Talk:People of the Book

Seventh-day Adventists

I have inserted Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) claims (note in their official publications) to be Islam's true People of the Book as identified in the Qu'ran. I have provided a link to the Seventh-day Adventist Church official flagship publication which explains its claim. I have also provide a link to the SDA Churches special Islamic ministry called 'People of the Book Publications'.Sjdferg (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 23 July 2011.

If people are going to delete things please have the courtesy of discussing it on the discussion page, in the same way I discuss the proposed additions here.Sjdferg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Further to the claim that the Adventism should (and was without forewarning in this discussion section) be deleted as 'undue weight', I am not saying other groups cannot or should not their own sections. It would greatly assist and interest readers if there was an expansion of what different religious groups have, especially Jewish and Christian denominations, as to their understanding and relationship of the Islamic understanding of the term 'People of the Book'. The passage on Seventh-day Adventism does not advocate the SDA position per se, it merely provides an explanation with quotes of the official Seventh-day Adventist Church citing official published material.

Also, from a Muslim perspective (which is what the page is primarily about), and as noted in the proposed section, Seventh-day Adventists are viewed by Muslims as 'non-Christians'. Furthermore, many other Christian groups (including as noted on other wiki pages) claim likewise that Adventists are not 'Christians'. Similar accusations often are made against Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon's, which is why in wiki pages they also have their own little sections rather than simply being labelled in the 'Christian' section. Adventists claim to have a special relationship with Muslims due to their similar beliefs and for that reason don't see themselves as 'Christian' within the context of interfaith dialogue with Muslims. On that basis I would argue lumping Adventists in a generic Christian section is misleading.

To be fair and reasonable, I think the page should be expanded more generally to encompass the relationship between Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Shaker and other groups cited and Islam, within the conceptual framework of the Koranic notion of 'People of the Book'. A similar framework exists in many other wiki religious pages, where Catholic, 'Mainstream Protestant', Mormon, Jehovah's Witness and Adventist views are discussed in relation to a particular topic. That is what I am advocating in this instance.

Moreover, the Judae-Christian section as currently drafted is quite inadequate, because it really focuses on Jewish and Christian understandings of the general term 'People of the Book', rather than provide insight or relationship to the Islamic understanding of the term. It has all this talk about the Wycliffe translation of the Bible etc and it basically has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic-Christian or Islamic-Jewish relationships. It should be remembered that this article is primarily about Islam, and Islam's relationship to certain non-Islamic groups. If people want a more generic discussion on the term 'People of the Book' that does not relate to Islam, then I suggest a more generic 'People of the Book' page be created, with this page being confined to Islamic understandings of 'People of the Book'.Sjdferg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

• As an outsider looking in, I can tell you that WP:UNDUEWEIGHT is a valid concern, especially given the sourcing. This may come from an "official" publication, but it's pretty thin to support such a huge section, and I note that it's very, very vague. For instance, claims are made about "a spiritual leader of many thousands of Muslims in several countries, a sheikh," but the sheikh has no name, we don't know what his authority as a spiritual leader is, et cetera. The publication can support Seventh-Day claims, but not to the extent that you cited the conversation or to the extent that the publication claims that the sheik speaks for Islam. I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sjdferg, you posted a lengthy section on the views of the SDA church regarding this term that far exceeds anything having to do with any other sect. This runs afoul of both WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP. I don't think that the SDA view should necessarily go unmentioned, but this extended dissertation is unreasonable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There, done. I also don't know where you got this mumbo-jumbo about "forewarning," but there's no such policy on Wikipedia. I suggest you review WP:BRD. It works like this: You boldly added a large amount of material to the article; I reverted with an explanatory edit summary; Your next move is to discuss those edits on this talk page, not to re-add them and insist that the other person discuss first. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)