4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: + + + + + +
"which some Christians consider to be a cult"
*I just did revert it. I'm more than willing to discuss it, but this should be hashed out before attempting to reinsert the material. The burden of proof is on those who think it is OK to copy such large quantities of material from Wikipedia to explain why it is OK, given that Conservapedia does ''not'' license its material under the GFDL.
*I just did revert it. I'm more than willing to discuss it, but this should be hashed out before attempting to reinsert the material. The burden of proof is on those who think it is OK to copy such large quantities of material from Wikipedia to explain why it is OK, given that Conservapedia does ''not'' license its material under the GFDL.
== "which some Christians consider to be a cult" ==
If you don't say ''which'' Christians and cite a published source for the statement, then this is pure weasel-wording, a simple unsupported statement of opinion which is not magically transformed into a fact by adding the phrase "some Christians consider."
I don't doubt that there are Christians who consider it to be a cult. There are probably some Catholics who consider the Pope to be the Antichrist (i.e. would answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" with "No.") It is perfectly legitimate to cite facts about opinions, but the reader is entitled to know ''whose'' opinions they are. Who is calling them "a cult?" A U. N. official annoyed by their identification of the U. N. with the Beast of the Revelation? A hospital official troubled by their stance on blood transfusions? A Catholic retaliating for their Catholic-bashing? Who, when, and what, exactly did they say? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)