Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
907
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 168:
Line 168: +
Talk:Richard Dawkins (view source)
Revision as of 04:19, November 21, 2012
, 04:19, November 21, 2012→Citations
It seems to me that allowing such citations is an invitation to editors to just go and create their own sources that say whatever they want. Such dishonest behaviour is not very conducive to the production of trustworthy articles. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:53, 20 November 2012 (EST)
It seems to me that allowing such citations is an invitation to editors to just go and create their own sources that say whatever they want. Such dishonest behaviour is not very conducive to the production of trustworthy articles. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:53, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Please tell which data you dispute that is in the cited material. I don't think you can do that. It seems like you just want to engage in the [[genetic fallacy]] which is illogical for you to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:14, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Please tell which data you dispute that is in the cited material. I don't think you can do that. It seems like you just want to engage in the [[genetic fallacy]] which is illogical for you to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:14, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:::I think it is OK because Conservative would not cite a blog that was not reliable. Looking at the material, clearly it is cited to the standard required on Conservapedia. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:19, 20 November 2012 (EST)