Changes

:And given that I just created an article on [[Bible.org]] and linked to it from Conservapedia's [[Bible]] article, I am guessing I will bring them plenty of traffic in return for quoting their entire 2 paragraph article. That is a pretty good deal for Bible.org.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:21, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

:And given that I just created an article on [[Bible.org]] and linked to it from Conservapedia's [[Bible]] article, I am guessing I will bring them plenty of traffic in return for quoting their entire 2 paragraph article. That is a pretty good deal for Bible.org.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:21, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

::"''Text has more impact than links. The farther people go down any web page, the less readers you generally have.''" <br>If that is true, then extending the length of this article with duplicated material is counterproductive and self-defeating. While the "massive" length of the Protestant additions (increased to 110% of the length of the text preceding them) tell only one side of the controversy (no text given to Eastern Orthodox views of Petrine Primacy under that additional section heading), the statement re the length of a web page suggests that few will bother to read them. I don't believe that. Persistence in submitting them seems to have been done in hope that the material preceding them with its weighted balance presenting all views will have less influence on the reader, producing an article with an overall argument weighted in favor of the particular point of view represented by the added material. Intended or not, the effect of a subtle "spin" of the whole of the argument toward one favored conclusion undermines [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] to avoid editorializing with an article. '''Links''' are important and do have impact—they can provide depth and balance with additional information, and more importantly supportive substantiation of statements made in an article, which expands understanding of the compact introductory encyclopedic material, which is the purpose of articles in an encyclopedia: answering questions honestly and factually and stimulating a desire to know more about the topic. "Inquiring minds want to know." ''[[Intelligence|Intelligent]]'' readers do not simply accept what they are told in articles about religion and philosophy, the Bible and Christianity, without investigating controverted claims of interpretation and weighing the integrity of various scholars and their evidence to see if in fact they can be trusted to provide more than [[specious reasoning]], and students need to hear more than one side of a debate ([[half-truth]]s, [[misrepresentation]], [[polemic]]). [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/18-17.htm '''Proverbs 18:17'''] [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/8-2.htm '''1&nbsp;Corinthians 8:2''']. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:32, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

::"''Text has more impact than links. The farther people go down any web page, the less readers you generally have.''" <br>If that is true, then extending the length of this article with duplicated material is counterproductive and self-defeating. While the "massive" length of the Protestant additions (increased to 110% of the length of the text preceding them) tell only one side of the controversy (no text given to Eastern Orthodox views of Petrine Primacy under that additional section heading), the statement re the length of a web page suggests that few will bother to read them. I don't believe that. Persistence in submitting them seems to have been done in hope that the material preceding them with its weighted balance presenting all views will have less influence on the reader, producing an article with an overall argument weighted in favor of the particular point of view represented by the added material. Intended or not, the effect of a subtle "spin" of the whole of the argument toward one favored conclusion undermines [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] to avoid editorializing with an article. '''Links''' are important and do have impact—they can provide depth and balance with additional information, and more importantly supportive substantiation of statements made in an article, which expands understanding of the compact introductory encyclopedic material, which is the purpose of articles in an encyclopedia: answering questions honestly and factually and stimulating a desire to know more about the topic. "Inquiring minds want to know." ''[[Intelligence|Intelligent]]'' readers do not simply accept what they are told in articles about religion and philosophy, the Bible and Christianity, without investigating controverted claims of interpretation and weighing the integrity of various scholars and their evidence to see if in fact they can be trusted to provide more than [[specious reasoning]], and students need to hear more than one side of a debate ([[half-truth]]s, [[misrepresentation]], [[polemic]], and [[falsehood]]). [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/18-17.htm '''Proverbs 18:17'''] [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/8-2.htm '''1&nbsp;Corinthians 8:2''']. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:32, 15 August 2019 (EDT)