nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + + + + + + + +
Wikipedia Citations/Sourcing
=="Alcoholism"==
=="Alcoholism"==
Just to clarify - I have mentioned her alcoholism whilst in office not out of prurience, but because it has a direct bearing on public perceptions of her in her final term. Her drink problem whilst in office is a matter of public record and I've cited reputable news sources as such. The citation to the left-wing "Class War" party is included not because I support them in any way but to illustrate the unusually high degree of polarisation she caused - no other Conservative leader, including Bush in the US, appears to have generated such hatred, as opposed to dislike and disagreement, from left wingers.[[User:Tracy C Copeland|Tracy C Copeland]] 08:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Just to clarify - I have mentioned her alcoholism whilst in office not out of prurience, but because it has a direct bearing on public perceptions of her in her final term. Her drink problem whilst in office is a matter of public record and I've cited reputable news sources as such. The citation to the left-wing "Class War" party is included not because I support them in any way but to illustrate the unusually high degree of polarisation she caused - no other Conservative leader, including Bush in the US, appears to have generated such hatred, as opposed to dislike and disagreement, from left wingers.[[User:Tracy C Copeland|Tracy C Copeland]] 08:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
== Wikipedia Citations/Sourcing ==
Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?
Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there? I am seeing editing here that uses citations from the same author's work at Wikipedia, or quoting material not properly sourced on Wikipedia. That simply isn't an acceptable practice, and is intellectually dishonest.
--TK 19:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
*'''You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)'''