Talk:Battle of Old Church

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This entire page was copied, without attribution, from See several discussions here: for my thoughts on this. Copying, word-for-word, without attribution, from a source in the public domain, is plagiarism, an intellectually dishonest form of deceit. When a reader does not know the source an article is based on (let alone copied from), the reader cannot judge the reliability of the source, and is hindered in detecting the bias or point of view of the original writer. Just because something comes from a government source, does not automatically mean it is accurate, reliable, or without bias. --Hsmom 12:05, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

And you're not improving it and others like it, why? Karajou 12:24, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
It's a busy time for me, with the holidays coming up, but I have made a start. I may be able to add to it here and there as my other obligations today allow. Unfortunately, I am not a history expert, having done very little beyond taking a high school AP US History class and helping my children with their schoolwork. Much more will be needed to flesh out the article, hopefully drawing from a variety of reliable sources. Ideally, someone else with more expertise will be able to help out. Perhaps, if you have time (though I know you are probably quite busy with more important tasks), you could add a little too? You probably are more knowledgeable on the subject than I. Hsmom 13:58, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
I see it all the time as a catch-phrase answer to a response to improve it..."it's a busy time for me."' The articles from the NPS are a start for this site, exactly as they were with Wikipedia, and the only way I expect them to be changed from that format is for the editor to improve upon them and add more detail. They are not to reduce it to one mere sentence. If you got the time to make grammar and spelling corrections; if you got the time to make reversions, you got the time to add pertinent detail. Karajou 14:37, 21 April 2011 (EDT)