Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 2

message: The current section titled Cult status, where the Seventh-day Adventist church is accused of being a cult, is not written in the usual accusation/answer format and displays no rational response to the charge. The statement about "allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists" isn't referenced and the current response, which is also not referenced, that the schools of the cult "are open to all" doesn't refute the charge of being a cult. 
The current section reads as follows:
Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.
In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like . For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching. Although he later reversed this opinion and belief and later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.
Others class Adventism as an unorthodox Christian denomination, including, for example, John Whitcomb, Jr. Allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists, and the importance placed on Adventist education for children are also major allegations of what is colloquially thought of as cult-like behavior. In their defense, Adventists respond that their educational system is designed to instill character and faith in their children; indeed, Adventist schools are open to all.
In describing their opposition to ecumenical changes, some Adventists refer to Ellen White, who wrote that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."
I propose the following improvement:
===Cult status===
Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.
In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like.Walter Martin Interview, Adventist Currents, Vol. 1, No. 1, July, 1983, conducted by Douglas Hackleman. For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching. Although he later reversed this opinion and belief and later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin
Richard Kyle, an evangelical Christian writing from the perspective of a historian in his largely uncritical book, The Religious Fringe: A History Of Alternative Religions In America, seems to take a middle of the road approach and writes of Seventh-day Adventists as being somewhat cultic:
: "Whether the Seventh-day Adventists are a sect, a cult or a denomination is a matter of intense controversy. Some evangelical scholars have insisted they that are cultic. Others have claimed that they are not. Some scholars have reviewed the institutional developments of the Seventh-day Adventists and asked whether this onetime sect has now become a denomination.
: "This study will regard Seventh-day Adventism as a sect. To be sure, they possess some cultic characteristics." 
In defense of the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists it should be pointed out that Ellen G. White, the recognized prophetic voice of Adventism http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/spirit-of-prophecy.htmlhttp://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat24.htmlhttp://www.whiteestate.orghttp://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Inspiration-Revelation.htm, has responded to the charge of cult-like behavior of the church in a humble apology:
: "The remnant church is called to go through an experience similar to that of the Jews; and the True Witness, who walks up and down in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, has a solemn message to bear to His people." Selected Messages Book 1, p. 387.
: "My brethren and sisters, humble your hearts before the Lord. Seek him earnestly. I have an intense desire to see you walking in the light as Christ is in the light. I pray most earnestly for you. But I can not fail to see that the light which God has given me is not favorable to our ministers or our churches. You have left your first love. Self-righteousness is not the wedding-garment. A failure to follow the clear light of truth is our fearful danger. The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people." Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 15, 1904. 
Many Seventh-day Adventists are quiet about Ellen White's prophetic assessment of the church. They are eager to join the Christian mainstream. In contrast, historically conservative Adventists confess being Laodicea and are thankful that they differ doctrinally from the majority on biblical orthodoxy. They see agreement with mainline Christendom on all points as an invitation to damnation. Seventh-day Adventists teach that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven." --E.Shubee 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not one accepted "cult" definition. I've met some adventists in my days, and they're not isolated from other people like f.ex. Jehova's Witnesses, they're not behaving bad (except of course one former girlfriend of mine that deserved ... never mind), so if they're "cultic", they're so weakly "cultic" that it's not worth mentioning till the day we have one unified definition of cult. And that won't happen till all cultic mind-controlling ideologies (including neo-liberalism and communism) have died and been buried forever. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed cult status 

