Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 1

message: I have some time this weekend and I'm going to try and edit this puppy. Someone stop me if you think any of the changes are for the worse. HiS oWn 02:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Uncle G has posted a NPOV notice on the page with the statement that the titles are inherently non-neutral. I had the same inkling in my head as well. Does anyone have any suggestions for corrections? Would Opposition of the Seventh-day Adventist Church be more neutral? MyNameIsNotBob 03:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that it is also an article about Roman Catholic critiques of SDAism (for a fuller roundup of different points-of-view).  Ruby 06:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The organization and heading names of the article need to be better. For example, the following headers are almost the same and far too long:
* Some points to note on some other Adventist beliefs that are commonly criticised - the Sabbath
* Some points to note on some other Adventist beliefs that are commonly criticised - Ellen White
Most of the responses seem like they should be under Response to Outsider Criticism of Adventism. Headings should not start with "regarding".
The wording of the article needs improvement. I don't think the following statements are grammatically correct:
:Critics also view the Adventist belief in annihilationism as unbiblical.
:Some groups of traditionalist Seventh-day Adventists, however, are rather cross at the Adventist Church leadership for doing this, and a few have left the Adventist church to form splinter groups as a result.
Sentences like "it might be worth saying" and "are summarized below" are redundant -- a statement that the article is about its topic is unnecessary and if it's worth saying, say it.
:It might be worth saying that many or most Adventist beliefs, 
:which are summarized below.
There are other examples. The text "(see Wikipedia on historicism)." isn't a link, and even if it were, that's not a preferred way of mentioning other wikipedia articles. Ken 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I think this article is lacking a natural flow and readability. I'm also not sure historicism is the right term to use, among others. This article lacks sources and references to specific incidents. Ken 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Preterism is the opposite of futurism, I'm confused by the use of the word historicism in the rebuttal.  Ruby 06:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention 

message: I have removed the large sections that were the second half of this article that seemed very POV. A number of questions have been raised on this page about those sections and as such I figured it was best they just went. I believe that if this article is to ever become worthy of reading, that all edits be carefully referenced and worded neutrally. Otherwise the tag  will live at the top of the page forever. It is my ever stressed request that all editors follow this advice. MyNameIsNotBob 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of large POV sections 

message: :The Seventh Day Adventist Church teaches it's members that they are God's chosen people and this is a form of theologically based racism.
That's just a sample. If someone, somewhere, is making that claim, link to it. Otherwise, it's original thought. Either way, the statement that should be made is that "some people consider" -- and even that is generous. Most religions have some kind of exclusivity doctrine. It's very common, and it doesn't make the members of that religion racists. Ken 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again? 

message: In my opinion, the Christology section is a mess.  1.  There are NO citations, just an anonymous "they" saying this and that...  That is NOT up to Wikipedia standards.  2.  The quotation distinguishing "the man Christ Jesus" from "the Lord God Almighty" seems confused...  I do not have access to my family's SDA Commentary, but prima facia, the quotation does not seem to be distinguishing between the divine and human natures of the Christ, rather, it seems to be a distinction between the Christ and God the Father... It does NOT have a citation either.  Who, specifically, is making this critique?  I've Googled Adventist and Nestorian, and it is this article that comes up, and other articles are about other things...  It looks like original research.  Emyth 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how much luck you will have finding someone who knows where it comes from. That section is the same as it was when I transferred it from the main article. MyNameIsNotBob 23:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Christology