Talk:The Great Controversy (book)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

The Spectrum article from 1970 lists about eight sources which were added to the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy. It should be easy to quote and cite these directly from the book itself. BTW, after a quick skim of the article I can see why it was so controversial! Colin MacLaurin 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions and absurds

There's dozens of versions of this book. And the majority of these versions, were made after the death of the author. And this book in all versions has absurds believes about the past and future. Agre22 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Original version

This site: [Open] has the 1911 ediction of this bad book.Agre22 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Mailings

I removed the following from the article:

In a December 31, 2009 update, it appears that a mass-mailing of the latest edition appeared in mailboxes nationwide on this date (verification of this outside of my area-upper midwest- would be appreciated). This edition has a new subtitle: "The Storm is Rising" copyrighted 2008 by Review and Herald Publishing Association 55 West Oak Ridge Drive, Hagerstown, MD 21740. Original Text by E.G. White with cover art by John Bryant. A website GREATCONTROVERSYPROJECT.COM registered by John Bryant appears following the title page of the book. It is this author's concern (with the paperback edition in my possession) that possible involvement and/or promotion of the Seventh Day Adventist faith is masked. Why? In visiting the website, there is no clear identification of what this ministry is. Is this ministry affiliated with (the blessing of) the Seventh Day Adventist Church or not? Caution in replying by using their online contact form may be advised in these times of identity theft and mass marketing schemes.

In it's place I added a section about organizations that are mass-mailing the book including the one referenced above. Sdenny123 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the US, there is freedom of speech. This allows anyone to send copies of any literature to anyone anywhere anytime. But, no one is forced to read it. They have the freedom to toss it in the trash or burn it. Trabucogold (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New mailing

Our home is part of a new January 2013 mailing with a new book subtitle. While the edition has no publication date, it is entitled, The Great Controversy: past present future. Excellent historical information; an interesting read. 97.89.157.87 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Stored copy of the 5th Edition found.

FYI: It seems according to these web pages[1][2][3][4][5] that an old man died and left behind a trunk that included, among other items from around 1910, a copy of the 5th edition of this book. I don't know anything about the subject but thought this might be of interest to the editors of this article. I also think the cover in the 2nd link above and/or the illustration in 5th link above would be great for this article if copyright permission could be acquired from the Reddit user cluckinho who is the grandson of the diseased and the source of the photograph. Better still would be for him to take some new photos (which would establish clear ownership of the photographs) of the book just for WP if he is willing. Is there a WP protocol for asking for this kind of permission? If he does not want to reveal his true identity it seems trivial for a single photo to be taken with the book and a large-font printout side-by-side. The large-font printout would say "Permission hereby granted to WikiPedia & WikiMedia to use this and the related photos uploaded together on MM/DD/YYYY." (or whatever legal wording is required). 104.32.193.6 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Is The Great Controversy anti-catholic?

There have been several attempts to classify this book as "anti-catholic". While it is true that there are statements related to abuses carried out by the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries, there is no documentation given that this book should be classified as "anti-catholic". Until that documentation is given, this book should not have that classification. Earlysda (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference 25

Reference 25 (nonegw) can hardly be depicted as a balanced, neutral source. Can a better reference be found if the material is to be supported? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

* https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_gran_conflitto_tra_Cristo_e_Satana

• https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_gran_conflitto_tra_Cristo_e_Satana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizoa Movie (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Sold millions of copies"

Actually, a lot of copies of excerpts from this book have been given away... AnonMoos 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Many of those books given away have been paid by someone or sold to missionary students who gave them away. In my case, I have sold hundreds of copies of that book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.127.87.254 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External Links

The external links are all relevant to this article, and have been in place for several years, assisting readers of the article. Drmies says they are against Wikipedia rules, but here's what the guidelines say: "Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article." All of the current external links meet this guidelines. If Drmies has any questions, it would be nice if he would post them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlysda (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory?

In the quoted text of a letter, "Message after message has come to me from the Lord concerning—the dangers surrounding you and Elder Prescott. I have seen that Satan would have been greatly pleased to see Elders Prescott and Daniells undertake the work of a general overhauling of our books that have done a good work in the field for years."[18] I am confused as to the writer's viewpoint since Elder Prestcott is presumably viewed favourably, but Satan is described as approving of Prestcott's work. Could this be clarified by reading more of the letter? NickyMcLean (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Intro

I've removed this sentence from the intro: "It is one of her most significant and appreciated works, and many have converted to the Seventh-day Adventist faith through reading it " as it appeared to be puffery. --Unknown 03:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Book or Series?

