Difference between revisions of "Talk:Religion of Barack Obama"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Andrew- The items that I took out were opinions, which clearly goes against your editorial policy. I am undoing your change. This article should be trustworthy and not filled with snark. --[[User: kschroe|Kurt Schroeder]] 3:59, 25 February 2009 (CST) | Andrew- The items that I took out were opinions, which clearly goes against your editorial policy. I am undoing your change. This article should be trustworthy and not filled with snark. --[[User: kschroe|Kurt Schroeder]] 3:59, 25 February 2009 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | This article contains many statements that are purely unsubstantiated opinion. As such the article should be considered factually inaccurate until the issues are resolved. --[[User: kschroe|Kurt Schroeder]] 11:40, 27 February 2009 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 17:40, February 27, 2009
Why are we repeating liberal falsehoods of Newsweek here??? Just a quick glance shows misuse of the word "secular" and the implausible claim that Obama's biological father was an atheist, for starters.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Taking a step back, may I suggest that with a proper debunking of their falsehoods, we can show that they don't have much of an argument at all? It's important to not give these falsehoods any sense of validity, but I think such analysis can be done successfully and this would be a strength to the article. -Foxtrot 12:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)
Andrew- The items that I took out were opinions, which clearly goes against your editorial policy. I am undoing your change. This article should be trustworthy and not filled with snark. --Kurt Schroeder 3:59, 25 February 2009 (CST)
This article contains many statements that are purely unsubstantiated opinion. As such the article should be considered factually inaccurate until the issues are resolved. --Kurt Schroeder 11:40, 27 February 2009 (CST)