Jump to content

User talk:Khalfani khaldun/Controversies merger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please address each part of the article by its associated section in the old version

[edit]

Naming Issues

[edit]

This seems to be fully covered in the main article. So much more so than it is here. Why is this even mentioned? KhalfaniKhaldun 18:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daystar

[edit]

I didn't even know how this fit into controversies before I got to the last sentence of this huge paragraph. Something needs to be done to slim this down. While I understand that there was a lot of internal turmoil in the churches following this incident, I don't think this section helps to portray that or even portray much of a controversy at all. KhalfaniKhaldun 18:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Way

[edit]

The first half of this section once again seems to be kind of pointless. It's simply about doctrine taught by the local churches. As for the rest of this section, I believe that it should be part of a whole new section in the main article entitled something along the lines of internal dissenters. Especially the part regarding Titus Chu. (BTW, why is he not mentioned by name?) I feel like the controversy section should be for issues that people outside the local churches have had with the church, and this new section should address internal conflicts. KhalfaniKhaldun 18:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]