Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gordon Brown"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I would suggest that the prepending of descriptive terms such as "socialistic" as per [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gordon_Brown&diff=510055&oldid=504074 this] edit is a mistake. While it is clearly intended as either descriptive or pejorative, it's unencyclopediac, and if this is allowed, what's to stop people adding "capitalistic" or other such pointless descriptors to other entries? In principle, encyclopedias should have an absolute minimum of adjectives in their articles. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:13, 3 September 2008 (EDT) | I would suggest that the prepending of descriptive terms such as "socialistic" as per [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gordon_Brown&diff=510055&oldid=504074 this] edit is a mistake. While it is clearly intended as either descriptive or pejorative, it's unencyclopediac, and if this is allowed, what's to stop people adding "capitalistic" or other such pointless descriptors to other entries? In principle, encyclopedias should have an absolute minimum of adjectives in their articles. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:13, 3 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
: Sorry if I've offended you but living in the UK I am well aware that it is socialistic - it was based on the communist models in operation in the USSR - and to call it anything else would be to mislead those American youths likely to make use of this encyclopedia.[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 12:18, 3 September 2008 (EDT) | : Sorry if I've offended you but living in the UK I am well aware that it is socialistic - it was based on the communist models in operation in the USSR - and to call it anything else would be to mislead those American youths likely to make use of this encyclopedia.[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 12:18, 3 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::You haven't offended me in the slightest. My point was not a political one but one about writing style. Encyclopedias contain facts - it is up to the reader to determine what adjectives they wish to use to describe the subject. But since you're keen to retain the word, I assume you would be comfortable if I and others began adding the word "capitalistic" to each and every mention of a business? How about using the word [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stock_exchange&diff=510242&oldid=489366 here]? Does that seem encyclopediac to you? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 16:55, 3 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:56, September 3, 2008
I would suggest that the prepending of descriptive terms such as "socialistic" as per this edit is a mistake. While it is clearly intended as either descriptive or pejorative, it's unencyclopediac, and if this is allowed, what's to stop people adding "capitalistic" or other such pointless descriptors to other entries? In principle, encyclopedias should have an absolute minimum of adjectives in their articles. BenHur 12:13, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry if I've offended you but living in the UK I am well aware that it is socialistic - it was based on the communist models in operation in the USSR - and to call it anything else would be to mislead those American youths likely to make use of this encyclopedia.Malakker 12:18, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- You haven't offended me in the slightest. My point was not a political one but one about writing style. Encyclopedias contain facts - it is up to the reader to determine what adjectives they wish to use to describe the subject. But since you're keen to retain the word, I assume you would be comfortable if I and others began adding the word "capitalistic" to each and every mention of a business? How about using the word here? Does that seem encyclopediac to you? BenHur 16:55, 3 September 2008 (EDT)