Jump to content

Talk:Graham Maxwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recreation

[edit]

This article, Graham Maxwell was previously deleted on 00:42, 9 March 2006 by User:Aaron Brenneman, per the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Maxwell. Also, A. Graham Maxwell was previously deleted on 19:31, 27 February 2006 by User:Mushroom because of "(copyvio)".

I believe the new version I have just written passes policies and guidelines such as notability. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This old talk page archive may have a few reliable sources: Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Graham Maxwell. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008 changes

[edit]

I have condensed the material critical of Maxwell on this page. As noted in my earlier edit, I "strongly abridged comments by Ford. Removed apparently non-notable external links. Abridging Bacchiocchi mention. Abridged Standish, Whidden." One website is yours - please don't spam your own site. Your past practice of this has been discussed many times before with other users in this WikiProject. Regarding the Ford material for instance, lengthy quotations of a fictional story vaguely related to Maxwell are simply not relevant to the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Deletion of Valuable Encyclopedic Content

[edit]

Colin MacLaurin, Please explain why you removed so much notable content and clarification as to what Graham Maxwell's critics assert? Also, do you know Professor Wikipedia?

Your statement that you strongly abridged comments by Ford is an understatement. You reduced a complete description of Ford's criticisms to: "Adventist scholar Dr. Desmond Ford and his wife Gillian Ford describe the essence of Maxwell's theology in the book The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity (1982) pp. 124, 141, 142." In other words, if you want to know what Dr. Ford says about this, go read his book. That is hardly encyclopedic. And the sentence you decide to keep is irrelevant: Chapter 9, "Enquiry's Progress" is modeled after the Christian classic The Pilgrim's Progress. What does that have to do with Maxwell's theology?

In your abridging of Bacchiocchi, you again delete valuable context pertinent to Maxwell. Bacchiocchi wrote: As mentioned in the April 2004 issue of REFLECTIONS—the monthly newsletter published by the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference for church leaders and scholars­— “the idea of a substitutionary sacrifice of Christ is rejected by some Adventists and replaced by the so-called moral influence theory.” This dovetails perfectly with the opening statement that Maxwell denies teaching the moral influence theory. Why do you insist on deleting valuable encyclopedic content?

The book, The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity contains no fiction. Chapter 9 is identical in form to the classic story Pilgrim's Progress, which is an allegory. The theological content as it pertains to Loma Linda is all about Maxwellian moral influence theory. The reference to Maxwell is unmistakable in Gillian Ford's story in regard to the expressed beliefs of Love-alone and Tender-heart. Consider these statements: Did the son of the architect have to die to 'pay for our sins'? We say not. It was to show that he loved us so much that he would die to prove it. That's pure, unambiguous, moral influence theory. "Loma Linda" is Spanish for "Pretty Hill". I will approve of you shortening the quote if you promise to not destroy the content and clarity. If you insist that the actual quote not be used, then translate all the allegorical accusations into plain English. But please don't revert all that clear writing until you have done so.

The point of the external links that you don't like is that they contain valuable source material that can be incorporated into the article. --e.Shubee (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ford, I stated earlier that vast quotes from an allegory are simply not relevant to the article. Additionally, if the authors do not clearly mention Maxwell, that is "original research" to claim he is there. If they do, one can summarise the source briefly. Regarding external links, one is yours, a conflict of interest, and besides you are not a "recognized authority" per that guideline. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic content

[edit]

The large group of quotes copied-pasted from a copyrighted memorial blog: 1.) oversteps the boundary of fair use and 2.) quotes from friends and acquaintances posted on a blog are not reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia is not a memorial. This material should be deleted. — CactusWriter (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC) replies: I agree that Wikipedia is not a memorial. But, people's memory of an individual has historical value. In my view, their own way of saying things is of historical value. The quotations I have included have valuable historic value. I agree that the material does seem to be copyright protected. I will attempt to modify this section. Thanks.[reply]
Regarding copyright material. Earlier, I did not find a copyright notice, but on further searching, I have noted it. Two things: I have presented a request to Spectrum for an allowance to use the quotes. And, I will begin to transform the quotes into cited material. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the charge that this is "fan" material is unfair. I am not a fan of Graham Maxwell. I have looked for critical material on his work, but it is hard to find. He had his critics but they did not publish their concerns. He was certainly highly regarded by his "fans". I don't agree that quoting his "fans" make this entry fan biased. I think the charge should be rethought. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding unencyclopedic entries. What did you have in mind? We have talked about published primary sources. You have in the past asserted that primary sources are unacceptable encyclopedic material. This is incorrect. The concern is that all material be properly cited. Published primary sources are of the highest value in historical presentations. Certainly Wikipedia aspires to be of the highest quality. The reason I have begun working on Wikipedia entries is because I thought this enterprise allowed for quality cited material. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Thanks for addressing the copyright issue by removing some of the copyrighted text. I believe the remaining text may now fall within fair use limits and have removed the issue tag.
2.) Do not conflate "fan site-type" problems with lack of scholarly criticism. They are different issues. Fan site issues include statements attributed to "Vance", and "Wellesley", "Fred", "Keith" and "Joe" from a memorial blog site. These are unverfied, unreliable and unencyclopedic. They are now removed. In addition, headers like "Developing Scholar", "A Leader Among His Peers", "A Recognized Church Worker" are POV statements unattributed to secondary sources. These appear only to promote the individual. When there is no evaluative analysis by a reliable secondary source, than we let the biographical facts speak for themselves so that readers can make their own decision.
3.) Your comment that I "asserted that primary sources are unacceptable encyclopedic material" is false. I never made that assertion. Please provide a diff where I said that. I must say that I find it extremely frustrating after so much discussion that you believe that. Once again, I have placed the relevant policy concerning use of primary sources on your talk page, as I have previously attempted to explain at Talk:Letitia Youmans. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Writer: Thank you for this. Obviously, I have misread you. Before our discussions, I was quite surprised at what I thought you were saying. Thanks for clarifying. I am DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Graham Maxwell/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.

This article merits the worst rating available. The editor that controls this article reverts all improvements and doesn't realize that her writing makes no sense. --e.Shubee (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graham Maxwell. 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) 00:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Graham Maxwell. 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) 09:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Maxwell&oldid=1208267896"