181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + +
→Liberal opinion: oughts ought not be in articles
Anyone (say, Dinsdale) with a keen appreciation for women's service to their country could write the "women helping men" article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:58, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Anyone (say, Dinsdale) with a keen appreciation for women's service to their country could write the "women helping men" article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:58, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
: I am confused as to why an encyclopedia is covering ''ought'' rather than ''is''. Typically, aren't the ''oughts'' part of blogs? Even [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] covers this: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." The very nature of an ''ought'' is opinion rather than fact. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)