553
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 420:
Line 420: + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 16:13, April 1, 2007
, 16:13, April 1, 2007→Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information
:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Rudy_Guiliani here for example].
::The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—
First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see [[Rudy Giuliani]] (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), [[John McCain]] (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.
::Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
== New Rule ==
== New Rule ==