Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hatred Against Adventist Truth?

I agree with most of the statements below. This article is too opininated to belong in an encyclopedia. I suggest you sick to the facts on a matter (for example this one) and let people draw their own conclusion based on the raw facts. I am disappointed with this article because it crosses the fine line between fact and the opinions of different people.

Can any of you Ellen G. White hating Seventh-day Adventists explain why the published and widely believed criticisms of by Ellen White are not encyclopedic whereas unpublished goofballs with websites are allowed to promote their opinions in the article? --Perspicacious 00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stay civil. In what way are we portraying ellen white in a bad way? The criticism that the church widely puts her on a level that she was never meant to be at, is commonly published. I could get direct quotes from the meetings which happened soon after her death if you require evidence that her contemporaries viewed her in a different manner to what she is portrayed in the church today. Ansell Review my progress! 01:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how a NPOV article on criticisms of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has a right to exclude EGW's numerous criticisms of Seventh-day Adventists. --Perspicacious 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You insinuate that EGW isn't credible as a prophet to justify suppressing EGW's numerous criticisms of Seventh-day Adventists. --Perspicacious 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There was no insinuation at all. Your POV comments do not help create a constructive view at the issues and fail to improve wikipedia. That is what we are here for after all aren't we? You have failed to justify yourself on a number of occasions and frankly it is going too far. MyNameIsNotBob 07:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how a NPOV article on criticisms of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has a right to exclude EGW's numerous criticisms of Seventh-day Adventists. --Perspicacious 11:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest what I consider to be the most compelling reason: Ellen White was a Seventh-day Adventist. She was not a critic of the church. She did, however, on many occasions offer pastoral counsel urging the church to improve. That is why it is wrong to include her as a critic. -Fermion 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Sister White was a sincere Christian and couched her rebukes in as loving a language as possible is a standard for many unchristian critics to emulate. And how dare you accuse our professingly Christian theological enemies of not being as kind or as sincerely concerned as Ellen G. White. Ellen White's sweetness and connection with God doesn't annul the fact that she published very strong and extremely pointed criticisms of Seventh-day Adventists. --Perspicacious 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am baffled by your logic. Perhaps you may get more support for your argument if you actually improved the text you simply revert back on to the page? In its current form no one will see it necessary. MyNameIsNotBob 20:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am baffled by your lack of understanding of EGW's pronouncements concerning Adventists and Laodicea, which support the cited quote from ellenwhite.org. --Perspicacious 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Your bafflement appears to be clear to me. You appear to demonstrate intolerance for EGW's theology. For example, it can be argued that allowing five anti-Adventist links that misrepresent the "shut door" and deleting mention of the only complete reference for the Adventist view reveals bias. --Perspicacious 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Which of the following sentences are beyond your understanding:
It has been alleged by the counter-cult group ellenwhite.org that "The average member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church thrives on self-righteousness and hypocrisy."[24] Ellen G. White has made similar accusations numerous times. Ellen White taught that the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. --Perspicacious 23:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand both and believe you are using both out of context. How you put the laodicean criticism, which is about lack of activity, and the other one which is about the personalities which the self names "counter-cult" "group" deems to exist are different. I and others are likely to remove the accusations as they lack substance. Wikipedia is not for putting down every statement that has been made on ellenwhite.org. Find a criticism that has rational substance next time. Ansell 09:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't even grasp the fact that the paragraph has three sentences since your response indicates that you think it has only two.

The fact that Nazi medical ethics can be bought at a major Adventist institution without SDAs whimpering or protesting is a perfect example of the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the whole Laodicean Church. You say that this charge has no rational substance. It is rational to everyone who understands the story of Achan in the Bible (Joshua 7). "When Achan son of Zerah acted unfaithfully regarding the devoted things, did not wrath come upon the whole community of Israel? He was not the only one who died for his sin" (Joshua 22:20).

Do you really believe that your denial or ignorance of Joshua 7 means that everyone else is just as ignorant and just as clueless?

Do you really think that Christians who read of an Adventist institution poisoning people for profit don't see the obvious hypocrisy of the whole Seventh-day Adventist Church?

