedia account. You will notice that I put back up information about the school that is clearly verified using the source, although it was removed by an editor. Ansell 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I am not sure who you are, but you have some major misinformation going on. I do not know where you got your information, but I do deny, yes, that many of them are "facts." The only things worth replying to are these:

A lawsuit sounds very much to me like "legal action". The statement, as it now reads, gives a false impression of what occurred; the lawsuit did not force closure of the school. The administrators, who have their time taken up with the case, elected to close the school to concentrate ON the lawsuit; no legal action has been taken against the school to force its closure. Until that information is accurately reflected in the article, it contains wrong information - it now reads "suspended" which is better, at least, than what you tried to say originally.

Again: As to the matter of the members, does Mr. Zahakiel deny that there were about 4 constant members between 2003 and mid 2005 and that there is a member of that movement called "Light Fox"? This is the same absurdity Shubert was trying to pull; yes, despite your statement that these are "facts," I deny that there were only four consistent members between 2003 and 2004. What members were active in North America, ON the internet, may have been "about four," but that does not reflect the other membership that, as another hostile editor said in poor taste, may "live in the bush," and don't have the money to put up a Church building so they can prove to certain individuals that they exist. They seem content to know that they exist, and I am content to leave it at that.

Also, does Mr. Zahakiel, who I understand to be David Aguilar, one of the "prophets" of the movement, deny that he has a background in the occult? Does he also deny that his books, the Sar'im Chronicles, a major evangelistic tool of his movement, are claimed to be revealed, eyewitness accounts of angels? I will say what I said before, "I absolutely and heartily deny being a 'former spiritualist'" that was the statement said about me in the article, and it is entirely false. I do have a background in the occult, but you know as well as I do that "spiritualism" (contact with the dead) has a particularly negative connotation in Adventism; it is not splitting hairs to make this distinction, particularly since Adventists believe that the dead to not know anything, and Spiritualism is a particularly offensive kind of paganism - the information, and its author (you) were absolutely wrong about that. My past is my past, and this was before I became a Christian, (you do not read about the apostles calling Mary Magadalene "the former prostitute" every time she showed her face - they were a lot kinder than that) but I object to the faulty characterization of even that which came before conversion, and I believe we both know why that is important. As for the books I have written, they speak for themselves, and I have nothing to add to them here.

As to the matter of Fred Wright and Robert Brinsmead. I understand that they are not sourced, for the information would come from a collection of people who have previously been affiliated with this movement. - That would certainly explain why the data is wrong. Former affiliates of a movement are not known for their objectivity; I hope you consider this when choosing your research material.

Does Mr. Zahakiel (who may wish to discuss with Mr. McGill) really deny that these movements are seen as predecessors of their understanding of the Victory message? I had not even recalled hearing of these movements before the Wikipedia entry said so, to be honest with you... and I have been working with this Church for about 5 years - this is how inconsequential those movements are to our current understanding of the victory message. What we do is read the Bible, see what is says, and then do it. That we have had Adventist leaders say the same thing we do is "nice," and that other "offshoot" movements may have said the same thing is "interesting," but ultimately and entirely inconsequential. But of couse, some of this gets into theology, and this forum is hardly the place for that discussion. If you wish to email me and get some solid material on CSDA beliefs before you decide that you make a competent reporter of the "facts," I would welcome the opportunity to dialogue with you in a sober and Christian manner. Until then, I will indeed deny what is not true, and attempt to fix whatever misinformation is placed online about the CSDA church, as I do with any Wikipedia entry, a la the "Golden Rule." Thank you for your time. Zahakiel 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, there has been no solid objection to the background history of Walter McGill, and the information is taken from his personal page, which is on the CSDA site, so why then does it keep being edited?--PaulTaylor7 11:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, please tell me what is wrong with the following: "Mr. McGill is pastor of the Guys congregation and professes to be an "Apostle".</ref> Raised and ordained a Baptist, McGill joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1974, but discouragement caused him to leave the denomination shortly thereafter. His "spiritual dreams" began in 1888 after a period of physical and mental illness.^[1]" and why it was ever a "joke". These are facts. Mr. McGill is the last remaining founder of the CSDA church. He claims to have a prophetic gift. This background, which is available from his own webpage on the csda website, contains this information. How is it wrong?--PaulTaylor7 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1888??? Ansell 03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

