Talk:Restored Church of God

This article reads as if it was written with the intent of selling the Restored Church of God. It may even be copied from a RCG source.
 * Exactly. "Advertising" was my first thought. And my second and third too. UltraBlonz (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this reads as propaganda for the Restored Church of God."""" Amen to all of this. Is the prophecy book "utterly different" because it's in a language from outer space? :-) 192.127.94.7 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is almost completely duplicated from their website. The various sections are merely copies of their web pages sourced from the "A Look Inside The Church" pages. http://www.thercg.org/landing/inside_rcg.html

The above commentators are accurate in the assessment that it is more geared toward selling than informing. The bio page here is essentially a duplicate of their bio page, and so on with all the rest. http://www.thercg.org/dcp-bio.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwolfe 73 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No Citations
This articles contains no citations.

Slicric7 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Very clerly biased.
This article will take a LOT of work to get it to the state where it can be called truly neutral. It seems to be copied pretty much from their websites, and in its present condition is not really a normal Wikipedia article, so much as it is pure and simple promotion of their Christian denomination. I hope someone will take a few hours to do some serious editing on it - but the question remains: will this work simply be reverted/cancelled by RCG representatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayFlowerNorth (talk • contribs) 07:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Need to standardize this category of entry
The comments made regarding the suitability of this entry are in my opinion entirely correct.

The Restored Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, Living Church of God, and other groups with roots in the Radio/Worldwide Church of God need to be 'standardized'. As it stands, I believe the entries from these groups are in effect using Wikipedia as a bulletin board for free promotion of their respective group. Each has a lot in common, differing in the date and reason for founding, and highlighting the person(s) founding the group.

I would suggest a common 'framework' to make each entry both neutral and similarly structured. Some entries are repetitious, with too much/too little detail in certain sections. It is not the purpose of any encyclopedia to show bias as is apparent in the entries. There is also a lot of common material that can be referenced to existing/modified/new Wikipedia entries, such as British Israelism, Church Eras, Tithing, etc. However, I feel that scholarly supportive references will be hard to find.

WachetAuf (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Positions
While I agree with most of the above, what this article lacks (possibly due to assumed knowledge on behalf of the reader) is exactly what teachings or similar this stands for in a concise summary. What are the core beliefs and similar. --93.232.171.195 (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"and most of HWA's other teachings"
Which ones does it NOT accept? --134.153.14.13 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)