Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 2

message: #I've just deleted some antique stuff from this talk page... when you chaps have finished with your extensive conversation about the numbers of Christadelphians in Australia etc, could you please delete it?
#It looks like the "History" section is rather disorganised and also blown out of proportion.  The beliefs and organisation are more important, and should be longer.  If the tiny splinters are so important, they should maybe get separate sub-sections, maybe separate articles.  DJP 12:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well well well 

message: Good to see things moving forward. I don't know what others think, but I reckon we're making progress. Still a lot of work to do, though. 
I've done another major edit to try to accomodate some of DJP's suggestions, and a few other things that were bugging me. Here's an extensive summary, so that people know the reasons, and don't simply revert or amend to previous versions:
1. Removed the opening sentence about Christadelphians believing in the literal return of Christ, etc, and included most of that information in subsequent paragraphs. This was to remove unnecessary repetition, and start at "the beginning" (i.e. faith in God and the Bible).
2. Restored the word "claim" to the sentence about Christadelphian beliefs being based solely on the Bible. As a Christadelphian, I believe that Christadelphian beliefs are based solely on the Bible, but if this article is to have credibility, it has to be written from an objective perspective. Many other Christian communities could write in articles about themselves, that "their beliefs are based solely on the Bible", a claim that we might disagree with. Let's make sure Christadelphians contributing this article don't make the same mistake of adding things which would be seen as subjective.
3. Restored the two paragraphs moved from History to Organisation. "After Roberts' death..." didn't make much sense when Roberts hadn't been mentioned.
4. Removed the italicised part of this sentence: "Hell is understood to refer to the grave, rather than a place of eternal torment, in this sense it is more in line with the Old Testament description of Hell as Sheol." Not the clearest English, and I'm not sure how we can say that hell is described as Sheol? However, the link to the Sheol article would be good. Perhaps someone would like to have another go and making a connection?
5. Transferred most of the information about John Thomas to the John Thomas page. Now he has his own page, he doesn't need a biography on the Christadelphian page!
6. As DJP suggested, I have significantly cut the History section. I'm largely responsible for its former length. In an effort to be conciliatory, I tried to include most of what had been written by others, but this required a lot of padding, in order to correct the impression that Christadelphian history consisted solely of divisions, and that nothing much has happened since the death of Robert Roberts. However, much of the Christadelphian history covered is of little relevance to the average Christadelphian today, or for an encyclopaedic summary.
7. Revised the section on factions/fellowships. Terminology such as "clean flesh", "resurrectional responsibility", "Birmingham Central" was removed. These mean next to nothing without further explanation, and a wiki article really isn't the place to discuss these details.
8. Removed several links - see Wikipedia:External_links for some useful advice. LJB, I removed the Bible reading links, as I felt they would be better suited to an article on Bible reading, than one on Christadelphians. I did include a link to "The Bible Companion" from a mention in the article itself, but then removed this in further edits. I also removed
a) the Christadelphian magazine link - this doesn't really provide any information that the other links don't, and had less relevance once the mention of the magazine in the article had been removed.
b) the Australian Old Paths site. Seeing the Old Paths fellowship is mentioned in the article, it is valuable to have a link to an Old Paths site. However, the Australian Old Paths did not appear to provide much information that wasn't already on the other linked sites, such as the UK Old Paths site. It appeared to be mainly for one ecclesia, whereas the UK Old Paths site already directs readers to Old Paths ecclesias worldwide.
9. Finally, I merged the History and Organisation sections, and substantially edited them. This has resulted in a long section, but several points such as the adoption of the name Christadelphian, and the position on conscientious objection fitted well under both sections, and would result in unnecessary overlap. I have done this as a separate edit, so if people don't agree they can reverse it without reversing most of the edits mentioned above.
On a general note, it's helpful if users sign in and put a note about reasons for major edits on the Talk page, rather than just amending to previous versions - it makes it easier to incorport. As DJP says, it would also be good to see more work on the Beliefs section. As most of the contributors to the article seem to be Christadelphians, I'm sure we'd agree that the most important thing we want to communicate (though objectively please!) is our distinctive beliefs. Rather than tinkering with the sections about fellowships or external links (or in my case, arguing about how many Christadelphians there are in Australia!), I'm sure the article would benefit from a concerted focus on the Beliefs section. RJB 195.184.168.227 18:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jolly good work.  You're a good talker aren't you. :)  Teasing.  I think it's pretty good as is.  Still pretty peculiar, but if I died now I would not be unhappy that the Christadelphian Wikipedia article was incomplete. DJP 02:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another major edit 

message: Sorry had to revert back to original information because RJB unilaterally keeps ammending back to a previous version of the page that existed prior to several changes made by other Christadelphians. RJB by all means ammend this page which is more recent than yours, but do not be so rude as to delete it all. The edits that as far as I can tell at least 3-4 people (I know 2 at least who colloborated on it and have added/ammended one bit myself)  have contributed too are for equally valid reasons as you presumably feel yours are. The history fo Christadelphian fellowships is quite valid to have in Wikipedia and is not information that cannot be found elsewhere on the web.
:OK, I'll leave it. I did not delete it all. I'm happy to amend - which is what I did the first time. I actually included the main points of what you and others had said about Christadelphian fellowships in that edit, but with some of the detail/repeated bits/inaccuracies removed. Unfortunately, you just overtyped that with what you'd written before, and then later deleted the whole section on Christadelphian organisation, etc (which I think is now restored).195.92.67.74 20:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to revert yet again, because the whole section on organisation, the name "Christadelphian", and the formation of Unamended had been deleted in the previous edit. 195.92.67.74 20:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Looking at these threads, it might be a good thing if all the "factions" cared to deliberate privately to come to a conclusion of the best way to seek to reconcile and to preach God so that HE is honoured.
: What was the argument on Wikimedia? If you prefer, contact me privately - RJB (sorry, forgot to sign in) 81.183.79.122 19:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Behaviour

message: I removed the CARM link to the article page, as comments were already available from the Apologetics page, which were simple and brief, and the latter also gives "pro" and "con" website links, the same cannot be said for CARM.
This is an article about Christadelphians, and, if CARM is listed, with error in reasoning, then comments and link to the Bible Truth Discussion Forum Armoury should stay.
It is a matter of Wikipedia being accurate, and without bias, and CARM is bias, and inaccurate in it's reporting. KEM 10:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in article CARM