message: Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.
In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like.Walter Martin Interview, Adventist Currents, Vol. 1, No. 1, July, 1983, conducted by Douglas Hackleman. For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching. Although he later reversed this opinion and belief and later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin
Richard Kyle, an evangelical Christian writing from the perspective of a historian in his largely uncritical book, The Religious Fringe: A History Of Alternative Religions In America, seems to take a middle of the road approach and writes of Seventh-day Adventists as being somewhat cultic:
: "Whether the Seventh-day Adventists are a sect, a cult or a denomination is a matter of intense controversy. Some evangelical scholars have insisted they that are cultic. Others have claimed that they are not. Some scholars have reviewed the institutional developments of the Seventh-day Adventists and asked whether this onetime sect has now become a denomination.
: "This study will regard Seventh-day Adventism as a sect. To be sure, they possess some cultic characteristics." 
In defense of the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists it should be pointed out that Ellen G. White, the recognized prophetic voice of Adventism http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/spirit-of-prophecy.htmlhttp://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat24.htmlhttp://www.whiteestate.orghttp://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Inspiration-Revelation.htm, has responded to the charge of cult-like behavior of the church in a humble apology:
: "The remnant church is called to go through an experience similar to that of the Jews; and the True Witness, who walks up and down in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, has a solemn message to bear to His people." Selected Messages Book 1, p. 387.
: "My brethren and sisters, humble your hearts before the Lord. Seek him earnestly. I have an intense desire to see you walking in the light as Christ is in the light. I pray most earnestly for you. But I can not fail to see that the light which God has given me is not favorable to our ministers or our churches. You have left your first love. Self-righteousness is not the wedding-garment. A failure to follow the clear light of truth is our fearful danger. The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people." Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 15, 1904. 
Many Seventh-day Adventists are quiet about Ellen White's prophetic assessment of the church. They are eager to join the Christian mainstream. In contrast, historically conservative Adventists confess being Laodicea and are thankful that they differ doctrinally from the majority on biblical orthodoxy. They see agreement with mainline Christendom on all points as an invitation to damnation. Seventh-day Adventists teach that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven." --E.Shubee 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not one accepted "cult" definition. I've met some adventists in my days, and they're not isolated from other people like f.ex. Jehova's Witnesses, they're not behaving bad (except of course one former girlfriend of mine that deserved ... never mind), so if they're "cultic", they're so weakly "cultic" that it's not worth mentioning till the day we have one unified definition of cult. And that won't happen till all cultic mind-controlling ideologies (including neo-liberalism and communism) have died and been buried forever. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult status

message: The section titled "Cult status" uses weasel words to suggest that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has repudiated previously trusted revelation or fundamental beliefs in order to change ecumenically. There is no evidence of this. The weasel phrase states, In describing their opposition to ecumenical changes, some Adventists refer to Ellen White, who wrote that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven." --E.Shubee 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: It's wrong to pretend that the article Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church complies with Wikipedia rules when the facts say otherwise. It's clear that the following claim isn't supported by the citation given: Fred Veltman, was asked in 1982 to analyse the works with a scope of detecting whether both "literary borrowing" and/or plagiarism were a concern given cultural views on plagiarism in the literary context she lived in . --E.Shubee 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not make up new sections of discussion to back up your personal use of tags on the main page. A reply to the point above would be a good place to keep discussion going. Also see above for why there is no contradiction, and please discuss your use of large tags for "disputes" before you put the tags on. Unless there is a recognised dispute then the tag is irrelevant. Ansell 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A denial of the obvious still persists

message: Weasel words are cropping up again.
"It is a common belief among most Christians" is general and sweeping, and begs the questions:
Which Christians?
What percentage of the Christian populations are we talking about?
Where are these beliefs documented?
In the same sentence:
"While traditional Christianity teaches:"
Who do you mean?  RC? Eastern Orthodox?  Jewish Christianity?
It's all in the detail.
Trishm 11:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I also do not understand where the criticism is in this section. It seems more like a grenade toss meant for shock effect. Without a cited, explicit criticism, this section is nothing more than original research. It needs to either be revised or deleted. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In point of fact, it is the definition of what "traditional Christianity teaches" that includes the weasel words: "Traditional Christianity teaches that, for the sins of a brief earthly life, the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell and will continue to suffer this torture for all eternity". What "traditional Christianity" teaches this? And, the words "the wicked dead" and "fire and brimstone" and "sins of a brief earthly life" are all examples of weasel words. Many, many Christians reject the idea of an eternal "burning" in Hell. "The wicked dead"? "Suffer this torture"? Please. If those aren't weasel words, I don't know what is. "Traditional Christianity" does not teach that an eternity in Hell is "torture", instead it is the just punishment for those that reject the propitiation of Jesus Christ. NO "traditional Christianity" teaches that Hell is "torture". These are weasel words, pure and simple. I intend to edit this passage and back it up with citations, something this article is abysmally lacking. Supertheman (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hell 

message: I just changed a few spelling mistakes.  However, I also discovered that there are two spellings of fulfilment.  I changed them all to the British, not realising double 'l' was acceptable.  Feel free to change them back. Fermion 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I note that the large majority of the editors for this article claim to be Seventh Day Adventists. Is it fair to have the criticisms page regularly edited by Adventists? I believe that by and large they will be more interested in the defence of the criticisms as opposed to pointing out in a neutral tone which criticisms exist. I'd hate to see this article loose it's credibility as the Wikipedia articles on the Free Mason's have due to bias editing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.28.150.120 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one am seeking NPOV and verifiability. Are you? Colin MacLaurin 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Can someone point out where the criticism in this section is? Is there a critic who denounces something regarding the "assurance of salvation"? If so, it needs to be cited. Otherwise this section may need to be deleted. As it stands I don't understand the section's purpose. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assurance of salvation 

