Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Apologetics Press

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contributions[edit]

I'd like this page to reach the heights that the Conservapedia article has, in Snark and in content. If this goal can't be realised, then at least make the page better through contribution. I'll be logging off for tonight (editors have to sleep sometime!), I wonder how this page will "evolve" by the 'morrow!Several ingredients (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Problem[edit]

There's an obvious NPOV problem with the article. The tone emotional and confrontational. Are we going to be rational, at all objective, or aren't we? — Unsigned, by: 70.71.235.99 / talk / contribs

RationalWiki isn't NPOV. But I'll take a look for anything factually inaccurate. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 09:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is NPOV a problem?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In practice, NPOV means strenuously avoiding calling a spade a spade because calling it a spade offends a few extremists. To be fair, I think the BoN is complaining that the article isn't NPOV, and they wish it was. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 10:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I wish people would stop confusing objectivity and neutrality. Scarlet A.pngmoral 10:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Debunking?[edit]

Is there anything that you would mind debunking in the article? Say, this http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2556 or this http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3593&topic=332 ??? The article on the age of the earth is quite nice compared to this article. (77.111.246.33 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC))

This too: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=45&topic=31 (77.111.246.33 (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC))