Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 696:
Line 696: + + + +
→A serious Biblical matter: Yawn, is this really a problem?
:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.
:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)
Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.
If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)