Template:Did you know nominations/Religious language
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Religious language
[edit]- ... that the logical positivists believed that religious language was meaningless because it cannot be verified empirically?
Created/expanded by ItsZippy (talk). Self nom at 17:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Old article but 5x expansion, long enough, hook is interesting and sourced (though to a book and not immediately verifiable.) Also not sure if author has had 5 DYKs or not, but hasnt revirewed anything. Otherwise ready to pass. Also some ingobox would not hurt at the top of the articleLihaas (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. This is my first DYK, so (as far as I can gather) I don't meed to review anything else. I have had a look for appropriate infoboxes and navboxes to go at the top of the article, but there is currently nothing appropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
