Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,417
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 299:
Line 299: + +
→Overall critique of the article. Consequences of having a high profile page lack credibility
[[Confirmation bias]] often occurs when you set out to prove a position from the start rather than go where the evidence leads. The first portion of this article is a textbook example of the danger of allowing confirmation bias to negatively affect an articles quality. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:11, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
[[Confirmation bias]] often occurs when you set out to prove a position from the start rather than go where the evidence leads. The first portion of this article is a textbook example of the danger of allowing confirmation bias to negatively affect an articles quality. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:11, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
:As JDano expresses, we should take a nuetral stance. Many of the claims on both sides really stretch
credulity. What does attending a funeral have to do with Christianity? Read you Bible back-and-forth, upside down, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Esperanto, Polish, Yiddish, whatever. You will not find one single word, let alone phrase or verse that remotely suggests a believers standing in Christ has anything to do with honoring the dead. Yet this item appears in both the pro and con sections. In the pro section, it's number 1 on the list. In the con section, it's boldened. ,This page teaches us nothing about Christianity, let alone Islam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:49, 26 May 2017 (EDT)