This Wikipedia article is focused on this particular book, and not on any series, Howardishmael. Earlysda (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The first book called The Great Controversy appeared in 1854 as a single volume covering the entire scope of history from the fall of Satan to the end of Sin. It was expanded to a four volume set of books in 1884, and then again expanded to 5 volumes in 1888 with the final book covering only the history of the Church to the end of Sin and recreation of earth. So the book now called The Great Controversy covers only fraction of history of the first volume in 1854. The lead of the article starts off talking about the 1854 Great Controversy and then transitions without clarity to the 5th volume of the Conflict of the Ages series. The 1888/1911 Great Controversy is not the same as the 1854 Great Controversy. So, WHICH book do you believe that this article as talking about? --Howardishmael (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There is already a Wikipedia page for Conflict of the Ages series "[[6]]". Howardishmael, I've been curating this article on Wikipedia for over 13 years. I appreciate any useful additions/changes you may wish to make, but do not try to change the entire article to refer to something that it is not designed for.Earlysda (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism

No sane, educated person has any doubts that she committed plagiarism, see Talk:Ellen G. White#Ramik. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There is already a Wikipedia entry for plagiarism charges for Ellen White. This comment you made regarding plagiarism is not related to this Great Controversy book, and being an entirely subjective statement, should be deleted. I mentioned that in an earlier clean up of this article, which I have been curating for many years. (Earlysda (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by entirely subjective statement: her plagiarism is an objective historical fact. Debate about it is over. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a copy of what is currently on the "Inspiration of Ellen G. White" wikipedia page "Ramik cleared her of breaking the law of the land/time (copyright infringement/piracy), not of plagiarism in the academic sense.[40][41] In 1911, more than 70 years before charges of plagiarism, White wrote in the introduction to The Great Controversy her reason for quoting, in some cases without giving due credit, certain historians whose "statements affords a ready and forcible presentation on the subject."

That is fine, as that is the appropriate place where this type of information should be displayed. To have basically the same thing written on this particular book's page is not appropriate. This book has nothing to do with plagiarism, and having the section at all is problematic, but perhaps informative. However, this quote by Ramik has nothing related to this book, and as such, will be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlysda (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm really following you. Something White addressed in the introduction to this book is not related to our article on the book? - MrOllie (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This quote by Ramik has nothing at all to do with the book. It has to do with charges of plagiarism. That's why there is a dedicated section on "Inspiration of Ellen G. White" regarding those charges. This book itself has nothing to do with that topic, and as such, this quote by Ramik is not appropriate for this Wikipedia article. Earlysda (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your line is the book, which addresses this topic, has nothing to do with this topic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the exact same quote that is on a different Wikipedia page that expressly covers this subject. This book does not address that topic, and as such, it is not appropriate here, although the charges of "plagiarism" are acknowledged. Should this quote by Ramik etc. be put on all Wikipedia pages of individual Ellen White books?Earlysda (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

1) You're deleting more than the sentence on Ramik and 2) We're not a paper encyclopedia, we have the space to write a sentence on two pages when appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, if this quote by Ramik is seen by many as relevant to the article, so be it. I did add a sentence at the beginning of the Plagiarism section showing that these charges did not apply to the original, 1858 edition. I also removed McArthur's reference. Is that alright with you? Earlysda (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Back to adding irrelevant information regarding supposed plagiarism

Tgeorgescu, You have kept adding your irrelevant section regarding plagiarism many times. You have written this same thing on at least 3 Wikipedia articles on Ellen White and her works. That is fine when you do that at the proper place. This article, however, is about this particular book, and is not the proper place. I let stand part of what you wrote, even though it is not appropriate here. Please leave this article as Graham87 properly reverted it to in August. Thank you. Earlysda (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graham87: Did you mean to take a stand on this content issue? From your edit summary it looks like you were trying to revert Howardishmael and just went back a few history entries too far. - MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Weeeeell, I didn't mean to make a stand on this issue ... but I based my revert point on the edit summary saying "Howardishmael's edits ruined this article ...", which I took at face fvalue. However, per WikiBlame, the text was indeed added by Tgeorgescu, who also added the text to Ellen G. White. Graham87 12:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, why not let the article stand as Graham87 properly reverted it to back in August? He agrees that Tgeorgescu has added this same comment in at least 2 places (I've found one more), and since it does not properly belong on this Wikipedia article, it should not be here. I understand that this is important to you and him, but couldn't that information be put in its proper article, and not spread out over many articles? Earlysda (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Why? It is clearer than the sun at noon that The Great Controversy is based upon plagiarism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We're not a paper encyclopedia, we have the space to put information everywhere consensus indicates it is relevant. - MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)