553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 407:
Line 407: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 16:59, March 31, 2007
, 16:59, March 31, 2007no edit summary
I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)