message: Shouldn't this article be named Criticism of Seventh-day Adventism? This isn't a criticism of a "church" its a criticism of the SDA religion. All the other articles such as Criticism of Atheism, Criticism of Islam, and Criticism of Christianity have titles as such. Any objections? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to it. However, if there are criticisms specific to a church within the religion, they should probably remain in a separate article. We're dealing with the same issue at Criticism of Mormonism. That article needs to be split up into two articles, one movement-wide (Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement) and another denomination-specific (Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The Latter Day Saint movement has several churches / denominations, yet the article treats movement criticisms as being specific to one church (the LDS) only. That being said, shouldn't the article be renamed Criticism of Adventism? When I click on Seventh-day Adventism, it takes me to the SDA church. However, Adventism has its own article; it seems to be a more general term. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up good points. I am not all that familiar with SDA so I'm really in no position to make any judgement calls on that. I just noticed a difference in all these pages and thought there was a lack of consistency. It makes it hard to find the other articles... I was looking at Criticism of Christianity and wanted to find Criticism of Catholicism but instead came up with a search screen telling me there was only Criticism of the Catholic Church which I thought was odd. I suppose the issue could be dealt with by splitting this article... if anyone wants to do that. But as for now it should be ok to rename the page to prevent any confusion while the other issues are being dealt with, right? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Right. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The section on annihilationism, which is already tagged for original research, does not seem to contain any actual criticism, either of the SDA Church or of annihilation itself. As it is now, I don't see why it belongs in the article, so I am about to remove it. Kansan (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annihilationism section 

message: Some of the vast removals seem to be justified enough (I did one the other day as I happened to be traveling through this part of Wikipedia), but is this one justified? I did write on the user's talk page regarding it, because I think the reasoning for that removal seems somewhat flimsy. I'd rather discuss than start an edit war, but it is possible to go too far in trimming down an article.  Kansan (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shut door theology removal 

message: Does the current format of this section wrongly suggest that the post-fall Christological view of Jesus is the official or majority view within Adventism - when it is neither?  
This charge is often given as another ‘proof’ that the SDA Church is a cult.  However, the criticism is technically irrelevant, because the SDA Church actually has no official position on the subject, with the official SDA position being: “However, the church has wisely not elucidated in a doctrinal statement the specific nature of Jesus' human nature.” See:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/christ%27s%20human%20nature.htm
With respect to individual Adventists, there is a variety of views, consistent with the broad debate found within ‘orthodox’ Christianity itself.  Both sides of the debate try to rely upon Ellen White for support. A quick search of the SDA General Conference’s Biblical Research Institute will demonstrate the SDA Church very fairly provides articles from scholars advocating both positions. For example, see:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/humannaturechristunfallen.pdf
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/humanatureChristfallen.pdf
 
Just a suggestion Sjdferg (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christology section 

message: Does this fail the NPOV test under the criteria of "undue weight".
I am not sure if the whole premise of this section is factually correct.  It says, "Several Seventh-day Adventist scholars have acknowledged that the Adventist view of the Trinity is different from the historic, orthodox Christian doctrine."  This is not really the true, with the various references really being about how "historically" early Adventism had a range of unorthodox concepts of God, include Arianism, Pantheism and Tritheism. 
This section especially gives the impression that these Adventist scholars are currently (as opposed to mere historically) advocating a form of Tritheism, or other type of unorthodox form of Trinitariansim, which isn't the case. The only reference that seems to be dealing with contemporary Advenist view on the Trinity is the last one by Fortin, Dr. Denis; however, the part quoted does not say the modern SDA Church rejects a 'historic, othordox' view of the Trinity but merely reject some of the philisophical assumptions that the Early Fathers hadin order to arrive at that same and agreed conclusion.   
The failure to distinguish historical beliefs from current Adventist views on the Trinity is a major issue for neutrality. If these references are going to remain, the current and official position of the SDA Church should be quoted, which as fundamental belief #2 says:  “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.”  
Furthermore, the current text says "the Adventist view of the Trinity is different from the historic, orthodox Christian doctrine."  What exactly is the 'historic, othordox Christian doctrine' exactly?  Does the author mean the Chalcedon Creed - if so perhaps say so.  Remember, there are a variety of 'ancient' and 'othorodox' views on the Trinity, for example, there is Monophysitism, Miaphysitism, Docetism and Nestorianism to name just a few theories.  Moreover, many branches of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which arguably are just as 'historic and othordox', such as Syrian Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church, Coptic Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and Armenian Apostolicism, reject the Chalcedon Creed. In any event, there is no indication that the SDA rejects the Chalcedon Creed's formulation of the Trinity.Sjdferg (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trinitarian section 