References

^ Walter McGill's Homepage and Testimony

NPOV tag

This article is in violation of NPOV so far as it does not have external references to verify the majority of its claims. The external references for the lawsuit fit as is, but without more references it fails by the undue weight and the Self-published sources (online and paper) criteria. The sole basis for all except the lawsuit case is a self-published website by the church.

The alternative if these sources are not found or do not exist is that the page be merge into another page, or deleted under the undue weight criteria as the viewpoints described in the article are held by so few that the article cannot possibly fit NPOV overall. Ansell 05:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the undue weight is unclear. External references are not used solely for the lawsuit; several independent publications (i.e., the featured article in the largest Jackson, MS newspaper in circulation, and the newsletters of independent Adventist groups) are used in conjunctions with statements of faith (that come from the CSDA website) to establish the points presented, both the existence of the movement and its doctrinal claims. Since the movement did begin relatively recently, it does not have a wide range of publications about doctrinal positions published in other sources, but this is no different than any other religious entity, and the CSDA entry is currently the most referenced of all the "other Adventist" groups on the page Adventist. Technically, one or two references could conceivably be used to cover all the "distinctive beliefs" and that would solve the "percentage" issue if one existed. Even so:

I do not see any criteria in the undue weight policy relating to the percentage of references that are independent compared to those that are not. The statement, "In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all," refers to larger articles in which diverse views are being compared. The statement, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not," would be applicable here if the CSDA entry were solely about the viewpoints of the Church; however the legal disputes also associated with the movement because of its separate status from the Conference, and diverse viewpoints, make it not only a current event, but one that is of interest to a number of individuals following SDA-related lawsuits.

Re: Self-published sources (online and paper) - The criteria given under which such sources may be used (as they are, in conjunction with the other sources) appear to be met by those which are used here: Relevant to notability (that is where the beliefs are given), not contentious (do not describe the dispute between those in the movement and those outside of it), not unduly self-serving (appearing for the most part in statements of belief, and not in studies attempting to convince readers of their validity), do not involve third-party claims or statements regarding events not directly related to the subject, and there is no reasonable doubt that these are CSDA sites.

These being the case, criteria restricting articles that exist merely to tell about the viewpoints of a sub-group within a larger set are not applicable, and neither merging nor deletion would be a viable alternative, since "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." There are currently no articles dealing with these particular views within Adventism, and the article as it now stands is not solely dedicated to a declaration of these views. Zahakiel 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for undue weight is infact as you say, because this denomination is developing still. What are the independent Adventist publications you refer to? And could you scan in a copy of the Newspaper, as it has a limited scope of distribution and is not otherwise accessible. The whole concept of undue weight, is with reference to where information is derived from, and how many people have commented on the material. Ironically, we rule out one site because of its authors prominent position in this encyclopedia, and it does not look like many others exist, showing that the denomination is not yet mature or stable enough to have an encyclopedia article written on it

A merging, or a renaming is entirely applicable. The verifiable portion of this page, ie, the trademark case, could be moved to either Criticisms of the Adventist Church (as a single section), or to a page devoted to Trademark cases relating to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The existence of the church is not in question really, what is in question is how well the Neutrality of the article can be verified using a vast majority of online, self-published sources. The reasonable doubt about these being official sources is irrelevant, as the sources are still only from one point of view. There does not exist an independent critique of comment on that part of the article, or one has not been provided so far.