Ellen G. White and the Bible teaches that there is a corporate guilt on all Seventh-day Adventists for the Seventh-day Adventist Church's toleration of the open sins of just one of its members. In fact many Christians, not just Ellen White, teach corporate guilt based on Joshua 7. "This incident illustrates well the principle of corporate solidarity and corporate guilt. The sin of one man brought the Lord’s anger down upon the entire nation." [1] These are all clearly evident truths. They are only non-apparent to those who refuse to see them, the biblically ignorant and to those blinded by their own self-righteousness.

To all cowardly Adventists who are hiding behind Ellen White's skirt and pretending to be righteous, I say, stop reveling in your ignorance. Your conduct is shameful. Please stop misrepresenting Ellen G. White. She is not on your side. Her writings abound with criticisms of you and of most Seventh-day Adventists. --Perspicacious 13:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it basically, I disagree that you are actually putting forward a criticism that has been generally used before. You are compiling the criticism based on different pieces of evidence. One of these is that the church did nothing in response to the so called "poisoning" that was occuring. Where is your evidence for that. The fact that the entire church didn't come to your door to say sorry to you doesn't mean a thing.
Also, by portraying certain groups of people as hiding behind anything ellen white says you should read again. We are advocating a view where we don't do that. You are advocating a view where you use her writings selectively to defend your anti-adventist viewpoint.
Interestingly enough, you also use her writings to defend your adventist viewpoint on other issues such as the investigative judgement. Why do you constantly try to defend your personal views on things, when obviously people disagree and wikipedia is about consensus, not proclaiming that others do not understand, and hence you must be perfectly right. Wikipedia is not the place to put your personal criticisms down, which must be the nth time that you have been told that. Ansell 23:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Ellen G. White has notability and I am defending her view. You didn't answer my questions. --Perspicacious 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ellen G White is being misquoted. You are quoting her as if she had no faith in the church, and that she didn't spend her whole life defending it from decay, and that she built up the major policies of the church. You are portraying her as if she was attacking the church from within. BTW, which questions did I not answer. I was pretty sure I answered them. And stop playing a totally different running commentary in edit summaries. Calling people anti-adventist and under papal influences in edit summaries also comes under no personal attacks and civility policies. Ansell 07:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm only against suppression of quoted statements where you think EGW is encouraging Seventh-day Adventists by telling them they are Laodicea, that 95% of them are lost, respecting antichrist and much like the Jews in the 1st century, etc. You summarize that. Don't delete. Improve. --Perspicacious 12:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Her statement is in the context of the whole controversy. No where in that statement does she say that any part of the SDA church is in doubt, not that she affirms the whole church as such. I am deleting it because it is not accurate, much less relevant. I am not "suppressing" anything. You have a quote from a book about a huge struggle between good and evil that makes a comment about "a church" and you assume that she is pointing it at the SDA church. I call that improvement. Summarising something that has no substance results in nothing there. Why are you out to portray her messages as complete and utter damnation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, something that she both led and helped build in many ways. Ansell 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed statement

This disputed statement has been edited since Perspicacious (talk • contribs) reverted my good faith edits to the page. In doing so he clearly demonstrated that his version is in dispute, and as such it should be developed here.

The Laodicean Church

"Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585). Christ's message the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of the Christian Church at the endtime and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." [2]. According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186)."

My objections:

  • Taking Ellen Whites statement out of context as it does NOT refer to the SDA church as the focus of her statement
  • If it is so widely understood that the rebuke for end times was directly focusing on the Adventist church, and not on the entire Christian church, then there would be evidence to support it
  • The claim of self-righteousness is not accurate. The church does not see righteousness in its own self. This word is not encyclopedically verifiable, and the claim of one critic's site

Ansell 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Most Current Version

The Laodicean Church

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the names of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era and that the symbols used reveal the condition of the church in those different periods (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 585). Christ's message to the Laodicean Church (Revelation 3:14-22) is widely understood as a rebuke to the pride and self-righteousness of that Church and commentators point out that, out of all the seven churches, Laodicea received "the strongest of our Lord's denunciations, there being no compliment of any kind extended to them." [3]. According to Ellen White, the label of "Laodicean Church" applies most accurately to the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186). --Perspicacious 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In defense of the first sentence, look up the reference or better yet, look at the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on Revelation 2 and 3.

