Talk:Liberal wordiness

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

New article

Liberal wordiness I think is the backbone of liberal deception. I'm making this article with the following goals.

1. A full explanation of liberal wordiness, so that the reader can be aware of it
2. Many Examples that properly demonstrate the idea and how it is deceptive


Another user has proposed this article for deletion, and I have to say I agree. The premise itself is ridiculous and seems to have been devised solely within the context of this website. Of course a literary theorist is going to use more complex language than a statesman, they're addressing completely different audiences. DWiggins 12:24, 17 November 2009 (EST)

The audiences is a fair point, but I'd have you compare spades with spades: the down to earth speeches of conservatives with the confusing, rambling diatribes of a Kerry or Clinton; the incomprehensible nonsense of liberal marxist-revisionist historians with easy-to-comprehend conservative histories. Actually, the matter of audience is very important, as liberals try to exclude their audience. "Can't understand? Just trust the experts, US." I see the article's creator is an uncertain user, but the topic is a real one, as you can see from its place in Liberal style. Perhaps improve or correct before crying wolf? DouglasA 12:36, 17 November 2009 (EST)
If it's in Liberal style, then it doesn't need it's own article. This is embarrassing. It needs to be deleted as a work of parody. Now. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 12:41, 17 November 2009 (EST)
It exists in Liberal style as a bullet point, #2: "a high word-to-substance ratio, as in using many words to say little of substance," which could use better development. If User:Epic416 has created the article as a mockery, he's done a pretty poor job, as it simply restates what User:Aschlafly has been saying for some time: liberals talk a lot without saying anything. DouglasA 12:44, 17 November 2009 (EST)
I think the point you make about Kerry and Clinton is more a case of personal opinion than an objective analysis of their use of language. DWiggins 12:47, 17 November 2009 (EST)
It's not merely personal opinion, but the collective opinion of Americans, who considered Bush far more accessible and understandable than Kerry, who was thought needlessly academic. As for objective analysis, I wonder how it could be done. Linguistic_Analysis_of_Candidates analyzed republicans from one metric (conservatism), so objective analysis of content should be doable, if more complex. DouglasA 12:51, 17 November 2009 (EST)

I'm not debating the fact that liberals are more verbose, or "wordy." What I'm debating is that the statement/opinion doesn't require or even deserve its own article. It was clearly created as a work of parody—by a user who has no other contributions—to create a mockery of this site. At the very least, move it to the Essay category if you insist on keeping it. -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 12:54, 17 November 2009 (EST)
And? It's rather sad mockery as the user has only outlined the truth. I was going to say "if the article Bigotry had been created by a parodist, would you be inclined to delete it?" Then I made the mistake of actually checking, and discovered that it was (the user and content were obscene, so you needn't look at it yourself). Truth is truth, and if moronic parodists think they're mocking us by inserting truthful statements, something tells me we're not losing. As to your point about deserving an article, your opinion is fair, and the issue should be opened to wider contribution. I think it is, and I think MarkGall is concurring, tacitly. DouglasA 13:00, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Honestly, I would be inclined to move this to the Essay: space, but I'd say the same of Liberal style itself, as neither is encyclopedic. I'll defer to the admins to decide what's appropriate here; certainly that's not deletion. --MarkGall 13:05, 17 November 2009 (EST)
Personal tools