Talk:Questions on Doctrine

Seventh-day Adventist Church Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Conference

Tonicthebrown, nice expansion work on the 50th anniversary conference. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Gary Land in his Historical Dictionary of Seventh-day Adventists names what is essentially the same as this article "evangelical-Adventist dialogues". The content of this article has expanded well, and though the book Questions on Doctrine is certainly a huge factor in this history, this article describes the surrounding events, and perhaps it should be renamed. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. However I vote to keep the current title, for reasons of practicality. Everyone knows what QOD is. "Evangelical-Adventist dialogues" is too vague and could refer to anything -- for specificity it would have to be called something like "Evangelical-Adventist dialogues in the 1950s" and that would be far too cumbersome! Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I have made the statements in the lead even more explicit that the article is about the meetings before the book, and its after effects, more than just about the book itself. We could also "pipe" the links to this article like this (sometimes): "In the 1950s, dialogues with conservative Christians..." This is simpler language, not expecting the reader to know about the book. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standish book

I've removed the sentence about Standish's distributing their book -- it seems trivial and somewhat petty. Hopefully, with the release of the full conference documents and videos, we will be able to add in some substance about what was expressed by various speakers at the conference (including the Standish POV). Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. I added it to their article instead. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Questions on Doctrine. 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) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]