Talk:Antidicomarians

NPOV dispute

This article does not address the subject neutrally, but from a Roman Catholic perspective. e.g. "This doctrine became repugnant even to their own adherents". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.102.194 (talk) 19:43, November 9, 2006 (UTC)

fixed

I believe that I've removed the non-neutral sentences from the text. I've also revised the way that the subject is written, hopefully for the better. -Ohms law 11:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tagging for NPOV

This article did not have any previous history of dispute, here on the talk page. Therefore, from my reading of the point of view dispute style guide page: Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute, the page should have been marked with the POV-check template rather than the POV template. -Ohms law 11:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

References

I've unfortunately had to leave the (Harvard?) references in the text unchanged, because I'm uncertain as to the proper way to change them. Anyone with more knowledge on the subject, please fix it and let me know how to fix them myself in the future. -Ohms law 11:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Heretics

Since it is considered heresey to say that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph by almost all Christian churches, and considered blasphemy by the Catholic Church to be "against Mary" or deny her "perpetual virginity", did the early church view these people as heretics? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes are sketchy

The footnotes need to be beefed up with more info such as publisher, date, isbn, page number, quote. The salient principle is that the reader must be able to look up the cited source. Mksword (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)