Talk:Lying for Jesus
Well, I was going to give it a couple days, but it looks like the page's creator has already moved on to working on other pages. What is this article stub intended to be about? The title of the page refers to deliberately lying to propagate religious faith and the only ICW page that links to it (Exclusion) uses the term in that sense. However, the book briefly mentioned is not actually about this phenomenon, it is a debunking of Christian-themed American history myths that happens to bear a title similar to the one given to the phenomenon. If you cut out the book references, that just leaves the page as reading:
Which doesn't even come close to meeting wiki standards (in particular, see the wiki guidelines regarding creating stub articles) and is a bad article with or without the misplaced book references. Perhaps the author should move this article to their talk page until they have the time to improve it a bit? Jdog 04:48, 3 December 2011 (CST)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this article deleted? Why is it back now? --Kazim 14:43, 12 December 2011 (CST)
I deleted the article because I was tired of being nagged over it, see above. yesterday I considered it, decided the article would improve the wiki and restored it. I wrote it. Proxima Centauri 02:49, 13 December 2011 (CST)
- Yes, but you seem to think every (non-spam) article improves the wiki, which is decidely not true. Why is all the information "in the references", when it should be in the article itself? If you're not willing to write a passable article, save it on your talk page until you are. Some of the problems with this article:
- The book reference has no bearing on the topic (unless it gives proven examples of the phenomenon occuring, but the RationalWiki article says it just debunks myths) and needs to be removed.
- Snark like "ancient and disrespectful pedigree" needs to be removed.
- Some of the examples do not offer proof that the people making the arguments are deliberately lying (as opposed to being misled, mistaken, missing the context of a quote like it was an immoral Bible verse, and/or not checking their facts). We have no idea if the authors of the gospels intended their work to be taken seriously or not. You even skip over a case where you say there is proof (YEC) by saying that it's well-documented elsewhere.
- Of course, part of the problem is that there are very few proven occurances of the phenomenon. Given the limited amount of actual material available, you've settled for bulking out the article with crap; this is the same thing that happened with the WotM articles. Jdog 03:56, 13 December 2011 (CST)
If I write in more detail I risk copying too much of the source material and breaking copyright, you would no doubt want to get me for that if I did. There's one law for you, you're allowed to describe something as not passable while terms like "ancient and disrectful" are not acceptable. Are you here with the intention of upsetting people? Proxima Centauri 07:06, 13 December 2011 (CST)