| | ::[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=prev&oldid=162595 This] edit doesn't seem to improve the article, and I concur with its removal. Perhaps it belongs in an article on racism instead. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT) | | ::[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=prev&oldid=162595 This] edit doesn't seem to improve the article, and I concur with its removal. Perhaps it belongs in an article on racism instead. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT) |
| − | :::Yes it does. And unless Speaker wishes to take on the whole LDS Church in the LDS entry, I'm not certain we use it as an example in the [[Racism]] entry. What is clear is, this article in its present structure needs to be reevaluated. The intro says "scientifically", notions of "race" are bunk. The legal subsection says the law recognizes bunk, to wit, Affirmative Action laws or as naybody who holds a drivers license knows. Then the Religion section is simply a hit on Religion because supposedly Religion is the source of racism, yet this claim is made with no foundation, and doesn't belong in this article anyway. The whole thing needs study and discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:00, 16 May 2007 (EDT) | + | :::Yes it does. And unless Speaker wishes to take on the whole LDS Church in the LDS entry, I'm not certain we should use it as an example in the [[Racism]] entry. What is clear is, this article in its present structure needs to be reevaluated. The intro says "scientifically", notions of "race" are bunk. The legal subsection says the law recognizes bunk, to wit, Affirmative Action laws or as naybody who holds a drivers license knows. Then the Religion section is simply a hit on Religion because supposedly Religion is the source of racism, yet this claim is made with no foundation, and doesn't belong in this article anyway. The whole thing needs study and discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:00, 16 May 2007 (EDT) |