nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + + +
→Needed?: Again, do we need it?
::::It has long been settled that the main article on any subject (on this site, that is) may contain the Christian point-of-view on the subject; many of them do so. Many of the ones that you've edited do so. Why deviate now? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:21, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::It has long been settled that the main article on any subject (on this site, that is) may contain the Christian point-of-view on the subject; many of them do so. Many of the ones that you've edited do so. Why deviate now? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:21, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Aziraphale is correct in that we are not disputing the truth of the content. In fact I totally agree with it, and not just because I know one of the authors of the quote!
:::: Ed, you point out that ' "science" is not the same as "physical science" '. That comment is irrelevant, as we no longer have an article titled "physical science"! It was ''you'' who renamed "science" to "physical science", which was too restrictive, so it was renamed "natural science" so that the life sciences would be included. The question is, do we need "modern science" as well? For that matter, do we really need "natural science"? Why not just put it all (back) under "science"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)