In relation to the small Adventist groups linked from Adventist, I would say that Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, United Seventh-Day Brethren, Advent Christian Church, Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith), Primitive Advent Christian Church are the best referenced, as they use independent sources to verify their claims, notably, the reform movement use the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, which is likely to be a critical independent source. The number of sources on this page do not help with the overall standard of the page, and possibly push it further into non-neutral territory, as other sources are not being found to back up, or even criticize what is being said by the church

You note that some of the pages from the churches website are used for non-contentious claims, however, you fail to realise that, they are not being used at all with relation to other sources, ie, "(as they are, in conjunction with the other sources)"

On a final note, your self-admission that you are a prominent member of the denomination should be looked at in relation to the conflict of interest guideline. Ansell 02:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A few responses:

What are the independent Adventist publications you refer to? - Waymarks and In His Steps are fairly well known independent SDA publications in the United States. I was aware of them even before becoming involved with the Church, at least the names of the editors that do have some worldwide circulation (although I am not certain about their readership in Australia). Scans of these articles ARE available if you believe they should be uploaded.

And could you scan in a copy of the Newspaper, as it has a limited scope of distribution and is not otherwise accessible. - I can have that done.

The whole concept of undue weight, is with reference to where information is derived from, and how many people have commented on the material [...] it does not look like many others exist, showing that the denomination is not yet mature or stable enough to have an encyclopedia article written on it - I can understand the opinion, and this is why I do not object to your shuffling the court/WIPO case to supercede the doctrinal position and history. On the other hand, if it were merely one or the other (the beliefs OR the court case) I could agree to a merge; the fact that there are two separate things going on at the same time seems to me to make it notable in a separate sense than just "something that happened one day in the denomination."

You note that some of the pages from the churches website are used for non-contentious claims, however, you fail to realise that, they are not being used at all with relation to other sources, ie, "(as they are, in conjunction with the other sources)" - I did not mean in conjunction with them in terms of the particular points; to put that simply, independent sources demonstrate that a) the movement is known to independent individuals and b) it is notable enough to be mentioned in independent publications. To answer what the movement IS can only be done in terms of its system of beliefs. Since the publications that mention the Church as an independent Adventist group under legal pressure by the Conference do not go into detail about the beliefs of the Church and why it is "independent," the only reasonable place to go for information on this would be to the statements of the believers. Any independent publication that commented on or critiqued the beliefs and practices would still use, as their primary sources, the statements and publications of the Church anyway. I realize that this does not "look" as elegant as if independent statements of CSDA beliefs were provided, but it is not inherently less valid because it uses the most original source possible and is an inherent factor when dealing with belief systems. Critiques of even the oldest of religious movements amount to commentaries like: "The X Church (as referenced by this or that prominent individual) says this, and here is why it is a good/bad/orthodox/notable/unusual/consistent idea." I do not fail to realize the importance of "face validity," but I don't see how this is sufficient to force a merge or deletion when dealing with an emerging movement (it certainly seems to have generated some interest on Wikipedia).

On a final note, your self-admission that you are a prominent member of the denomination should be looked at in relation to the conflict of interest guideline. - I admit I am a member of this movement, and have from the beginning, yes. I understand that is the reasonable course to have taken. I do not think of myself as a prominent anything, although due to my writing work for the Church others may see that differently. That having been said, I have read through the conflict of interest page (there is a reason it is not a "rule" as I understand from the article) and have always made my edits subject to any neutral opinions; I have considered most of the changes you have made perfectly reasonable, and even some of Shubert's statements (though poorly worded) had merit. I was the one who put forward all the current data regarding the WIPO dispute and the pending court case and, interestingly enough, that is the one part of the entry that has not been subject to much alteration by even the most critical of editors. I believe I can state the facts of the movement as well as anyone who is not involved, and I think my work on the legal controversies section is evidence of that. The only issue in regard to the doctrinal section is the fact that a "significant" number of external sources have not said about the Church's doctrines what it says about them itself. Zahakiel 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Present Truth

I have made an alteration to the wording here: "the emphasis by early leaders on the concept of a continually developing Present truth is not a common factor [between the CSDA movement and the mainstream Church]." This gives the clearly implied impression that the movement is not interested in developing truth to relate with present circumstances. In fact, the CSDA movement, in departing from certain developments in mainstream Adventist thought, have only rejected those particular developments, but not at all the "emphasis" on continuing to seek different ways to apply truth - e.g., the Trademark issue currently at stake in the ongoing lawsuit and the New Moon doctrine that is not present (and never was) in mainstream Adventism.

