User talk:Khalfani khaldun/Controversies merger

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

Naming Issues

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

Daystar

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. Khalfani Khaldun 18:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Way

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. Khalfani Khaldun 18:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]