Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Commandments"
m (Please expand on meaning of "verifiable") |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT) | [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | == Please expand on meaning of "verifiable" == | + | == Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable" == |
I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god. | I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate. | If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate. | ||
| − | Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT) | + | Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT) |
Revision as of 02:56, March 18, 2008
Archives
Andy Schlafly approved the uncited template being mentioned in the conservapedia commandments in a personal email to me.
Here is what I added:
In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited.
Conservative 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable"
I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.
Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.
If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.
Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.Qc 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)