Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
New page: Never imply that a sweeping condemnation of liberal evils is "wrong" or "exaggerated". In particular, do not follow an article intro with counterexamples which "disprove" its thesis. Rathe...
Never imply that a sweeping condemnation of liberal evils is "wrong" or "exaggerated". In particular, do not follow an article intro with counterexamples which "disprove" its thesis. Rather, clarify the scope of the thesis and provide examples that prove its point first.

In cases where there is disagreement between conservatives and liberals about a point of values, morals, principles or facts:
*Clearly indicate the name of the person, book or organization which holds the opposing viewpoint.
*If you '''personally''' disagree with a critique of liberal values or actions, discuss it on the talk page - do not distort the truth.

In the rare case where a conservative writer appears to make an error, contact him for a clarification FIRST. Keep in mind the purpose of the project whenever you edit an article or comment on it. Debates and declarations of personal values are confined to debate pages and user pages.
Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650

edits

Navigation menu