message: Many of the criticisms seem to relate to past, historic views of unendorsed Adventist individuals in the formulation of Adventist theology, rather than current and official views held by the SDA Church.  Obviously, the first SDA pioneers didn't just wake up one day will a full set of beliefs, but rather they were formulated gradually.  As part of that theological development, some early founders had unorthodox beliefs not shared by the majority of Adventists or the SDA Church (either then or today).  It is no different from trying to accuse the Early Church of promoting circumsission, given the issue was not resolved until the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15); or Roman Catholic Church of Arianism, given the full doctrine of the Trinity was not forumated until later Ecumenical Counsels.   
I think there is a strong case that most of these criticisms better fit in the separate and existing wiki article on the history of the SDA Church, which does include the history and development of Adventist theology, for example the progression of early 'unothordox' views on God towards a more 'mainstream' view of the Trinity.  Furthermore, in the absence of properly referenced contemporary criticisms, this separate criticisms page is fast reaching its use-by date and perhaps should be deleted, esp in light of wiki-policy in favour of putting criticisms on the main article page? 161.152.28.136 (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical versus current criticisms 

message: Further to the comments about this separate page being a little useless, the investigative judgment section appears to be a very poor work compared with the separate investigative judgment wiki page. 161.152.28.136 (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigative Judgment 

message: I think the page is once again looking a little more balanced, and ensures that the main criticisms are actually mentioned (rather than just deleted by Adventist contributors), but equally making sure official Adventist responses to these crticisms are quoted as well - as recommended by wiki guidelines.  However, I am just wondering if people thinks a few more quotes from critics re each criticism are needed? 
I only suggest this because in many cases the response to the criticism is actually longer than the criticism itself. Not sure if that is a problem as such, but it would be nice if the criticism and response parts were about equal length, with equal numbers of quotes. I know some Adventist contributors might disagree, given wiki guidelines mention not necessarily giving equal weight to some minor or unfounded criticisms, but I think it is best for the credibility of the page.  
I am other happy for people to just add in further criticism quotes and references as they think fit.Fatima51 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More criticism quotes 

message: I just cut and paste some of the content in this part and moved it because it was misleading to readers.  It was in the criticisms section, which was probably the wrong place, because it included quotes saying the RC Church and Martin Luther alleging it was the authority of the Pope and not the Bible that authorised the change.  Therefore, it really was a response and I have thus moved these paras to the response part.Fatima51 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabbath change to Sunday section 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Cottrell":
From Investigative judgment: "The 'Sanctuary Doctrine' – Asset or Liability?" by Raymond Cottrell. This paper was presented publicly to groups at least twice – in 2001 Cottrell presented it to the 2nd Jesus Institute Forum (website), and 2002 Larry Christoffel, associate pastor of the Campus Hill Church of Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California delivered it to the San Diego Adventist Forum; Cottrell was present and both fielded questions. Some footnotes are missing in the link provided. Adventist Today hosts a version in 14 parts – see parts 12 and 13 for the missing footnotes
From Progressive Adventism: "The 'Sanctuary Doctrine' – Asset or Liability?" by Raymond Cottrell, presented publicly in 2001 and 2002
From Robert Brinsmead: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Orphaned Cottrell references were added in this edit. I (sentient) could also not tell what was intended here... --Mirokado (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church]] 

message: I have added further info into this section about the 1919 Bible Conference.  I think it is very relevant to the topic on views of Ellen White, and notice there is already an existing wiki page on the topic.Sjdferg (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views inside and out of Adventism 

message: It seems clear that the references in this article need some systematic updates. I have started with the Major critics section and, depending on any reactions here, will carry on through the article. I will be entirely happy if others also update some of the references, there is a lot to be done. We need:
* clear attribution of quotations
* short references linking to a common full citation for commonly cited works, particularly for citations with page numbers
* to remove ibid etc from the references, as already tagged
* consistent use of inline references instead of citations sometimes appearing in the article text
* complete references (author, date, title, work, location, publisher, isbn, access date etc as appropriate). These should preferably be completed by the person adding the content, as it takes much less time to do that with the reference already available
I propose to do this by using various templates which generate short form references automatically, including merging identical (book and page) references. These are  and friends and  and friends using the |ref=harv or whatever parameter. These templates play nicely with current uses of the cite * references, so it is not necessary to change everything at once.
More systematic references should not become a sort of tyrrany, inhibiting valid contributions, but they will help maintain the article quality. We can always "tidy up" later as long as content is added with reasonably complete references to start with.
(I removed an unsigned section with no visible content and the same name from the start of this page) --Mirokado (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101008062819/http://ministrymagazine.org/archive/1993/June/adventists-and-evangelicals-another-viewpoint to http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1993/June/adventists-and-evangelicals-another-viewpoint
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified