Jump to content

Talk:Shepherd's Rod

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

Please check article

[edit]

Please read this article carefully and see if there are historical, grammatical or syntax errors in it. Thanks Srodinfo talk 17:07, June 4, 2006‎ (UTC)

Quit removing tags

[edit]

Quit removing tags without fixing the article. It needs a proper introduction, it shouldn't read like a pamphlet but like an encyclopedia article, it isn't wikified properly, it lacks sections, and to top it all it is copy/pasted from a supposedly not-for-profit org. website [1], with no copyright mention on the actual page, which is rather lucky but the idea of getting this entry deleted for copyright violation is starting to seriously itch. If the content isn't fixed soon, I'll propose it for deletion. Equendil Talk 05:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that the article was not just POV, but a likely copyvio. The article needed a total reworking, but it was going to be tricky to edit in a way that didn't make the newbie feel unappreciated. Knowing that it was lifted from an outside source gave me cause to scrap the text altogether.
I've whipped up a new article with a combination of sources. The History section is pasted from the beginning of Branch Davidian's History section, with additional edits. The Succession section I pasted from an earlier version of the article, putting up a POV warning because it wasn't particularly objective, either. Otherwise I just made a minor edit or two, I'll have to go through it more thoroughly when I have time. Today is a stub section, to be filled out later. I added External links, while I was working Srodinfo added his own, and I actually incorporated some of the sites on his list.
Srodinfo has already edited this article again, and it seems that he has basically accepted the new article. His changes still have the whiff of POV pushing, but he's improving! --WacoKid 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving the article, and let's hope for the best, I initially tried to reach Sordinfo on his talk page, but he seems to be editing proselytizing in his own little world , so I'm not all too sure where this article is going. The subject is utterly alien to me, so I can't really help there either. Anyway, I'll keep my finger off the AfD trigger for now and just keep an eye on it. Again, thanks. Equendil Talk 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is it?

[edit]

The main thing this article is in need of, I think, is some description of what the doctrinal difference that caused the schism actually was. Unfortunately, I don't know, which is one of the reasons I was reading this in the first place. Is there anyone with more knowledge that can work something about that in? El Juno 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful article

[edit]

As El Juno has noted, this article really says nothing about the titular subject. Just about everything is discussed - except any relevant information about what the beliefs of the Shepherd's Rod group are! -- Lonesome road 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is very badly written. For instance, what does: "Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, also known as "the Shepherd's Rod" or "Davidians", are those who have accepted additional truth after Ellen White as penned by V. T. Houteff (aka the Shepherd's Rod message). They are a laymen's group within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination albeit their doctrines are not supported by the denomination" mean? Perhaps someone who speaks English should rewrite the article, assuming that they can work out what the author is trying (unsuccessfully) to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of this date the article has been extensively rewritten and referenced including content requested in comments below. Tonadachi talk 21:53, June 2, 2013‎ (UTC)

Revisions

[edit]

Based upon my first hand knowlege of the DSDA beliefs and origins I felt it nessesary to correct some obvious and glaring statements that were incorrect.

I changed upshoot to offshoot as this is an article and not a wittnessing tool.

I also changed the paragraph that discussed the reasons for his disfellowshiping to reflect the realities that the author of this article intended to obscure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.1.100 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing at all about this subject, hence why I'm here. But the opening paragraph is so painfully, awfully written, I'm basically begging someone to sort it out. It's all wrong grammatically and the fact that it doesn't make sense completely obscures the meaning. There's a typo ('mot', for 'not'?) for a start. And is 'profess' the right verb? I don't think it is. 'Additional truth' - additional to what? Ahhhhh, just horrible!! Also, I guess its been changed back since the above comment, but I don't think 'up-shoot' is a real word, and if it is then it's being misused. Surley it should be 'offshoot from'? Maybe I should have just gone ahead and changed this myself, but I'm not an experienced enough wiki-er to know if thats ok, and also I don't want to distort the meaning further considering I don't know what it's trying to say anyway. I'm dreading reading the rest of the article after that...79.71.242.180 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the purpose of the article is to inform of the beliefs of the original Davidian Seventh-day Adventists under V T Houteff. Please do not alter their beliefs just because you do or do not believe in them yourself (re. your change of the word upshoot to offshoot. Davidians actually teach they are upshoots. They do not teach they are offshoots. Your change was not factual to their beliefs.) If you are going to comment regarding the beliefs of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, please keep the references FROM V T Houteff. If you believe you have additional truth AFTER V T Houteff, please feel free to open a section on your specific type of movement and include information on how you differ from the main body of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists under V T Houteff. tonadachi. October 23, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonadachi (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WS:COTW

[edit]

This is a note to inform all interested watchers of this article that Wikisource has chosen the Branch Davidians and Waco Siege as their Collaboration of the Week.

This means that we are spending this week collecting, copying and formatting Public Domain documents related to the church and its 1993 siege. This includes speeches by David Koresh, Federal documents in the aftermath of the siege, the charges against Lon Horiuchi and the surviving church members, and early church documents whose copyright have expired.

We would encourage you all to come help us, if you have any questions, feel free to leave a question on my talk page - either on Wikisource or Wikipedia!

I hope to see some of you there, helping us document the primary sources for future research and historical analysis!

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the purpose of the article is to inform of the beliefs of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. Please do not alter their beliefs just because you do or do not believe in them yourself (re. your change of the word upshoot to offshoot. Davidians actually teach they are upshoots. They do not teach they are offshoots. Your change showed bias and was not factual to their beliefs. tonadachi. October 23, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonadachi (talk • contribs) 04:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Doctrinal Overview" not found

[edit]

The section Doctrinal Overview is not a doctrinal overview, it is a statement like "we never intended branching off, it's those other guys that are evil"! I don't care, I wish to read a doctrinal overview! The section Key Fundamental Beliefs contains doctrines, but not exactly an overview. Maybe some points could be picked from there and used as seeds to write a Doctrinal Overview. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remain true to the facts

[edit]

October 26, 2010: This article should reflect the period of time and the beliefs of V T Houteff and the original Mt Carmel Center under his direction only. As such, all quotations should be references from the original writings and/or pictures of the original workers/location/work.

Other articles with different titles can be created to reflect succession organizations and beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonadachi (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

[edit]

Are the Davidians still around? The article doesn't say. Angrybeerman (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article now contains this information. Tonadachi talk 21:55, June 2, 2013‎ (UTC)

Sources to help improve the article

[edit]

Unless otherwise indicated these sources have been submitted by drs (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bromley, David G.; Silver, Edward D.; Miller, Timothy, editor (1995). "Chapter 15, The Branch Davidians: A social profile and organizational history". in America's alternative religions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. p. 149. ISBN 0-7914-2397-2. {{cite book}}: |first3= has generic name (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • More sources can be found here.

drs (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if primary source references were used to outline the contents of this article. Secondary sources (eg. sources not written by the originator of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist group, V. T. Houteff) may contain incorrect information. Especially, Branch Davidians are not part of original Davidian Seventh-day Adventism. They are a separate group altogether. Tonadachi talk 21:58, June 2, 2013‎ (UTC)
Reliable sources are eligible for content, including comments from skeptics. History is part of this, so anything about Davidians and Branch Davidians is fair game. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Davidians and Branch Davidians are not the same group of people. They have separate beliefs. To put content of both uunder this one article is to say all Protestants are Seventh-day Adventists, which, you know, is not true. Tonadachi (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, keep in mind that Wikipedia policy encourages secondary and tertiary sources to ensure verification. Sheldon Kepler (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article was two-fold. One, to establish that the "Branch" Davidian Seventh Day Adventists are not the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. This helps to clear up the mass confusion in the general public concerning this subject. Second, it is to familiarize who the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists are, what they stand for, and some of their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presenttruth777 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that this article is using the "best" sources available to write the information on the doctrinal beliefs of the "original" Davidian SDA. The heretofore mis-understandings of the two groups (Branch and original DSDA)can best be cleared up and explained by showing many of the original source references. When applicable,however, we have added many "secondary" sources.The following references are such sources, 38,39,43,45,51,54, 56, 67,68,69,71,79,94,96,98, 99,103. Additionally we are trying to find 95, 97, 101. If anyone has those please notify.Presenttruth777 (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References section is a disaster

[edit]

Please fix the references. The section is a disaster. We do not just place numbers in the article, and then place numbers with the references in the references section. We use inline codes to do that. Please follow the conventions here or this article will get axed as unsourced. If you are unsure how to do format references, please ask on my talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After review we concur that the references sections needed work, :-) We've streamlined it to be orderly and properly spaced. let us know if this appears easily accessible and readable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presenttruth777 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed one of them as an example of the minimum to do with all of them. All references should be inline references with dynamic numbers. The ref code takes care of that automatically. That way the numbers will always be correct, no matter if one removes or adds references. Also leave no bare URLs. When in doubt about how to code, look at the code on other articles and imitate.
I restored the tags to the top of the page. They should only be removed when the issues are fixed. The article is in poor shape and is unencyclopedic. It should be understandable to someone who has no clue about SR, or even what religion is. Keep it much shorter and very simple. This is not the place to spell out every doctrinal detail. It's not a personal website or place to advertise for SR.
Without any outside references, it does not meet the basic notability requirement for an article. You must include multiple references from totally non-SR sources, and also from opposing POV, IOW you must include criticisms or you are violating NPOV. If I see that work is being done to meet these requirements, I'll hold off on nominating this for deletion. I'd rather see a useful article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. We are adjusting the inline references and will continue to do so and finish as soon as possible. Additonally, there exists many "secondary" and "outside" sources already in the article.The following references are such sources, 38,39,43,45,51,54, 56, 67,68,69,71,79,94,96,98, 99,103. Additionally we are trying to find 95, 97, 101. If anyone has those please notify" Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)notify.Presenttruth777 (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's good to know. Keep up the work. Remember to include the page numbers "inside" the ref, not outside. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note in the Adventist/Davidian relations section, this is where you'll find references pointing out criticism and outside views against Davidians, please review that section. As far as "length" are you pointing to the "History" section in particular?Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the history section is quite long. Please try to sum it up. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the long and arduous task of improving the references problem. I have done some copy editing where spacing was wrong. You can fix the rest: there must be no spacing before or between refs, and a ref always goes after the punctuation.

It's our pleasure to help get this in A-1 shape :-) Can you give me an example of these types of "fixs". Not sure I follow you here.Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now all but the first ref are bare URLs, and that needs to be fixed as well. That will take some work, but it needs to be done. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is something we're not sure on (bare URL ?), an example would help, thanks. Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Davidian Seventh-day Adventist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Davidian Seventh-day Adventist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Davidian Seventh-day Adventist. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

Note: there is the comment "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (May 2017)" and "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral" (May 2017) What and how is this a concern? The article gives good references and speaks of knowledge of the issue of the Davidians. Give some proof or take these off. Additionally someone has messed with this article which was untouched for a couple years. They went in there and messed up some of the references. Many of the references now show "Error 404" when clicked. These were made, we believe by "Leggsoh" in the view history section. Lastly, this article is about Davidian SDA not Branch Davidians, a separate religious group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presenttruth777 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the COI tag is very appropriate to anyone reading this talkpage. It will remain until enough effort has been expended by editors who are independant of the topic in checking, verifying and rewriting the page. (ie not PresentTruth777 who represents this group). Second, Branch Davidians are one of the offshoots within the family of groups that sprang from the Shepard's Rod. You can't on one side say the Davidians are a reform movement within Seventh-day Adventists and are very much like them, than say the. Branch Davidians are a separate religious group without a connections. Please explian why Branch Davidians are not classed as one of the "successor" groups with just as much claim to the Rod literature as the Missouri group or others? Legacypac (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

