360
edits
Changes
Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (view source)
Revision as of 19:19, July 4, 2008
, 19:19, July 4, 2008→The Controversial Material
:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here. While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here. While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the [[Atheism]] page or something on [[Liberals]], and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on ‘‘‘what’’’ is done, rather ‘‘‘who’’’ does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment. Could you please unlock the atheism page? Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate. Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment. Could you please unlock the atheism page? Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate. Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Ultimahero, it is obvious to me that you have an ax to grind against the Mormon Church. Why aren't you ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party once supported slavery for blacks? No, you've singled out the Mormon Church without explanation or justification. It's not doing you any good and it's not fair to treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner. Give it a rest and ask yourself why you don't complain in a similar manner about the Democratic Party and countless other institutions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Ultimahero, it is obvious to me that you have an ax to grind against the Mormon Church. Why aren't you ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party once supported slavery for blacks? No, you've singled out the Mormon Church without explanation or justification. It's not doing you any good and it's not fair to treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner. Give it a rest and ask yourself why you don't complain in a similar manner about the Democratic Party and countless other institutions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
: He wasn't ranting and raving. Again I point out that if it's not fair to "treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner", why are so many entities, such as Barack Obama, treated in such a blatantly one-sided manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
: He wasn't ranting and raving. Again I point out that if it's not fair to "treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner", why are so many entities, such as Barack Obama, treated in such a blatantly one-sided manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Andy, no offense, but when you say things like that you show your utter ignorance on the subject. I have an “ax to grind against the Mormon church”? I’ve “singled out the Mormon church without explanation or justification”? Really? That’s come as news to me. Makes me wonder why I spent all that time debating Atheists, homosexuals, people who doubt the Bible, Liberals, etc. I‘ve also been debating about the Roman Catholic Church while working on this page. (Just check my edit history.) Seems to me that my interest is debating anyone who isn’t Christian. So please don’t make claims that demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)