View source for Talk:Pulitzer Prize

I don't like to spend a lot of time on talk pages unless it's directly related to article content, so I'll only ask once and then I'll let it go. The phrase "it is not surprising that" is an opinion, which, according to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|CP:G]] needs to be attributed and sourced. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:The entire thing is constructed on sand. First, the university is simply labeled liberal (no source), then there the accusation (no source) that they are "often are rewarded to liberals" (no source, also fuzzy term - no mention of what "often" is: Did liberals win the 50% of all prizes? 75%? 25%?).
:Looking into it, the article also makes it sound as if The Liberal University decides who gets the prize. But there is actually a fairly widespread board that apparently decides these things. The university just ''administers'' it. So that section really, ''really'' needs some sources and is partially incorrect. I'll stick my neck out to correct and fact-tag it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:45, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Revert Resignation ==

<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh* Andy, when there are multiple awards every year for roughly 90 years, it's really not enough to simply hold up two examples to prove that something happens "often". I'm not going to revert you again (we all know that edit warring with a sysop only leads to blocking), but I must protest. The logic behind this "proof" is faulty to the max.

Oh, and I see I already got a block warning for reverting ONCE. Wow, this is so sad. Seriously, I can't help but shake my head.

In the end, it grinds down (yet again) to what Andrew Schlafly regards as conservative and what not. In theory, I could simply change the quote to say "often awarded to conservative works" and name two examples, but then Andy would simply say that those weren't conservative works at all. So whatever, I'll leave this article alone. Have fun, Andy. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:35, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I agree; this is ridiculous. At the moment, you have a vaguely non-biased article, then jammed hamfistedly into the middle of it you have another cheap shot at liberalism. You provide two examples and therefore "prove" your point. No. No real evidence is provided; even the people who buy 8 out of 10 cats stuff wouldn't be fooled by this pathetic attack. Either provide real evidence, or remove it. It's that simple or you fall into the same trap of bigotry as you claim did Wikipedia.
[[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 06:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Validity of the award==

Considering that around 2% of the time, the award is for false reporting, maybe we shouldn't give it so much credence. We got the false reporting about the USSR, on top of the [[Alex Haley]] hoax.

[[Roots]] was largely copied from a novel by [[Harold Courlander]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 5 May 2013 (EDT)