54
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 840:
Line 840: + +
→Lead paragraph
==Lead paragraph==
==Lead paragraph==
A couple of weeks ago, I moved the discussion of the "popular culture" references to E=mc<sup>2</sup> to a separate section at the bottom of the article, away from the lead section. On March 11 it was reverted. [[Conservapedia:Writing a Good Article]] advises, "The intro paragraph is meant to be a short paragraph which introduces the subject to the reader, generally about four to five sentences long." I believe we have a well-written article here except for the lead section. As it stands now, the lead section is not a summary of the rest of the article. It reads as though someone who does not understand the article came in and added a parody of it to the lead section. I will wait a week for a reply and then correct the article to conform to CP's style for writing proper articles. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
A couple of weeks ago, I moved the discussion of the "popular culture" references to E=mc<sup>2</sup> to a separate section at the bottom of the article, away from the lead section. On March 11 it was reverted. [[Conservapedia:Writing a Good Article]] advises, "The intro paragraph is meant to be a short paragraph which introduces the subject to the reader, generally about four to five sentences long." I believe we have a well-written article here except for the lead section. As it stands now, the lead section is not a summary of the rest of the article. It reads as though someone who does not understand the article came in and added a parody of it to the lead section. I will wait a week for a reply and then correct the article to conform to CP's style for writing proper articles. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
:I agree that the Lead seems at odds with the rest of the article. The conflict, as I see it, is that on the one hand we want to make referenced verifiable statements, but on the other hand, we don't want to give any credence to a crackpot theory that drives people away from scripture. I think we can accomplish both. There are plenty of articles on non-Christian and liberal topics -- Islam, Communism, etc. Why not present E=mc^2 as a similar system of beliefs. Accurately parrot what a group of people say about matter and energy, but effectively bracket all the content with "liberals believe (_____)". Then everything within those brackets can at least be the actual claptrap that liberals promote. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 11:27, 17 March 2013 (EDT)