Difference between revisions of "Talk:Religion of Barack Obama"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(patience is a virtue) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::I'm interested in facts, so if you can convince me I'll add them to the article. Please be patient with us. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:37, 27 February 2009 (EST) | ::I'm interested in facts, so if you can convince me I'll add them to the article. Please be patient with us. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:37, 27 February 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::"[correction: "Christian story"? No real Christian refers to the faith that way.]" Statements like this are opinion, and once we start saying "real" Christian we are not only breaking the Conservapedia Commandments, but we're dividing Christians. If there was a link to a person who was reported as saying that, then we could reference it, but even then what good would it serve. There is a difference between truth and snark. --[[User:Kschroe|Kschroe]] 13:45, 27 February 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 18:45, 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)
- Try it this way, Kurt: write a complete test article and post it on this talk page first. The main question should be "what is Obama's religion", then provide answers to it. Divide the article in three; the first part provides answers and citations based on his Christianity (if any); the second part likewise for Islam; the third part for his secularism/atheism. Karajou 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)
- "[correction: "Christian story"? No real Christian refers to the faith that way.]" Statements like this are opinion, and once we start saying "real" Christian we are not only breaking the Conservapedia Commandments, but we're dividing Christians. If there was a link to a person who was reported as saying that, then we could reference it, but even then what good would it serve. There is a difference between truth and snark. --Kschroe 13:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)