Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: +
answer to complaint that all Protestant representation was removed - explained that it was simply not true
:If find it interesting that only the Protestant view was deleted, while the RCC view (which is even more massive) went untouched. There are many evangelical Protestant editors here, and religious content, thus, shouldn't be biased one way or another (unlike what I've seen here and in other articles). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
:If find it interesting that only the Protestant view was deleted, while the RCC view (which is even more massive) went untouched. There are many evangelical Protestant editors here, and religious content, thus, shouldn't be biased one way or another (unlike what I've seen here and in other articles). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
::As a gesture of goodwill, I removed the lock on the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
::As a gesture of goodwill, I removed the lock on the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
:::Appreciate that, Conservative. As the original contributor I will answer the complaint that only the Protestant view was deleted, leaving only a "massive" RCC content. In the originally composed Section on Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18 which compactly reviews and summarizes contradictory and conflicting interpretations (exegesis) there was, and is again, abundant representation of Protestant views and conflicting linguistic scholarship which I eagerly included in my original contribution of this article for "balanced reporting"—Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Strong's Greek Dictionary, experts in [[linguistics]], Christian history, pro and con apologetists' points, now explicitly highlighted with boldface. Those points were drawn from the "massive" list of Protestant and Orthodox links under External links along with the Catholic links. Moreover, it is rare that whole articles, unabridged, are imported into articles on Conservapedia, as was done here with Matt Slick's CARM article and the article from Ligonier Ministries; and yet the Section on Eastern Orthodox views of Petrine Primacy posted at the same time featured only an external link to Primacy and Unity in Orthodox ecclesiology, not the text itself copied whole, an article which was already linked under External links. I have seen plenty of articles on various topics which have headings and only external links posted under them in place of whole content or summarization of content of topic, which made access to the material convenient. The copy and pasting of the two whole Protestant articles ''entire'' only repeated info that was already covered in the article, making the whole text of them an unnecessary redundancy. It wasn't buried. So I adapted the utility of explicitly citing the Protestant articles in particular under the Protestant view of Petrine Primacy, already listed in the External links, emphasizing their titles with boldface; and did the same for Orthodoxy articles. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:10, 14 August 2019 (EDT)