In reference to the second sentence, I've changed my mind and I now want to quote the popular evangelical John F. MacArthur instead. In reference to the Church at Laodicea, MacArthur says:

This is the apostate church where Satan dwells. It isn't a church; it's a counterfeit. Revelation 3:15-16 says, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So, then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth." This is the church that sickens God. It is on its way to hell. It is a liberal church run by a cult that denies the true gospel. It is accursed and damned.[4]

As for the third sentence citing Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 186, do I have to call you up and read the page to you? --Perspicacious 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You could try using citation templates such as, Template:Cite_book, which you can include the quote in. Apart from that, I would like to hear what your opinion of the purpose of a page entitled Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in an encyclopedia is. MyNameIsNotBob 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

An Official Comment on the Seventh-day Adventist Understanding of the Laodicean Church

Source: [5]

Part 8: On the Road to Righteousness

Soon after the emergence of Sabbathkeeping Adventists, certain disturbing characteristics of spiritual Babylon began to develop among them. They began to reflect more and more the spirit of the Laodicean church of Revelation 3. Love and zeal for the Lord gave way to self-exaltation and self-righteousness.

Not Yet Ready

This state of affairs provided sure evidence that the remnant people as a whole were not yet ready for the final seal of divine approval needed to protect them against the punitive judgment of the last plagues.

In 1851 Ellen G. White stated frankly that most of the Sabbatarian Adventists were not ready for the final events. They dwelled too long on "little trials," "picking at straws," she said, and were motivated too much by self-justification. She heard this heavenly rebuke of God's people: "Sabbathkeepers will have to die to self, die to pride and love of approbation. . . . Those who profess His name are not ready."[86]

James White, adding his voice to that of his wife, warned that many who professed the truth were not real Bible Christians. Evidencing a significant turn in the self-understanding of the emerging movement, he identified Sabbathkeeping Adventists with the Laodicean church of Revelation 3. He urged that the remnant church be "stripped from self-righteous views and feelings,"[87] that it recognize its own need for thorough repentance. Like Daniel of old, James White confessed: "We, as a people, have evidently rested down upon the theory of truth, and have neglected to seek Bible humility, Bible patience, Bible self-denial, and Bible watchfulness, and sacrifice, Bible holiness, and the power and gifts of the Holy Ghost. . . . Hence it is said, 'And knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked' [Rev. 3:17]. What a condition!"[88]

Ellen White even announced the shocking fact, new in Adventist eschatology, that the modern Sabbathkeeping people were basically repeating the history of Israel in the wilderness: "Modern Israel are in greater danger of forgetting God and being led into idolatry than were His ancient people. Many idols are worshiped, even by professed Sabbathkeepers."[89]

The purified remnant would become visible only in the final "shaking" of the church by means of the straight preaching of Christ's message in Revelation 3 to the Laodicean church. All depends on this "straight testimony" of the risen Christ to the end-time church: "I saw that the testimony of the True Witness has not been half heeded. The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded. This testimony must work deep repentance; all who truly receive it will obey it and be purified."[90] --Perspicacious 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hospitals

I've merged the article Criticism of Adventist Hospitals to this article, as suggested by Ste4k. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-02 20:15Z

The general consensus, brought on by previous discussions that you may find in the archives of this page, is that the criticisms (isolated at that) are not relevant to the church as a whole, and as such they have been removed from this page before, and I am going to remove them again. They are relevant to the pages relating to those organisations. Furthermore, the fact that the Loma Linda accusation links to a page which upheld at appeal a decision in the Universities favour, means the accusation is legally false and could be likened to libel. Ansell 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I did not know this content was previously here or that there was previous discussion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-03 00:38Z

