SkipCaptcha
3,995
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 334:
Line 334: + +
→TOC and header dispute: let's agree on an action plan
::::As long as the reformatting does not obscure content on the first page, I don't object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:49, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
::::As long as the reformatting does not obscure content on the first page, I don't object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:49, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::Done. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::Done. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
==Making the article neutral==
I have re-read this talk page and the other three pages linked to it at the top. It seems clear to me that dozens of Conservapedia editors do not believe that Obama is a practicing Muslim, and that only four editors believe that he is. The points that were made arguing in favor of his being a Muslim are addressed on [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]. Our talk page discussion then to a compromise about the layout to make the article more neutral. Recent edits by Aschlafly give me the impression that he does not want the article to be neutral. At several points above he asked, "Why do some people object so much to recognizing Obama's religion? He's not running for reelection again, so there is little political motive to rejecting it." The answer is that critics of this website are driving traffic to this article and are using it to uncut the credibility of the many valid articles and our hard work. This article is so bad that it singularly detracts from the entire project. How can we all cooperate to address this problem? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 06:26, 29 May 2017 (EDT)