At User:Presenttruth777 who is the "we" you refer to on this page. Are you a group of people? Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original authors of this article Presenttruth777 (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777[reply]
Who is that? Is there a group behind your account? Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the top three contributors to this article [2], User:Presenttruth777, User:Tonadachi, and User:Srodinfo (cf. "The Shepherd's Rod") have edited little or nothing other then this article or the Branch Davidians article. Also Tonadachi's last edit was 2013-06-18 and Presenttruth777's first edit was just 5 days earlier, on 2013-06-12, which perhaps indicates the turning over of the responsibility for "guarding" this article from one person to another within an organized group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page reads like promo for this small group. They are not Seventh-day Adventists they are harsh critics of SDAs and this page is far too heavily based on what the group says about itself vs what others say about them. I'm going to start fixing that. If the WP:SPAs get in the way of fixing that they can expect blocks at ANi. We should start by blocking PresentTruth777 for proporting to represemt an organization. The username is a clear reference to Seventh-day Adventists, and a term often used by the church's far right critics. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we share concerns that you bring, we must note that is solely your opinion. Comments such as we must "block Presentruth777" shows noting more than a desire to advocate what "you" think as how the article should read. We have seen some of your edits and we can agree that they are helpful and not disruptive, However some are assumptions on your part and are not fact based. If this must be brought to mediation then let's go. But to insinuate that you advocating the original writers of the article with blocks is without substance, and seems arbitrary and controlling. The aim here is to provide history not to be "promo" or anything of the such.

We are regular individuals and not associated with any particular group. You mention you know something about DSDA, what is your background in this DSDA if we may ask? Presenttruth777 (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Presenttruth777[reply]

Who is this "we" you refer to? User:Beyond My Ken and I are both experienced wikipedia editors across hundreds of topics. Your editing here was already brought to ANi where you could be blocked and/or otherwise sanctioned. If you continue to WP:OWN this page you will run into sanctions. I know enough about Shephard's Rod to have an intellegent conversation, and as you will see, I can evaluate sources against text for accuracy, applicability, reliability, and independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 03:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And User:PresentTruth777 has been indef'd as a "role account". Accounts can't represent groups of people or organisations. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Davidian Seventh-day Adventist. 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) 04:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source does not support

[edit]

This source does not check out as supporting the paragraph it references, which is why I removed it and added cite needed. [3]. Testimonies page 164 talks about Adventists and in the next sentence mentions "Israel of today" but does not say Adventists are the "Israel of today" specifically. More plausably she classes Adventists, along with all Christians, as part of "Israel of today" in the context of being like the ancient Israel in the ways mentioned in the rest of the chapter. But anyway, that is not the main point of that chapter and it is irelevent to the article paragraph. Nothing in the chapter mentions 144,000. Sorry, but if you want to say the Rod believes something, you need to provide a WP:RS not a reading into E.G. White's writing what is not there. If you want to claim EGA said something, a proper citation to her work that shows she said something is required. I'm taking out the whole paragraph. Don't put it back unless you provide the sources here on talk for review first. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

[edit]

Per WP:COMMONNAME why is this article named Davidian Seventh-day Adventists]]. Prior to encountering this page I'd only ever hear or read of the group being called Shepherd's Rod. Their own websites use the SR name. The page itself says in the lede the common name is Shepard's Rod, and the legal name was for a time Shephard's Rod according to this page. Please clarify. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a knottier problem then I would have thought. I'm still investigating, but my initial exploration of the various websites leads me to think that they were indeed called "The Shepherd's Rod" for some time -- at least colloquially -- and then at some point began to be referred to as "Davidian Seventh-day Adventists". What the "official" name is seems to be hard to establish, as my impression (which could well be wrong) is that we're not looking at a single hierarchical organization, but a network of affiliated groups and organizations, among which (perhaps) none is acknowledged to clearly be the top of the chart, and therefore none of which can define what the name of the movement is. (Please feel free to correct any of these tenuous findings -- I'm still looking into this.)
Just in terms of Google hits, "The Shepherd's Rod" brings up 54,600 ghits, while "Davidian Seventh-day Adventist" gets only 7,460. By that metric, it would seem that "The Shepherd's Rod" would be the proper name for the article. There's also the fact that the article appears to have been written primarily by DSDA adherents (who continue to try to WP:OWN it), and (as you point out) it says hat "The Shepherd's Rod" is the common name, so that, too, would point to a move being in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
my understanding is that The Shephard's Rod was the term used exclusively from the early 1930's founding until 1942/1943 when they had to incorporate and organize as a distinct church in order to get religious deferments and conscientious objector status during WWII. The Davidian name came out then. Immediately on the founders death in 1955 the group broke into warring factions with different names roughly as described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidian_Seventh-day_Adventist#Rise_of_Florence_Houteff The Branch Davidians ended up with the Mount Carmel quarters and Florence ended up with the DSDA legal entity, dissolving it to strip out the assets. Some work needs to be done to spell out this history and better list the groups that rose from the split. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you're way ahead of me on this. It sounds like the article should be moved to "The Shepherd's Rod", with something in the lede saying that it was "formally organized as the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Church. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thanks for "conscientious objector". I didn't quite understand what the source I cited below meant by "noncombatant status" -- I thought it had some religious or internecine significance, but the meaning is clear now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Darn spelling - I understand the Shepherd's Rod followers took a similar position toward noncombatant status as Adventists - serve as a medic or chaplain but don't kill - see Desmond Doss/Hacksaw Ridge for a famous example and Operation Whitecoat for another. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I;ve requested the move to Shepherd's Rod over the redirect - turns out that is where it was until the SPA editors got took hold of the page. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time period and scope

