Reformulated:
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).
You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow ( snobby), heavily biased for the academia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".
If [1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 28 September 2020 10:18:56 (UTC)
References
I see you are categorising facts e.g. Scientific facts? So maybe there are Historic facts, Social facts, psychological facts, Religious facts etc? But you are trying to explain some form of other fact that "cannot be true or false"? Well, yes, I am confused by your argument. I don't see any logic in it.
The first line of the article reads: "A fact is an occurrence in the real world" which is some of what I disputed in the first place.
Now you write: "Facts of course change"! Which is what I have been saying!
Example: It's a FACT that both the above statements have been written and nothing will change that; but only, for as long as this page exists as EVIDENCE - It is both TRUE and a FACT i.e. a TRUE FACT. Once this page disappears, there will be no more EVIDENCE; and for those who never saw the page, it may no longer be a FACT; but it will always be TRUE despite them not knowing.
The OCCURRENCE cannot be UNOCCURRED; yet the FACT may disappear with the disappearance of the EVIDENCE. It is therefore wrong to equate FACT to OCCURRENCE. OCCURRENCE rather equates to TRUTH - they both never get undone; because OCCURRENCES can't be undone for as long as time travelling remains impossible.
So all I see in your argument is a belief in this "great Philosopher". I believe there's still room to be a greater, or even the greatest Philosopher. Who knew Einstein could greatly improve on Newton's work? Vusi Dlamini ( talk) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Reformulated:
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).
You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow ( snobby), heavily biased for the academia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".
If [1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 28 September 2020 10:18:56 (UTC)
References
I see you are categorising facts e.g. Scientific facts? So maybe there are Historic facts, Social facts, psychological facts, Religious facts etc? But you are trying to explain some form of other fact that "cannot be true or false"? Well, yes, I am confused by your argument. I don't see any logic in it.
The first line of the article reads: "A fact is an occurrence in the real world" which is some of what I disputed in the first place.
Now you write: "Facts of course change"! Which is what I have been saying!
Example: It's a FACT that both the above statements have been written and nothing will change that; but only, for as long as this page exists as EVIDENCE - It is both TRUE and a FACT i.e. a TRUE FACT. Once this page disappears, there will be no more EVIDENCE; and for those who never saw the page, it may no longer be a FACT; but it will always be TRUE despite them not knowing.
The OCCURRENCE cannot be UNOCCURRED; yet the FACT may disappear with the disappearance of the EVIDENCE. It is therefore wrong to equate FACT to OCCURRENCE. OCCURRENCE rather equates to TRUTH - they both never get undone; because OCCURRENCES can't be undone for as long as time travelling remains impossible.
So all I see in your argument is a belief in this "great Philosopher". I believe there's still room to be a greater, or even the greatest Philosopher. Who knew Einstein could greatly improve on Newton's work? Vusi Dlamini ( talk) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)