I made some changes to the Moses article such as changing this sentence:

The bush was not consumed and when Moses turned aside to look more closely at the marvel, God spoke to him from the bush, revealing his name to Moses.

to this:

Scripture claims the bush would not be consumed and when he turned aside to look more closely at the marvel, God spoke to him from the bush, revealing his name to Moses.

I tried to be delicate in my editing, leaving these people happy. It seems pretty silly to me to claim as fact that a fire was burning in a bush, but the bush was not consumed by the fire, and then the bush started talking to this guy, but really it was God, the guy who created the entire universe. All of this seems rather silly to me. I'm sure it would sound silly to almost all of the one billion people living in China as well.

I'm not even removing this, I'm just saying Scripture claims this. Bang, removed. It has to be stated as a fact.

The thing is, I was reverted by not one but two people. Fundies coming out of the woodwork...One of them looks Jewish too....

For Christ's sake, haven't you anything better to do?

Welcome to Wikipedia Review, AV Landis.

Moses (T-H-L-K-D)

I'm struggling to understand the difference between you and the others' versions. They seem to mean the same thing to me.

Heh heh this IS pretty funny. The difference is that in his version it says "Scripture claims" whereas in this Lisa person's version it says "it is". Saying "scripture claims" is apparently weaseling.

This reminds me. During one of the discussions related to Race and Intelligence I went and checked Conservatopedia's article on Race and intelligence to make some point in the discussion, and it turned out that it was actually much better and non-wacky than Wikipedia's version (though much shorter) - not what you'd (or at least what I'd) expect (though a look at the history reveals it wasn't always so). While I was there I poked around a bit and noticed they had a big discussion on whether the Bible was a "reliable source". In the end of course they said "yes" but they also said "it has to be attributed" as in "The Bible says that the bush was burning etc.". So AVL's very reasonable edit would've probably been fine on Conservatoepdio (I just can't spell that right), but not on Wikipedia.

So that's two instances where the silly ol' Conservatopediade beats out the serious Wikipedia

Hey, Landis... I assume that you're giving the same amount of attention to the articles about Thor and Apollo, too? Or, are you a single-purpose, POV-pushing editor?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/20/christianity-china/

Actually, Christianity is spreading in China.

My first concern seeing this thread was if Wikipedians were trying to re-write the Ten Commandments.

Wikipedia does not like 'claims', as it is usually used pejoratively.

You need to say 'According to the Book of Exodus', which is more neutral.

[Modnote: Off-topic posts split to the Politics & Religion forum]