Talk:Classroom prayer

Liberal bias?

Since when is describing the topic "liberal bias". Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Phillip, it kinda stuns me that you would ask this question. This is Conservapedia, a wiki where you are a senior administrator, and it's been clear for over a year now that liberal bias is whatever ASchlafly says it is. I mean, what did you think? AliceBG 22:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh... Phillip. Feebasfactor 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not sure what these comments refer to, but the substance of this topic needs to be clear and up-front, not relegated to an obscure link at the end that most people will not bother clicking.--Aschlafly 23:55, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

It refers to the fact that in your eagerness to spin, you seem to have eliminating any explanation of the actual topic of the article.

I understand it wasn't as ideological as the current version, but what part of the collaborative, previous version was liberally biased, specifically?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:14, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It obscured the truth. Many people could read the version you reference and come away completely clueless about how classroom prayer does not exist due to censorship of it.--Aschlafly 00:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, okay, but people can read your version and come away completely clueless about what classroom prayer is. Can you at least re-add the definition of the term and the description of its common manifestations, please?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy, could there be some kind of compromise? Where the current version is kept - detailing the truth about censorship, etc. - but the explanatory paragraphy defining the topic (from the previous version) is at least added at some point in the article. Feebasfactor 02:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It's self-evident what "classroom prayer" is. If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add a footnote in the entry defining it as group prayer in a classroom.--Aschlafly 10:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

There's two problems with this.

• First, it's not self-evident, especially to people not intimately familiar with the situation in the United States. It could be any one or more of the following (and this list may not be exhaustive):
  • A time for students to pray silently in a classroom.
  • Someone praying out loud in a classroom.
  • A teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
  • A chaplain or religious education teacher praying out loud in a classroom.
  • A group praying together in a classroom, led by a student.
  • A group praying together in a classroom, led by a chaplain or religious education teacher.

* Second, being self-evident is not a reason for not explaining it, just like dictionaries don't skip words that everyone should know and American encyclopedias still list the capital of America even though everyone knows what it is.

The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on. I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article about ID, but about what's wrong with ID (supposedly). We should not repeat the same mistake. Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.

Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)