1,237
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + + +
Talk:Liberal wordiness (view source)
Revision as of 17:54, November 17, 2009
, 17:54, November 17, 2009→Deletion
::::I think the point you make about Kerry and Clinton is more a case of personal opinion than an objective analysis of their use of language. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 12:47, 17 November 2009 (EST)
::::I think the point you make about Kerry and Clinton is more a case of personal opinion than an objective analysis of their use of language. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 12:47, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:::::It's not merely personal opinion, but the collective opinion of Americans, who considered Bush far more accessible and understandable than Kerry, who was thought needlessly academic. As for objective analysis, I wonder how it could be done. [[Linguistic_Analysis_of_Candidates]] analyzed republicans from one metric (conservatism), so objective analysis of content should be doable, if more complex. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:51, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:::::It's not merely personal opinion, but the collective opinion of Americans, who considered Bush far more accessible and understandable than Kerry, who was thought needlessly academic. As for objective analysis, I wonder how it could be done. [[Linguistic_Analysis_of_Candidates]] analyzed republicans from one metric (conservatism), so objective analysis of content should be doable, if more complex. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:51, 17 November 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not debating the fact that liberals are more verbose, or "wordy." What I'm debating is that the statement/opinion doesn't require or even '''deserve''' its own article. It was clearly created as a work of parody—by a user who has no other contributions—to create a mockery of this site. At the very least, move it to the Essay category if you insist on keeping it. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 12:54, 17 November 2009 (EST)