Talk:D. M. Canright

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 07:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How was he a pastor for a church which didn't exist under that name until 1861? This needs explanation. Ans e  ll  05:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Question of Notability
I am in doubt as to the notability of this article. It seems to be a stock-standard story of the saga which is the departure of ministers from the Adventist Church. Why is this any different? In the 1980s over 150 ministers left the Adventist Church in Australia alone. MyNam e IsNotBob  07:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is about a person who was on the General conference, and then left. That is notable enough for me. Your comparison to the 1980's departures are in conglomeration notable, as opposed to this which is individually notable. Also, why do you seriously think this article is damaging to wikipedia. it is well written. Ans e ll  14:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I realised not long after tagging the article that he was the author of a number of books questioning church procedures and the like. I believe the article could still do with a better expression of notability. MyNam e IsNotBob  01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It interests me! Therefore it is at least a little bit notable. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Article name
Do you think D. M. Canright is the best title for this article? Why not "Dudley Canright"? Here is the Style Guide if anyone is interested: Naming conventions (people). Colin MacLaurin 09:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it's the best title. W. H. Branson, in the introduction to In Defense of the Faith, first calls him by D. M. Canright.  Also, in referring to Wikipedia's Style Guide, I think that D.M. falls under the Style Guide's recommendations as "the name that is most generally recognisable."  By the way, on a completely different note: Do we underline names of books on Wikipedia?  Thanks. Psychophant 01:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
For some unclear reason, criticism sections are not well looked upon in wikipedia. The text under the section Criticism of Canright (criticism is OK, not just entire sections) maybe should be the last paragraph under the section Canright's defection from the Seventh-day Adventist church? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I made it so. The Criticism is still there, but not as a separate section. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality??
What's the neutrality issue? Is it too pro-Canright or to contra-Canright? Does it still remain? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I might imagine that there is no real neutrality issue as per WP:NPOV standards. The article is just missing a lot of important facts, such as (citation):
 * She has instilled into her people a spirit so intensely sectarian, and hostile to all other churches, that, both in the homeland and mission fields, they are regarded as hindrances to Christian work
 * and
 * After over seventy years' trial, Mrs. White is regarded by all the Christian world as a false teacher
 * which means that he is pretty negative, and statements attesting that attitude are still missing in the article. The article is then at best a C-class article. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The end of Canrights text contains a list of criticisms to be used (a selection). The adventist links accusing this-or-that about Canright maybe aren't all needed. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Added a few of the most important criticisms, more not needed. Some counterarguments from the 7Adv apologetic position now needed. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)