Talk:Wikiproject:Religion

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Problem with page about, Christianity/Jesus on Conservapedia.


"Everything you post must be true and verifiable"

Conservepedia commandments.

I realise most people who edit this Wiki are of the Christian Perusastion, but i must point out that the article on Christianity is not objective in the least nor factual. It states that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of god aswell it infers Christianity is the one and only true relegion.

This is not exactly objective at all, these claims aren't verifable at all so what one must do is present things like relegion from an Objective standpoint without any biase (against or for).

I find the Wikipedia article on Jesus/Christiantiy presents the details much more objectively then Conservepedia does, they dont push one opinion or the other claiming such and such is absoloute fact when infact it is not it is unverifiable.

Housekeeping

Keeping track of our articles, how do we do this, by making one long list? Or by putting a template on every religion articles talk page? Or this not even neccessary?

-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 18:29, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Andrew is against too many templates and so on, and I see where he's coming from. But at the same time it would be useful. Something unobtrusive may be acceptable? 10px שועל (talk|contribs) 08:05, 30 July 2008 (EDT)


Unless objections are raised, I will be converting all cat:catholicism to cat:catholic church. -- 50 star flag.png jp 10:07, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Will continue to add Catholic Church category to almost all: Christians, Books, Early Christians, Martyrs, Bible Persons, Art, etc. -- 50 star flag.png jp 00:52, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm joining a bit late, but I'm offering to be a referee or mediator when contributors start to disagree vigorously about how to describe a religion. (I'll try to be more laid back on my own, which I just unprotected this month.) --Ed Poor Talk 18:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)

April Fools Article

I propose that the April Fools Day article be unprotected as I see no point in it and its talk page being protected. Dvergne 11:31, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

Personal tools