6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 169:
Line 169: + +
Talk:Richard Dawkins (view source)
Revision as of 01:42, December 20, 2012
, 01:42, December 20, 2012→Citations
::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)
:::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)
::::I didn't say I disputed any particular data. I asked: Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?
::::If you want to respond to my post could you please address what I actually wrote. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)