As user Ansell writes, "the Seventh-day Adventist church has always emphasised present truth, by accepting the prior beliefs as are, the church does not fit with mainstream church thought." This is correct in the specific areas being discussed, (e.g., Trinitarianism) but not at all in such matters as days considered holy, (referenced in the article) and the end time events. The emphasis on developing doctrine is very much present, as much of the "distinct doctrines" section should make plain.

The statement fragment now reads, "although what is considered to be continually developing Present truth has not followed the same lines of thought." I believe this is a noticeably more neutral statement, with no negative implications in regard to what is considered "new light" and what is not, or statements made about the emphasis of seeking new light. Zahakiel 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The distinct doctrines have no major differences to early adventism/millerism, thus not providing evidence for the claim of following present truth. I have reworked it to emphasise the 100 year gap between this church being founded, and the doctrines which it professes to follow. Ansell 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with that; there are a number of distinct doctrines with no precedent at all in Adventism; the sacredness of New Moons, the keeping of feasts, the timing of communions and so on. The reworking is okay, so far as I have read so far, but the first wording was definitely objectionable by implying that there was no emphasis on development. Zahakiel 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

In regards to E.Shubee's personal website, even if a source is added to an article it can be challenged and consensus by many editors over a period of time justifies the removal and exclusion of the sources(s). Many editors have challenged this and so by consensus, the website was removed. This same practice has been used over at Boortz and at President George W. Bush, and Cindy Sheehan, and many other articles. By editor consensus, the personal website will not be allowed. --Maniwar (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the thanks I get for proving that the CSDA article was an outrageous exaggeration and a hoax. The CSDA article has been up for more than 7 months now, trying to pass itself off as both authoritative and encyclopedic, but there is still no evidence that the worldwide church of Walter McGill has more than four members. --e.Shubee 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources aren't reliable enough for Wikipedia except in special instances such as the biography of the author. If you do think you've performed good investigative journalism then have a look at WP:RS and related pages and seek a reputable newspaper or magazine to publish your view. I suggest you discuss the proposed venue with your mentor before submitting so your efforts aren't wasted if some particular source fails to qualify. Then you could cite that source here, plus have the honor of being a published writer (and a few extra dollars or at least a few free copies of that issue to boot). Durova^Charge! 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Present truth tag

To Ansell: I believe you added the "citation needed" to the phrase, "what is considered to be continually developing Present truth[citation needed] has not followed the same lines of thought." Other than the differing beliefs that are separate from those of the mainstream Church, what should a reference to that point entail? Zahakiel 02:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement. Couldn't figure out what I meant originally. Ansell 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Trademark infringement

We should not link to an external web site if that site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)." [9] Wikipedia:Copyrights doesn't say to wait for the outcome in a legal case. Consequently, I believe that it is Wikipedia policy to take a cautious and conservative stand for the owner of a trademark and against any Wiki editor accused of violating it. So why isn't the Plaintiff Seventh-day Adventist Church being given the benefit of the doubt in their lawsuit against Walter McGill, a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church? The latter has been sued for trademark infringement [10] and there is every reason to believe that Walter McGill is the probable loser. [11] Consequently, we are required to respond as if the article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church promotes a web site that violates trademark law. All Wiki links to the offending web site should be removed, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I believe that I'm required to post this notice here. [12] --e.Shubee 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"So why isn't the Plaintiff Seventh-day Adventist Church being given the benefit of the doubt.." Does the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you, sir? No sites linked from this article have been ruled to violate trademark law. Please cease this constant stream of attacks and attempts to have articles that offend your personal biases removed; no one who has read of your recent dispute with the editors and administrators of Wikipedia can have any illusions that you are posting this "warning" out of genuine concern for all involved. Zahakiel 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another obvious reason that the Plaintiff will probably prevail in their trademark infringement lawsuit against the Defendant is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a large denomination with approximately 14.7 million members [13] and there is no evidence that the worldwide Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church of Walter McGill has more than 4 members. --e.Shubee 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, and I appeal to any administrators reading this page for assistance with this disruptive editor. Evidence for the presence and membership of this Church has been abundantly provided from a number of 3rd party sources - and this has nothing to do with the outcome of a Trademark lawsuit - Mr. Shubert simply enjoys making these accusations in public. Further, the sites that provide information about the beliefs and practices of this group do NOT currently violate any trademarks or decisions about trademarks. In addition, it is an entirely biased and inappropriate statement that "there is every reason to believe that [the defendant] is the probable loser." The lone editor here wishes to be both judge and jury on a pending case of which he appears to know very little. From what I understand of the legal issues:

