From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A short essay? AlanE 15:31, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Seems that way. HelpJazz 15:41, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
If you gentleman were to create some new articles, instead of serving up an endless diet of carp, carp, carp, it might help build up this encyclopaedia. Bugler 15:44, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I didn't hear an answer mixed in with your insult. HelpJazz 15:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I didn't hear a sensible question mixed in with your usual nonsense. Bugler 15:55, 28 September 2008 (EDT) [on edit] Ah, of course. I appreciate that you might have difficulty, but the word is C. A. R. P. It's a kind of fish, and it also means to grouse or complain, generally in an ineffective, whining fashion. Not at all what you might have thought. Bugler 15:57, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
What? You know what I'm thinking now? That's pretty cool. What am I thinking now?
As for the question you can't find, I'll quote you: "[Bugler], it's not difficult to find." HelpJazz 16:00, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Most amusing, Jazzman. Hoist by my own petard, non? But, revenons a nos moutons. A short essay? I prefer to think of it as an illustrated or expanded definition. We aim our entries at homeschoolers, and as well as being family friendly, the articles need to be correctly pitched, and the use of an instructive sentence or two not only conveys the way in which a word or term is used, but can also convey a positive moral message at the same time. Two birds with one stone! Who could quibble? Bugler 16:05, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for (finally) answering our query, and with only a minimum of smugness! We are making progress.
You say you "prefer to think of it as an... expanded definition"; is this a euphamism or simply a turn of phrase? If the former, then you agree this is an essay. Essays do not belong alongside normal articles; they belong with the other essays in the "essay" namespace. If the latter, you have not attributed your opinion ("If that makes Conservatives old-fashioned, so much the better"), and you have no citations for any of your claims. Encyclopedia entries (aimed at homeschoolers or not) must be "true and verifiable", not simply "conservative friendly for the sake of being conservative friendly". HelpJazz 16:24, 28 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Plus on top of all that there isn't actually a good and correct definition of the term.

Why not conver a moral message in educational material? At least ours will be positive and healthy, unlike the promotion of perversion and immorality that is barely disguised in the teaching materials of state/public schools. And expanded definition was not a euphemism; rather, words are much easier to learn and remember if learned in context. Bald definitions are of little use. Bugler 16:29, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition, you have not addressed the point I raised above, about creating new articles. I note that in the 500 edits you made up to 16.24h, 28/9/08 you created not a single new page. I dare say it's very nice for you to carp, carp, carp at other people's work, but it is a very negative and somewhat hypocritical way of proceeding. Be a man: create some pages. You might even enjoy doing some proper work for a change. Bugler 16:37, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Again, you did not address my actual issues with the article. My issue is not that it is trying to "conver a moral message", but that it is not up to the written standards of this encyclopedia.
Who cares if I haven't created a new page? I created dozens of new pages before you were ever a member to this site. New pages are not what I'm good at, so they aren't what I focus on. Are you seriously trying to say that I can't improve the quality of others' articles until I've written articles myself? Get off your high horse and stop trying to boss me around. HelpJazz 16:44, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not trying to boss you around; I'd prefer to ignore you, but you keep being the eternal buttinski. As for 'I'm no good at new articles...', well, what a pathetic excuse. Please miss, I can't actually create anything, so please may I just carp and pick at everyone else's work instead? Or have you got some invented Liberal syndrome that means you don't have to do any work? Get a grip on yourself and start contributing to this encyclopaedia, or else clear off. I'm sure there's a billet for you at Wikipedia. Bugler 16:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
So... still no answer about the essay thing, eh? HelpJazz 17:01, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Helpjazz: are you familiar with Poe's law? Ungtss 17:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I am. HelpJazz 17:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Fascinating case study, this one. Ungtss
Bugler..."none so blind..." etc. Please look at my contributions for this month before telling me to "create some new articles, instead of serving up an endless diet of carp, carp, carp, it might help build up this encyclopaedia". I'm averaging 500 words of new information a day! Apology in order, do you think, or is common courtesy not a "conservative value."? Try playing the ball and not the man, please, and let me get back to my breakfast! AlanE 17:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Alright, it's been over 24 hours and nothing has come of the talk page. I'm going to rewrite the article using references. HelpJazz 23:33, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Done and done. HelpJazz 11:56, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
<Passes HelpJazz a nice cup of tea and a bun> Bugler 12:02, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Minor changes

I don't want to get into the above debate about the nature of this article, but I think there are a few things that could be done to make the article better. First, I'd suggest that "liberals and hippies" could be changed to just "liberals." If you think Liberals and hippies are the same thing, then it's redundant. On the other hand, if they aren't the same, then it doesn't make sense to include hippies since this article talks about strictly conservative values, which would be in direct opposition to liberal values. Also, "square" is itself an outdated slang term that most people don't use anymore (which, ironically, would mean some consider it "old fashioned") so maybe just "stuffy" would be better. Also the second to last sentence could be split into two to improve its readability. I'd change it myself, but it seems like this is a contentious article, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes are anything. These are just suggestions of course, sorry if I overstepped any bounds. LiamG 18:17, 28 September 2008 (EDT)