Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich"

Revision as of 23:01, March 16, 2007

This is completely imbecilic. The horrendous thing about Conservapedia is that young people are being indoctrinated with creationist nonsense.

Daffodil 20:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Great article!--HPalmer 19:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I propose this article should be deleted and that the user Scriabin should be banned.
+This is completely imbecilic. The horrendous thing about Conservapedia is that young people are being indoctrinated with creationist nonsense.
-While it is tempting to ridicule Conservapedia for some of the ludicrous articles that are apparently serious, it is very clear the posts I've seen from Scriabin are all deliberately wrong and just put there to make a mockery of the whole thing.  This is completely imbecilic. The horrendous thing about Conservapedia is that young people are being indoctrinated with creationist nonsense.  I would challenge Scriabin that in writing deliberate falsehood like this s/he is doing just the same thing!  How can that possibly be a constructive thing to do??
+[[User:Daffodil|Daffodil]] 20:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
-The article under consideration is a disgrace to the memory of Shostakovich, surely one of the greatest composers and humanitarians of the 20th century.  There are clear factual errors and I suggest that Scriabin knows this perfectly well, for example Shostakovich did not write "The love of three Oranges" (it was Prokofiev), or the prelude in C-sharp minor Op 3 No 2 (everyone who knows Op 3 No 2 knows it was Rachmaninov).  You're writing deliberate lies, Scriabin ... you're no better than the creationists you evidently seek to ridicule.
-It looks like Scriabin is deliberately trying to mislead in a web-site that is used by minors.  Now, I also think it's criminal to indoctrinate minors with creationist lies as well - in doing so, Conservapedia is sowing the seeds of future atheists, when they come to realise what a lot of nonsense so-called "creation science" is.  But I guess I'm not going to persuade the Conservapedia editors about this.  But if any sysadmin reads this, they would be well advised to go to Scriabin's contribs page and note that in the last few days s/he has contributed a large number of articles and (from the two or three I've sampled so far) it seems they are all as deliberately misleading as the Shostakovich article.
-Of course, I could be wrong, and maybe Scriabin is completely genuine ...  but I can't make up my mind whether it's more judgemental to accuse someone of being a liar or being stupid.  I think I'll give Scriabin the benefit of the doubt - I believe s/he is actually pretty smart.
-I don't agree with the views of Conservapedia at all and I'm also British and proud of it.  But if it was considered appropriate, I'd be willing to contribute an article on Shostakovich that attempts to give a more factual picture of the composer - if only because impressionable youngsters are going to be reading this stuff and quoting it in their essays.
+Great article!--[[User:HPalmer|HPalmer]] 19:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
-[[User:Daffodil|Daffodil]] 20:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich"

Revision as of 23:01, March 16, 2007

Navigation menu

Search