24
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 711:
Line 711: +
→Unexplained edit revert
I would like to kindly ask for an explanation for why somebody has a problem with me changing the sentence "It is based on Karl Marx's proposed establishment of a "classless society", but '''its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that''' no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal..." by removing the bolded portion. I was simply trying to make Conservapedia a better, more un-biased, place. If you could tell me what is wrong with that, I would greatly appreciate it. [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 23:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
I would like to kindly ask for an explanation for why somebody has a problem with me changing the sentence "It is based on Karl Marx's proposed establishment of a "classless society", but '''its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that''' no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal..." by removing the bolded portion. I was simply trying to make Conservapedia a better, more un-biased, place. If you could tell me what is wrong with that, I would greatly appreciate it. [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 23:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
:Sorry I didn't leave a revert reply. If it was bias, then I agree you were right. However, it is true and therefore it returned to the paragraph. Don't take offense, I appreciate your contributions here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:00, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
:Sorry I didn't leave a revert reply. If it was bias, then I agree you were right. However, it is true and therefore it returned to the paragraph. Don't take offense, I appreciate your contributions here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:00, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
::First of all, thank you for that very civil response. However, I must point out that it seems to me to be an unfair statement. Mainly, it is because I feel that Communism was, in and of itself, not "bad", as it was trying to create a society where everybody was equal. The problem was that the governments who claimed to be Communist were not actually Communist, they distorted it hugely for their own gain. At the very least, could the portion in question be changed to "its philosophical basis is widely believed to be flawed, such that..."?