the defenses being presented have never been tested in any court of law
the Lanham Act under which the prosecution is presenting its case does not apply to those operating outside of commerce
no cases in which rulings against defendants under such or similar acts have ever been the result of a jury trial
the CSDA church has been operating for 15 years, and known to the plaintiffs for at least 10. While there is no strict statute of limitations for alleged trademark infringement, the length of time is considered by judges, and 15 years is a considerable amount of time

Without getting into the legalities in depth, it should be noted that speculating about who will "probably" lose for any reason (least of all an alleged [and false] number of members of the parties involved) is not by any means a foregone conclusion, nor anything about which Wikipedia editors can legitimately comment; this site is not a courtroom. Mr. Shubert says that Wikipedia policy "doesn't say to wait for the outcome in a legal case." This is a twisting of the wording of the policy to meet his continuous vendetta; Wikipedia policy says nothing at all about pending cases and cannot be invoked here. The editor who posted this warning has tried a number of things to get this article removed or corrupted to fit his wishes, and this is just the latest in a long line of disturbing moves, many of which have already far crossed the lines of civility, assuming good faith, neutral point of view editing, personal attacks, and almost every existing Wikipedia editorial policy. Zahakiel 19:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that both of you, Zhakiel and E.Shubee, take a step back from this for a while. I think both of you have become too emotionally involved in the issue. So please, take some time away from this issue. Fermion 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I have no problem with that, although I am not really sure what you are referring to in my case. I haven't actually edited the article at all recently except to fix a link issue. I do not believe I have made any "emotional" additions to either the article itself or the talk page; I would just like to see the attacks stop. Zahakiel 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment response

Firstly, please note that this response is intended only to address the trademark issue. I have no opinion and do not wish to express one regarding the dispute over the appropriateness of the link for any reason but the trademark problem listed in the RfC.

This being said, there are several issues there. Firstly, the poster improperly conflates trademark and copyright law-contributory infringement is part of copyright. Trademarks are not copyrights and vice-versa, and there has never to my knowledge been a case of "contributory trademark infringement".

Secondly, this case is still in court. Who is "likely" to prevail is a judgment call, and who will ultimately prevail will be determined by the judge. It is neither appropriate nor necessary for any of us to speculate on the outcome of pending litigation.

This being said, if the site in question does indeed lose, one of the remedies for the plaintiff will assuredly be that the site in question will be court-ordered to cease use of the trademark immediately. This will resolve the issue. On the other hand, should the defendant prevail, the use will have been certified by the court as non-infringing. Again, this resolves any potential issues. Therefore, there is no issue either way-it is for the court to decide, not us, and whatever decision the court does make will resolve any potential problem on our end. Seraphimblade 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here via RfC. You know I don't consider myself or any other wiki editor a "reliable source," so until you have a reliable third party source which says the website in question is breaking the law, I consider your testimony that it is, OR. Sethie 16:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs of the Church

I'm very certain that the Seventh-day Adventist church strongly believes in the separation of church and state. Why then is it listed in this article that the CSDA church holds this belief in contrast to the SDA church? Shouldn't that belief be moved into the "commonly held beliefs" section?

