Difference between revisions of "Talk:Herodotus"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jeremiah4-22 (talk | contribs) |
Oldoligarch (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The Wikipedia article on Herodotus has a clear liberal bias. It's your decision whether you're willing to put up with that sort of thing or not... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT) | The Wikipedia article on Herodotus has a clear liberal bias. It's your decision whether you're willing to put up with that sort of thing or not... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I missed the "clear liberal bias" in the Wikipedia article. Perhaps, you could show me exactly where the "liberal bias" is. | ||
Revision as of 17:08, April 12, 2007
Totally inadequate entry
- This is actually quite a large and detailed entry, by present standards hereabouts. It needs a bit of work, certainly, but not as much as many. And thousands of important people and things don't yet have an entry at all. Might I enquire if you personally are planning to do anything about this situation? --Jeremiah4-22 16:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Only if the powers that be at Conservapedia.org are serious about having a complete encyclopedia. Is one line plus a quote from the post office sufficient for the "father of history"?
So fix it, User:Oldoligarch. I don't see what's stopping you. Dpbsmith 12:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
If you want to see what a good article on Herodotus is go to wikipedia.org. The one here is Mickey Mouse level.
The Wikipedia article on Herodotus has a clear liberal bias. It's your decision whether you're willing to put up with that sort of thing or not... --Jeremiah4-22 14:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I missed the "clear liberal bias" in the Wikipedia article. Perhaps, you could show me exactly where the "liberal bias" is.