Plagerism

The ole plagerism arguement. I've searched but have been unable to find the source. Back in the 1980'a a prominant attorney was given the task to find plagerism in the EGW writings. After his examination, he stated that she had written in accordance with the rules of the day and that no plagerism had taken place. Interesting how she's constantly accused of this, yet no one can prove it. {{user0|Maniwar}} 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Typically I think she is criticised based on current definitions of what plagiarism is, which is unfair, but that is the way the popular media works I guess. Ansell 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee link spam 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee keeps adding the following links to the site:

 * Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God
 * The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

I totally label them as Link Spam because 1) These have not proven to be reputable sources and 2) They act more like a blog of this Walter McGill. There are no verification of facts to his charges and no reputable news sources are cited. I deleted them because anyone on the internet can throw up a blog, but that does not make them a reputable source or even a source for that matter. --Maniwar (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Maniwar. Thank you for placing this note. You have acted more than appropriately. Long-time contributors to the Seventh-day Adventist Church wikiproject will recall everythingimportant.org being added in a similar manner to church pages earlier this year. The user at the time was warned and received several blocks as a result. -Fermion 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
E.Shurbee, you've been issued personal attack warnings here [6]. --Maniwar (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: External links

This is a dispute about not knowing the difference between spam and legitimate Wikipedia content. 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • The article in question [7] is poorly referenced. It cites no print material and references itself several times. It also violates wikipedia policy regarding civility, encyclopedic content, personal attacks and original research. As such, I feel no qualms about declaring it be inappropriate for inclusion on wikipedia. --Fermion 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So what prevents you from understanding that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has no references whatsoever, other than those which are circular and self-authenticating? It cites no print material and references itself several times. Yet you feel no qualms about Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church not passing the standards you set for me in a Wikipedia article.
Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions. The standard of external links is much different. Wikipedia:External links doesn't say that an external link has to reference printed material, be encyclopedic, be 100% neutral or even 100% verifiable. The format and content to the external links of Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church clearly shows that one-sided points of view are justifiable. As I've pointed out before, according to Wikipedia:External links, sites should be linked to if they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.
The point of http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill is that it challenges the glaring inconsistencies, exaggerations and tactful omissions purposely excluded from Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. ... Asking questions about verifiable facts in the light of Wikipedia requirements is not original research. --E.Shubee 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am coming in new to this and see that your edits and inclusion of your personal website is infact POV. There are no reputable sources to back any of these supposed accusations up. As I've mentioned, anyone can throw up a blog and claim to have information, however without any reputable backing or proof, it is just ones opinion. Please refrain from including the link spam in the article. I want to warn you that you have also broken the WP:3RR and I do want to warn you that you risk being blocked. Please be sure to adhere to the rules and policies of Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Your criticism of the two pages at issue that you haven't read, which contain links to reliable sources that you haven't read (and, evidently, can't even see), proves that you're not qualified to express an opinion. --E.Shubee 23:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Threats, Intimidation and the Kingdom of God
 * The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
I totally label them as Link Spam because 1) These have not proven to be reputable sources and 2) They act more like a blog of this Walter McGill. There are no verification of facts to his charges and no reputable news sources are cited. I deleted them because anyone on the internet can throw up a blog, but that does not make them a reputable source or even a source for that matter. --Maniwar (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Confederacies will increase in number and power as we draw nearer to the end of time. These confederacies will create opposing influences to the truth, forming new parties of professed believers who will act out their own delusive theories. The apostasy will increase. "Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1). Men and women have confederated to oppose the Lord God of heaven, and the church is only half awake to the situation. —Ellen G. White, Selected Messages Book 2, p. 383. --E.Shubee 09:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Personal Attack Warning at [8] 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
    This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. --Maniwar (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • Actually, I am protesting the removal of four valuable links, not two. The External Links should look as follows:

Accusations of church corruption

Opposition to Adventism

Addressing corruption and opposition claims


Comments
  • I vote in favor of keeping the links.--Snowblower 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note, this while is not a vote, your reasons and discussion would be valuable. This is also the only contribution by this user. Ansell 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I guess this issue is put to rest since E.Shubee is no longer here. I for one am glad it's put to rest. --Maniwar (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
and so it continues. user0|Maniwar 02:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please classify this sentence. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has ruled that Walter McGill operates his websites “in bad faith.” [9]. Is it original research or an admissible statement? --E.Shubee 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • According to WIPO's Press Release 464, October 13, 2006 marked the 25,000th domain name dispute to be resolved through WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center in its seven years of operation. I want to know why Wikipedia does not consider their published reports to be 100% verifiable and 100% reputable? --E.Shubee 13:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The WIPO looks like a reliable source. It does address this issue directly. When citing it be careful to stay close to the source per WP:NOR. Durova 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the WIPO case only concludes that it was bad faith to take out licenses on domains which could easily be confused with people looking for the larger, established church "brand". The allegation above seems to be that he is still operating the churches sites in bad faith. the csda.us site which is all that is currently operating, was not referred to as being in bad faith in the ruling. Also, the WIPO ruling cannot be used to comment on the overall church name and the basis for that, you need the results if they are available from the civil case where the actual name was the point of discussion. Ansell 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The judgment date of WIPO’s ruling against McGill for the domain names 7th-day-adventist.org, creation-7th-day-adventist-church.org, creationseventhdayadventistchurch.org, creationsda.org, is July 21, 2006. The creation date for the domain creationseventhdayadventistchurch.ca is July 12, 2006. I don't see how the Canadian site, registered by one of McGill's accomplices, is more honorable than McGill's "bad faith" sites in the USA. It's bad faith, incessant and escalating. An injunction against McGill's use of the name CSDA and Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is requested in the current lawsuit, dated 09/22/2006. I'm amazed by the staggering amount of power sought for in the injunction, all stated in meticulous detail, and the huge amount of damages allegedly caused by the defendant against the plaintiff. One thing I've learned from Texas Conference Association of Seventh-day Adventists and Richardson Seventh-day Adventist Church vs. Eugene Shubert, those Adventists sure do know how to exaggerate in court and punish to the fullest extent of the law. --E.Shubee 02:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Your individual reaction, or any other editor's, is irrelevant here - unless one of the editors on this page is also a journalist or lawyer who's published a commentary on this case in some reputable magazine or equivalent venue. Durova 05:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just yesterday you wrote: "The WIPO looks like a reliable source. It does address this issue directly. When citing it be careful to stay close to the source per WP:NOR." The page cited above, Texas Conference Association of Seventh-day Adventists and Richardson Seventh-day Adventist Church vs. Eugene Shubert does address this issue directly, it does stay as close to the sources as possible per WP:NOR and has a huge amount of commentary from Adventism's greatest moral authority on exactly this disagreement. --E.Shubee 13:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Do my comments somehow appear contradictory? I'll clarify with bullet points:
  1. WIPO can only confirm the dry facts of this case.
  2. The sort of source that would be appropriate for legal interpretation and commentary would be, for example, the Yale Law Journal.
  3. Everythingimportant.org is not an appropriate citation per WP:RS.
  4. There is no reason to reopen a discussion about Everythingimportant.org as a source.
  5. Wikipedia runs a mentorship program whose volunteers can explain WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR for editors who have difficulty understanding these policies. I repeat my recommendation, for the third and final time, that E.Shubee join this program and direct procedural questions there.
As an uninvolved administrator I have no interest in the outcome of this dispute. However, per WP:DE, a consensus of impartial editors at WP:AN has already agreed that E.Shubee's conduct is disruptive. Applicable remedies include topic ban and site ban. Durova 15:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I type in seventh day adventis on wikipedia, and this comes up. Instead of someone creating an informational article about the seventh day adventis church, there is an article criticzing it. Nice Job. PrincessOfHearts 20:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Seventh-day Adventist Church page? And I am not sure why this page comes up first, but the main page should be on the list also. Ansell 00:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether a vandal redirected one of the pages that redirects to Seventh-day Adventist Church here and PrincessOfHearts was caught before it was reverted. The redirects to this page all seem legit at the moment though, and I don't think it is worth the effort hunting it down, unless we need more evidence of malpractice by a particular editor. MyNameIsNotBob 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh thanks i sound like an idiot now, but just so you guys know, whenever you type in seventh day adventis this comes up PrincessOfHearts 13:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the answer may be in your spelling. You quote the name as not having a "t" on the end. When I type in "seventh day adventist" I get the real page, when I type in "seventh day adventis" I get a search results page with only one entry, this page. I think your query is enough to put a hard redirect in for seventh day adventis as a common misspelling. Cheers, Ansell 22:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • actually ive always been typing in Seventh Day Adventist and this article was coming up before. that was a typo i just made. PrincessOfHearts 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, indeed