[edit]

The page reads like this group continues to exist, yet other sources say it fragmented immediately after the founder's death, with the Branch Davidian faction gaining control of Mount Carmel. for example. Which organization is this page about exactly? What is the appropriate start and end date for the organization? Is there an end date (ie Victor Houteff's death) or does this page cover all versions of Victor Houteff's followers? Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my comment above, this source, The Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-day Adventists, which appears to be a neutral source, says that after the founder died, he willed control of the group to his wife, who made a prediction about God removing the Jews and Arabs from Palestine on a specific day in 1959, and when that didn't occur "disillusionment set in and the movement broke up." It was dissolved in 1962. Some former members reorganized in California as the Branch Davidians and returned to the compound in Waco, eventually leading to the notable events there under David Koresh's leadership.
Given this information, it would probably be appropriate to give a start date of 1942, when Houteff formally organized a church so that his followers who had been ejected from the SDA would have a organization to belong to, and the end date would be 1962 when that organization "formally dissolved".
If you haven't already, take a look at the source and see if you agree that it appears to be neutral. It's published by Rowman & Littlefield, which publishes academic and scholarly books. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is one of the most neutral, comprehensive works on SDA's in general. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how about this rough outline:

1. Early years (1930's to 1942)
2. Organization amd Growth (1942-1955),
3. Houteff dies and Mrs Houteff takes over, disintegration of organization (1955-1962)
4. Successor organizations a, b, c, d, e each with its own sub heading as they have parallel histories. Branch Davidians being one of the successor groups listed along with others listed in article. We need better section headings, but does that outline make sense to everyone? I doubt some of the successor groups are notable enough for their own page, but a section in this article seems appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a useful skeleton to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything after Houteff's death is a real mess after I gathered all the different paragraphs together. Any assistance organizing and rationalizing it would be appreciated. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked through the text, it seems the editors who crafted the article are loyal to the "Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association of today". They emphasize the original message of Houteff and went to great lengths to point out the errors of Florence Houteff and Benjamin Roden Branch Davidians. With one recent edit by User:Presenttruth777 took out a reference to the Bashan group. If my analysis is correct, they are going to be very interested in retaining the Davidian SDA name for and in the article regardless of WP:COMMONNAME. An article about the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association might be possible (I've not looked into the notability issue) but this page is not it. This page is about the Shepard's Rod until about 1962. Legacypac (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone here agrees to it, then lets move it to "The Shepherd's Rod". @78.26:. I can't ping to IP, but I'll put a note on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather agnostic on this issue, but lean towards the move per the rationale provided by Legacypac. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SDA Template

[edit]

