Talk:28 Fundamental Beliefs

Copyright

Please do not cut-and-paste the text of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs straight into this article, as this is a copyright violation.

Rather, summarise their content, put it into your own words, quote reliable secondary commentary on the points, etc. See the sections "Text" under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use and under the section "Unacceptable use". Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Additions

23. Christian views of marriage - Does that article need expanding?

19. 10 Commandments - Anything else for 19?

21. Stewardship (theology) - This needs serious expansion.

16. Eucharist - How about this?

Also, this article should outline differences (if any) between Adventist teaching and those in the articles referenced in one-two sentences. But good start. Shinhan 20:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who recently expanded the beliefs by copying portions of the fundamentals. Unfortunately I believe this is a copyright violation, as I doubt the fundamentals are issued under the GNU Free Documentation License used by Wikipedia. Quotations may be alright, but not of this magnitude. Please rewrite them leaving a brief summary. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 12:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a different problem with this: The addition is unsourced, so we can't verify either that it is an accurate representation of what the source says, or what the copyright of the source is. If (for instance) the source is a pre-1937 US source, or it is released into the public domain, quoting it is OK. But without a source, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

(The 1st link under "references" has them, (c) 2006, no usage rights granted - but in a form that makes what's here a significantly summarized version. So not QUITE a copypaste job.) --Alvestrand (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have returned that section to how it was before the editor copied the text in. We can't quote a copyrighted source like that - you'll need to write synopses in your own words. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SDAs believe.jpg

Image:SDAs believe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

COPYrisk: The doctrine of God

The section "The doctrine of God" is a straight copy from SDAC: Fundamental Beliefs, which is copyrighted. I don't know if this is a WP:COPYVIO (illegal!), but even if it isn't, it would be much better to have a text that reformulates the text and places it in an encyclopedian context. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a copyright violation, because of the large extent of quotations. I dealt with this several times in the past for this article, but gave up trying. I will add a few prominent notes to explain this to editors. Would others like to edit the article itself? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as a possible copyright violation. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

28?

I read 19. The other nine? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I came here to ask about the same thing. It's like looking up the Ten Commandments and only finding six of them. I researched it and I see that at one time the article contained the other beliefs, but they were taken verbatim from copyrighted works. The people who look after copyright violations properly removed them from the article, but that left a big hole. I think it'd be acceptable to use the names or titles for the beliefs, but those are so short that they don't convey much. Ultimately, the ideal thing would be for someone to write short descriptions of each one using two or more sources. Short quotations of key phrases from the beliefs would probably be tolerable, so long as most of the text is our own. I'll get the ball rolling by checking to see if there's an objection to using the heading names. We can start with those and the links to related articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a list of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, but the descriptions are so brief that they don't communicate much. Most of the "see also" links go to generic articles, but a few are to SDA-specific articles. We could proceed by using those as a source, perhaps copying in the intros. If anyone can write original descriptions that'd help too.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The 28 Fundamental Beliefs as "28 Fundamentals"

I think the way this page untitles the 28 Fundamental Beliefs rises questions. Why persist to use a label that is not an official one. I think it does not respect the SDA community, and risks to give the feeling the Adventist Church belongs to the fundamentalist tradition. Thank you for welcoming my suggestion to correct this non SDA title. God bless you in abundance! Jean-Luc Rolland, France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.183.112.121 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

?

why is it that so many SDA articles are so poor in quality 28 beliefs not all listed , without an explanation ? constant use of terms with out a clear definition as an atheist, i have to ask, what is it with you religious, can't you write ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4200:1E42:4D03:E775:34BD:19AD (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And why is there a WP:LINKFARM to a bunch of external Adventist pages in the absence of encyclopedic content? The section The Beliefs will be deleted soon if there is not very good justification.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)