If I get no response to this question, I'm changing it. (NorthernFalcon 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

See reference #10. The CSDA Church holds the belief that Church groups are not to ever employ the use of civil power in defense of an ecclesiastical organization. This is seen as a violation of faith. That standpoint is in sharp contrst to the slew of lawsuits launched in conjunction with the leadership of the mainstream Adventist body. The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds to the separation of Church and state to an extent, in that it does not wish for certain articles of faith to be legislated, but the degree to which this translates into practice is not at all appropriate for the "commonly held beliefs" section; it was, in fact, the key divisive issue. If you think the wording in the main article should say something like "total/complete separation of Church and state," that would probably do much to clarify this idea. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. It makes more sense to me now. I'm not sure how to convey all of that in a short sentence, so I just did the little minor thing you suggested. Maybe later someone brilliant can figure out how to convey all that meaning without being wordy. (NorthernFalcon 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Former mentions in other articles

The CSDA group has been mentioned in several other articles in the past. I believe most cases have been undue weight, although many of these times it appears to have been an innocent mistake. The history I have discovered of its appearance in other Wikipedia articles is interesting:

History

On 4 November 2002, an editor created a detailed article "Millerite". The last section, "Denominations in the Millerite tradition" contained the text, "(Permission is being sought to link or copy an index of Millerite churches)". On the 6th the editor replaced this with a list of dozens of churches: presumably permission was granted from this existing source outside of Wikipedia. [He later told me by email the material came from here.] The material was removed and branched off to form the new article "Millerites". (A redirect was left behind, and the next edit was in 2004 to make into a disambiguation page, and in 2005 was made into an article on the mineral of the same name.)

On 18 July 2003, the same editor cut the list and pasted it into List of Christian denominations. (I would later remove it on 20 December 2007. I then realised that the page does not mention any notability criteria for the list, so I'm not sure if it should have a place there or not.)

The Adventist page started as a tiny stub in early 2002, and later became a disambiguation page. CSDA was added by an anonymous editor on 4 June 2006. There was a "surprising" reordering on 5 October 2006. On 31 January 2007 an editor converted it to a full article, expanding each entry, including CSDA, into its own section. This was no doubt done in good faith, but resulted in very "undue weight" being given to this group. I moved it to the bottom of the "Seventh-day Adventist" list on 8 March 2007, and removed it on 28 August. An anonymous editor replaced it on 14 November, before I removed it again on 9 December 2007, explaining on the talk page it was undue weight.

Template:Adventism was created on 8 January 2007 by a non-Adventist editor, who added this and other groups on the same day. This perfectly paralleled the "Adventist" page at that time: the same 8 groups were listed in identical order. I removed it from the template on 15 February, explaining on the talk page. An anonymous editor reinstated it on 5 March, before I reverted it the next day.

Nontrinitarianism was added to on by a church member on 15 September 2006. I removed it on 20 December 2007.

Seventh-day Adventist Church experienced an addition on 3 May 2006, removed on 27 May by an editor accused of sockpuppetry, reinstated by the CSDA article creator on the 29th, and removed on the same day by another editor. This page has been edited a lot, and there may be many occurrences. One is a removal on 13 October 2006.

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was created on 1 May 2006 by an editor who later claimed independence from the group. It was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2006, and again on 20 December 2007.

