390
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 172:
Line 172: − + − + − + − + − + − + − +
For some reason I missed the other 2 dashes I added to my other signatures here, caught them now, and now they're all abolished. My signature looks more normal this way.
==Christian Science==
==Christian Science==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:Did you read my edit summary? She is presented by the sect as discovering the laws of spiritual forces rather than as treating symptoms. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:Did you read my edit summary? She is presented by the sect as discovering the laws of spiritual forces rather than as treating symptoms. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::I don't know, doesn't it kind of provide a flash of insight that would make the reader interested to read more? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::I don't know, doesn't it kind of provide a flash of insight that would make the reader interested to read more? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Maybe, but it does not look like its neutral, it looks like its endorsing the religion's claims. Is the purpose of the article to neutrally cover the church, or to be an advertisement for the church? If the purpose is the former, then it does not make sense to make that the first sentence. Anyway, it still is redundant, that's the main problem I have with it. I know this encyclopedia is not supposed to be neutral the way wikipedia allegedly is, but I still think there should be some level of neutrality in reporting information here. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Maybe, but it does not look like its neutral, it looks like its endorsing the religion's claims. Is the purpose of the article to neutrally cover the church, or to be an advertisement for the church? If the purpose is the former, then it does not make sense to make that the first sentence. Anyway, it still is redundant, that's the main problem I have with it. I know this encyclopedia is not supposed to be neutral the way wikipedia allegedly is, but I still think there should be some level of neutrality in reporting information here. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::But if the article can get a conservative to personally understand the appeal, it might put a conservative more on guard against its potential religious unorthodoxy as described later in the article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:10, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::But if the article can get a conservative to personally understand the appeal, it might put a conservative more on guard against its potential religious unorthodoxy as described later in the article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:10, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Honestly, to me it looked like the statement was endorsing Christian Science as the correct religion. (Since it seems like my saying the Talmud condoned pedophilia lead to people mistakenly viewing me as a pedophile advocate, I will clarify that I'm not saying I think Christian Science is true, I'm saying it looked to me like the article was saying that). --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Honestly, to me it looked like the statement was endorsing Christian Science as the correct religion. (Since it seems like my saying the Talmud condoned pedophilia lead to people mistakenly viewing me as a pedophile advocate, I will clarify that I'm not saying I think Christian Science is true, I'm saying it looked to me like the article was saying that). [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
== Soviet Union ==
== Soviet Union ==
The article about the Soviet Union,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&action=historysubmit&diff=1152397&oldid=1152395], has a photograph of a cat in it. That just seems kind of bizarre and off topic to me. But I'm not going to remove it myself because I don't want to cause problems. But my opinion is that it should be removed. What do you think? --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
The article about the Soviet Union,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&action=historysubmit&diff=1152397&oldid=1152395], has a photograph of a cat in it. That just seems kind of bizarre and off topic to me. But I'm not going to remove it myself because I don't want to cause problems. But my opinion is that it should be removed. What do you think? [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:It does seem strange. But it was added by the same administrator who imposed your topic ban. He'd think you were getting even with him, so you'd better ask him about it first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:It does seem strange. But it was added by the same administrator who imposed your topic ban. He'd think you were getting even with him, so you'd better ask him about it first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I honestly didn't know that. Which administrator is that? I already removed it.--[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:19, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I honestly didn't know that. Which administrator is that? I already removed it.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:19, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I readied the photo to avoid controversy.
:::I readied the photo to avoid controversy.
::You readied it? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:23, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::You readied it? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:23, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I meant I re-added it, or I thought I had. It was a typo. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I meant I re-added it, or I thought I had. It was a typo. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::Perhaps in your fantasies you did, but in reality, you didn't! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:30, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::Perhaps in your fantasies you did, but in reality, you didn't! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:30, 12 May 2015 (EDT)