I came to this article from a direct link elsewhere in Wikipedia, so I won't add to the above complaints about how badly the Search mechanism is broken if this is the top article. It must be. But the first thing I would expect to see at the top – that is, above the article – of an article like this one is wording like See Seventh-day Adventist Church for an article about the church itself. Yes, the first sentence of this anti-article does have a link to the real article, but that is not enough. --CliffC 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Can you remember what the direct link was that resulted in you ending up here? -Fermion 08:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
A good question. I'm pretty sure I came here from the page User talk:E.Shubee, apparently a proponent of one of the factions here; I'm not sure how I found his page, though, maybe from a reference to some not-well-received efforts in an Einstein article. The article's title sounded interesting. I'm not involved in any way in this church (or movement if you will) and I'm not one to get involved in religious discussions, but I do get irked when something here at wiki seems badly out of balance. --CliffC 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
But the church article itself is linked in the first line of the article - isn't the See also line redundant? -- Chuq 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but doesn't it reflect disambiguation lines in other articles? -Fermion 08:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation lines are for multiple topics with the same name. This article deals with a subset of information from the main article, and the article title makes it pretty clear which part that is. -- Chuq 08:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the way this is dealt with at Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code is excellent. Have changed the article accordingly. MyNameIsNotBob 08:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The way it is dealt with in that article is by linking and bolding the name in the first paragraph of the article. The "see also" header up the top is nothing to do with this - it is because "The Da Vinci Code" has several other meanings other than the book (the film, the game, the soundtrack). There are not multiple organisations or things called "Seventh-day Adventist Church" so this page doesn't have that problem, therefore the line up the top isn't needed. I have changed the first paragraph of this article to match the style of the first paragraph of Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code. -- Chuq 09:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I fail to see the logic of treating an article about, or against, a church the same as one about a work of fiction. Something similar to the following might work. Again, a clear statement that this is a child of a parent subject belongs above the article...
This article examines controversial issues involving Scientology and its affiliated organizations. For a more complete examination of Scientology, see the main article. --CliffC 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice the statement was removed with the question "what do you have against it?". 1. It says the exact same thing as the next line of the article. What is the point of having it twice? 2. The {{about}} tag is for disambiguation, this page doesn't *need* to be disambiguated because the article title is perfectly clear about what the content of the article is. -- Chuq 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the very nature of this article, a criticisms page, is enough mandate to require an {{about}} tag in there. I don't think linking the title of the article is appropriate. MyNameIsNotBob 07:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion to Ansell

The substantial changes by User:E.Shubee have been reverted. A number of reasons can be cited, however the most compelling I see is the use of weasel descriptions like "idiotic" to describe the current state of certain links. It does not auger well for a series of changes to be accepted when description of that nature are given. My suggestion to people wishing to make such large scale changes is suggest the changes on this talk page first. In that way, referencing can be preserved and correctly done, changes can be improved on, and it will be easier to track what has happened rather than a series of minor edits which can be very difficult to follow. -Fermion 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please represent the issue accurately. At 05:51 on October 28, 2006 E.Shubee removed two valueless links and the awkward, non-encyclopedic notation 1844-10-22 from the Early Shut door theology section of Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and replaced it with the date October 22, 1844. The computer logs for the history revision page shows that E.Shubee footnoted the improvement as, "I removed the idiotic and meaningless link." At 23:26 on October 28, 2006, User:Fermion reverted that change and all subsequent improvements contributed by E.Shubee. Shall we all vote on the merit of E.Shubee's initial improvement or what? --E.Shubee 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Also please notice the copycat style in my ratiocinative argument. All my valueless links show the undesirability of valueless links. --E.Shubee 10:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)