I reverted an edit by Beyond My Ken which added the Davidians to the SDA History section. Given that this sect has no official standing within the Seventh-Day Adventist church, I felt it wasn't helpful to the understanding of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Should the template be removed from this article? Am I wrong? There should obviously be linking for this offshoot/schism. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davidians are just a minor offshoot, measured in the thousands against the millions of Adventists. Not really an Adventist subject. Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the removal - splinter groups are obviously important to the main topic. Perhaps there should be a new division, which includes all splinter groups. The argument that Davidians are not in SDA doesn;t make much sense to me: after the history section has a link for Millerites. The purpose of the SDA sidebar should not limited to the one specific church, but should provide the history of the movement, both in terms of which it grew from, and how it developed - and spin-off groups are a part of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Template:Adventism sidebar to the article. I don't think there can be any problem with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is absolutely appropriate. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Adventism template is good. Would you put a Protestant template on the Roman Catholic Church page? Because that is a similar logic. The Rod is an anti-Adventist group seeking to "reform" the Adventist Church. I've started a major reorg so the history flows and have been removing duplicated info. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Would you put a Protestant template on the Roman Catholic Church page?", no, but I'd certainly put The Reformation in the "History" section of a "Roman Catholic Church" template. Anyway, if the Adventism template is good for everyone, I'm good with it.
So far, yur changes are looking good.Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 October 2017

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 16:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davidian Seventh-day Adventist → Shepherd's Rod – per discussion on talk and WP:COMMONNAME this restores the old correct page name  — Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've contested this and opened a full RM discussion because the present title has existed for four years, and clearly is the current name and appears quite extensively in sources. Needs a full discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the current article name is reflects the official name, but not the common name, of the group from 1942-1955 and one name of only one faction from 1955-1962. Shepherd's Rod reflects the official name from 1930-1942, and the WP:COMMONNAME from 1942-present day for all the factions. Even the ref for the assertion that the Davidian name was correct and the Shephard's Rod name incorrect was a link to a 1942 church newsletter that mentioned the new Davidian name but used the Shepherd's Rod name in have a dozen spots without comment otherwise. In my analysis above, I've found that members of the group that went to California and called themselves Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association took control of this page around the time that they changed the name of the page. They also put in a lot of info about how their group was the correct one following the origional message and the other groups (Florence lead original group, Branch Davidians, etc) changed or added this and that to move away from Victor H's message. Much of thos text is still in the article because I intend to repurpose it to show how the factions differ from each other, but in a more neutral way. I may post more evidence as I locate it. Legacypac (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for pretty much all the reasons given above by Legacypac. Once again we have a disconnect between a subject's official name and its common name, and we generally opt for the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. It also helps to differentiate this specific subject from the Branch Davidians, who probably have a higher profile because of the Waco incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I picked Shepherd's Rod over The Shepherd's Rod as it is shorter and more succinct.
I went and checked how The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia 1976 edition (most recent published) handled the topic. The book has a 3/4 page listing for "Davidian SDA's-Shepherd's Rod" on pg 376 and a redirect at "Shepherd's Rod" to pg 376. It says "...popularly called the "Shepherd's Rod" after the title of his first publication. The organization took the name of "Davidian Seventh-day Adventists" in 1942." So the hyphenated name gives both options about equal prominence and the text "popularly called" suggests our WP:COMMONNAME policy supports the later name.
I intend to incorporate info from the SDA Encyclopedia article as it is more balanced and frank than the wikipedia article. For example it says "Houteff... regarded himself as a divinely inspired messenger of God" and that "Houteff and 11 followers (including children) migrated to Waco..." It also says "Mrs Houteff and her associate leaders frankly and publicly acknowledged in print on December 12, 1961 and Jan 16, 1962 that the Shepherd's Rod party and its peculiar teachings were not sound" before dissolving the association and selling the property.
Davidian is not the current name as suggested by the editor opening the discussion, for the association this page covers dissolved in 1962. One successor group (which appears to be the one that has been controlling this page for 4 years) uses a form of the Davidian SDA name, but this page is not about that group but rather the 1929-1962 organization with only a small section detailing the successor groups. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Main doctrine section numbered list

[edit]

The first two items are italicized, but the last 3 items are bolded. Is this correct punctuation? I can't decide whether to change them all to either bold or italics for uniformity purposes. --Allison Jean Paully (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed them all to bold, and made a few other formatting changes as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shepherd%27s_Rod&oldid=1247499988"