nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 63:
Line 63: − − ==To Improve Credibility== − − Hello everyone. Seems like my modifications haven't been warmly welcomed, so I figured I'd strike up discussion as to why I think my edits are perfectly valid. I'll start with the list that conservative values are effective against: − − There's no study, research, or form of evidence to show conservative values deter obesity (to my knowledge, and no decent reference was given in the article). There are many examples of obese conservatives, such as Republican entertainer Rush Limbaugh, to counter the single example given, Mike Huckabee. Therefore, I omitted it under the first commandment: Everything you post must be true '''and verifiable.''' The reference for anxiety linked to a premium article by The Economist, impossible to read without subscribing to the service, and therefore lacks as a reliable source for the public. Actually, now that I think about it, that doesn't really negate the points the article makes... I suppose I'll concede this one, but I do wish to emphasize that having further reference from one or more public sources would be in the best interest of verification. − − Moving on, I went ahead and improved upon the other points, such as addiction, law-breaking, and added an example reference for wastefulness (CAGW). On the topic of mental health and happiness, I changed the references, so instead of links to WorldNetDaily and FOX News (which, let's face it, some people do not consider credible), the references linked directly to the data supporting the claims (Pew Research and Gallup). I doubt a liberal is going to argue against Gallup, though they would easily dismiss WorldNetDaily. In other words, I cut out the middle man to make the article appear, on its face, more credible across a broader spectrum of ideologies, even though the WorldNetDaily and FOX articles would eventually guide a user to the data anyway. More of a PR thing than anything else, but it also didn't hurt. − − One thing I did outright omit was the following: − − <blockquote> − '''Conservative values''' are also helpful in recognizing and combating [[deceit]]. A [[conservative]] understands the many incentives by others to engage in [[deceit]], and the political power that can result from such [[deceit]]. A [[conservative]] is often not surprised by the deception that fools others. − </blockquote> − − My reason for this is that while one may or may not argue this statement to be true, it's not really a value. I could see it being in the [[Conservative]] article or something, but I really feel it's irrelevant to conservative values. It's more like a conservative trait. − − As far as this line is concerned: − − <blockquote> − * recognizing the [[media]] for its [[liberal bias|bias]], [[media bullying|bullying]], deception. − </blockquote> − − This also seems more like a trait. After all, the Founding Fathers believed in the importance of the media for Government to function in a way that benefited the people. Ergo, it's not so much a value as it is an observation of today's media practices. Anyway, continuing down the list of modifications... I have no idea why I omitted this: − − <blockquote> − * emphasizing humility and open-mindedness instead of arrogant certainty about one's own views − </blockquote> − − It was like midnight or something when I made the edits. That's my bad. :P Another thing I changed was to combine wo similar points: − − <blockquote> − * emphasizing self-restraint against hurtful activities − * self-control as opposed to a self-indulgent search for instant gratification of desires − </blockquote> − − Into one: − <blockquote> − * emphasizing self-restraint against hurtful activities or self-indulgence for instant gratification of desires − </blockquote> − − Since they're both related under the self-restraint/control concept. Having them separate seemed kind of redundant. As for my last change, I just reworded: − − <blockquote> − '''Conservative values''' are useful and powerful in combating common human weaknesses: − </blockquote> − − To: − − <blockquote> − '''Conservative values''', when applied, can be useful in combating common human weaknesses: − </blockquote> − − Just to emphasize that these values do, in fact, have to be applied, though at the end of the day, the two sentences pretty much mean the same flippin' thing. Woo! So, while I self-reflected to make this discussion, I reversed my position on two points, but I hold my ground on the rest. :P Your guys' thoughts? -- [[User:Kazu|Kazu]] 20:33, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
Reverted edits by Kazu (Talk) to last version by Aschlafly
:To sign your posts, do '<nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>'. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
:To sign your posts, do '<nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>'. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)