Difference between revisions of "Talk:Petrine Primacy"

Revision as of 12:02, August 15, 2019

I spent time researching as far as finding leading Protestant ministries who provided high quality content on the subject at hand. My work was promptly pretty much deleted and buried in the midst of links at the bottom of the page. This is unacceptable. In the Western World, we live in a pluralistic society when it comes to the various groups who claim to be a part of Christendom.

In addition, the USA is very pro-Israel and Jewish people face little anti-semitism compared to many countries.

Even American atheists admit they face very little discrimination in the USA despite it being a religious country compared to many Western nations (see: Persecution of atheists).

In short, in the West we pretty live in a society where the various religious camps attempt to compete on merit and not via censorship (with the exception of evolutionism being pushed in the public schools, etc.).

The reason I don't say we live in a completely pluralistic society when it comes to religion, is that a lot of Americans/Europeans don't want Muslim immigrants post 9/11, the Paris terrorist attacks, etc.

I locked the article due to my material being pretty much deleted and I don't want to get into an edit war.Conservative (talk) 16:48, 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). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

As a gesture of goodwill, I removed the lock on the article.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. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

1990's guy — After my discussion immediately above I checked the article and found the same redundant material posted again. I reverted the reverting change with the edit summary explanation "I read both the Matt Slick Carm article and the Ligonier Ministries article - unless Conservative is in fact Matt Slick and the contributor of the Ligonier Ministries article, he did not write them, they were merely copied and pasted into this article." --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

Text has more impact than links. The farther people go down any web page, the less readers you generally have.Conservative (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

I said I was not going to get into an edit war. Yet, one erupted even though I gave fair warning. The page is locked now. Conservative (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

The only whole article I quoted was the short two paragraph article at Bible.org. For the other articles I quoted, I did enough quoting to get the main point across, but no more.Conservative (talk) 20:04, 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.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."
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." 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-truths, misrepresentation, polemic, and falsehood). Proverbs 18:17 1 Corinthians 8:2. --Dataclarifier (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

1990sguy and I wanted to work with you to have all three positions represented adequately via sections for each. Instead, a completely unnecessary revert war started. Here is an example of an article on this topic featuring various sections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Peter

If you agree to not to edit the Protestant section and leave it intact and not create a monster size Catholic section in order to push the Protestant section way down, then I will unlock the article. I can have 1990sguy monitor the page as I will be attending to other matters. I don't have a lot of time to discuss this matter with you. If you are not amenable to this, then regrettably, I will just leave the article locked which is something I had wanted to avoid doing. Conservative (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2019 (EDT)

You can ask this user to help with the Eastern Orthodox section: https://www.conservapedia.com/User:EasternOrthodox Conservative (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2019 (EDT)