Conclusion: References to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church have existed in a number of Wikipedia articles, often staying for months or years. While List of Christian denominations seems very inclusive of content, mentioning it on the other articles is dubious due to "undue weight" or a small minority view. Many of these incidences appear to have been made in good faith, although some others are questionable to say the least, for example the reversion on the template. We must assume it is possible these were made in good faith. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Can't believe I spent so long on that! Curious I guess] —Col 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the link to the non-Trinitarian and List of Christian denomination pages. These are both very inclusive articles, as evidenced by the number of redlinks. Your removal of the CSDA link was done before the AfD was completed, and there was not a consensus to remove it for notability reasons. You have said we "must assume it is possible these (additions) were made in good faith," as if some error in judgment allowed a legitimate article to be included in a list of like groups. I understand the AfD didn't go as you intended, but it seems that having failed in an attempt to remove the article entirely, you're trying to make darn sure as few people find it as possible. As I said when you informed me about the second AfD nomination, I assumed good faith there. When other editors began to vote "keep," however, you were quick to make accusations of sock and meat puppetry. I didn't say as much as I could to that, nor to the many changes you have made to the CSDA entry since that point. To be honest, I think you've improved the article, and I agree that some sections need to be trimmed... however, you seem willing to misquote policies of Wikipedia in ways that in my opinion now constitute evidence of bias. For example WP:COI is a behavior guideline, and you attempted to apply it to a content discussion in the second AfD. Now, you site WP:DUE, which is about content, in an attempt to apply it to the inclusion of the wiki-link in legitimate lists! Let me repeat that for clarity, undue weight is primarily intended to avoid having one viewpoint over-represented in articles discussing issues. It is not intended to make discriminate lists exclusivistic. You yourself seeme "unsure" as to whether or not the notability of this Church merits an inclusion in the list, but you felt free to remove it "just in case." You seem to feel some responsibility for the Adventist-related articles on Wikipedia, and that's not always healthy. Long-and-short of it is, if you feel I am in error adding a Christian group to the List of Christian groups, and a non-trinitarian group to a list of non-Trinitarian groups, feel free to take this matter to Requests for Comment. I assure you I will have much to contribute to that discussion. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made no changes to the article, nor any others mentioning this one, during the AFD. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you made any changes during the AfD. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my wording (e.g., "before the article was nominated for the AfD and it was closed as no consensus," or some such). All else I wrote is as it should be read. By the way, I removed the "7 persons" 1999 reference from the lead section. If you truly feel it belongs there and isn't unnecessarily prejudicial (take a moment and think about that) then please take that to RfC also. Regardless of what you might be tempted to think re: WP:COI, I assure you that I will stand by any neutral third-party opinions on what should be done on this article. ◄Zahakiel ► 08:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the number of church members in the lead section, as I consider it one of "the most important points" of an article on an association (WP:LEAD). The source I used was the most reliable one cited by the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm removing it again. It would qualify for WP:LEAD if this were coming from a neutral editor, and the article was not almost 10 years old. To avoid getting into 3rr problems and such, do take it to RfC. As I said, I will abide by a neutral party's input, not by what someone who tried to get it deleted thinks is "one of the most important points." ◄Zahakiel ► 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

This article was recently discussed for deletion, and "The result was No consensus defaulting to keep." Irrespective of the discussion regarding notability (WP:V), this article needs to be much improved based on other policies. In particular, it is currently based almost entirely on primary and self-published sources, most with dubious reliability. Major trimming is needed for it to be based primarily on reliable, independent, secondary sources.

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." (WP:SOURCES) The court case details, which makes up half the article, are based mostly on a court document, which is a primary source. Trim
Self-published sources "are largely not acceptable as sources." (WP:SPS) The references to the group's own website, religioustolerance.org, Vance Ferrell's tract (as far as I can tell) etc. are self-published. Trim
Regarding the reliability of sources like Steps to Life, I will add commentary by reliable authorities on these groups/magazines in the Historic Adventism article rather than debate it here - I think a line or two would be due weight.

I look forward to help from other editors. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, in the interests of complete disclosure, I am a Christian who believes that the 7th day adventists (a.k.a. Mormons) of any division are not true Christians and they are following a cult. That said, it is in America and they have the right to do as they wish.

So, moving along, IMHO, this article simply needs to be trimmed and cleaned up. There is not enough summarization and prose and not enough verifiable materials. As such some of it should be deleted. That said, the article should stay if, for no other reason, that they are involved in a lawsuit with the primary Mormon church: people will want to know more and this is the perfect place for it.

I think this article simply needs to be trimmed back. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I... think you have your churches confused. Mormons, or Latter-day Saints, are a completely separate group from Seventh-day Adventists. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could have been more specific. Any of those groups 7th day... or Mormons. My bad on clarity. Again, just because I think they are wrong doesn't mean they aren't allowed to worship in peace or shouldn't exist in the US. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the following changes: shortened a litigation section - this is half the article, and details such as the precise time of day of court trials are unnecessary (note User:BQZip01 suggested trimming; further work needed). I have added some history from the Clarion-Ledger article - the article is mainly about Y2K expectations, so I have added this. Also placed the group's size in the lead section, using the most reliable source I am aware of which quantifies it, namely the 1999 article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. MacLaurin, I must insist that you take more care than you have in your reading of the supplied sources. You have insisted on drawing the conclusion that the CSDA Church "was called 'Creation Ministries' in 1999, and that it "consisted of seven persons." No such information is supplied by the Clarion-Ledger article, which states only that McGill and his immediate family were members of Creation Ministries (a ministry of the Church) and that seven people were developing a cotton farm project. You have restored this faulty information a number of times now, despite being warned of your inaccuracy. I am finding it harder and harder to assume good faith in light of this insistence on your part. I do not have any objections to legitimate attempts to improve this article, but I do object to repeated mis-reading of information supplied by the available sources.

To avoid further conclusion, since it appears a difficult article to read for some people, the source states that "one family" of the St. Joseph congregation followed McGill to the farm, and these seven (the family of five included) are listed by name in the Clarion-Ledger. If you have somehow lost them, which might accout for your continued misreading, you may find the scans here:

You have moreover added this faulty information to the lead section, which I had to remove again, since you refuse to await the outcome of your own RfC, and furthermore you added an incorrect source to support the St. Joseph congregation statements - that is not a CSDA church's website. This is at the very least a lot of carelessness; these questionable edits of yours are mounting rapidly, and I am beginning to consider them somewhat vandalistic. ◄Zahakiel ► 07:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Article improvement

This article has recently been through a heated AFD, and the editors involved would like third party input as to how to proceed to improve it from here.

See #Former mentions in other articles above, for disagreement regarding this article's mention in other articles and due weight. See the 30 December comments currently at the end of that section, for disagreement about including a statistic of the group's size in the lead. See also #Article improvement.

Seriously, all it needs is a little more summarization and, perhaps, some more references. Its notability is certainly there (as a lawsuit litigant). It also doesn't need to be any longer unless more material can be reliably sourced. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "statistic of the group's size" is not actually included in the sources used at all! No data whatsover is mentioned about the size of the movement in the Clarion-Ledger article being used as a source beyond saying that a congregation in St. Joseph, TN is "less than 25 people." ◄Zahakiel ► 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the Doctrinal section and trimmed down the Litigation section about WIPO in accordance with the Trim tag that seemed to be there from about a year ago; removed the tag accordingly. Also put the trademark lawsuit into it's own section under "Litigation" rather than the main heading of "History." I'm changing it to a C rating as a result; it still needs some more third-party references. Qinael (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I make an appeal to the administrators regarding the recent and repeated vandalism of this page by user E.Shubee. He appears to have been in trouble with administrators before for his biased and misinformed posts, and his attacks upon this entry may easily be construed as the result of some kind of vendetta. I am a member of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (one of more than 4 members, as E.Shubee contends) and am attempting to provide factual information in as professional a manner as possible.

Last edited at 05:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 12:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Seventh-day" vs "Seventh-Day" vs. "Seventh Day"

Is part of the copyright dispute the idea that "Seventh Day" is a totally separate term than "Seventh-day"? This is not inconsequential in that the mainstream LDS Movement is the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" whereas most of the small offshoot groups render this "Latter Day Saints" rather than "Latter-day Saints"? This certainly seems minor to most outsiders, perhaps, but can denote large differences, so it should be clarified if CSDA feels it is justified in using the "Seventh Day" rendering and leaving "Seventh-day" to the General Conference, again answering whether this is parallel to the situation within divergent groups originating in Mormonism. 2600:1004:B111:1317:6DE6:FAF8:7B30:E69E (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Walter McGill's Homepage and Testimony

[1]