100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 320:
Line 320: + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 04:47, March 22, 2007
, 04:47, March 22, 2007→4th C, (use of AD).
*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I see the article [[Democratic Party]] has been expunged of the attention-grabbing '''AD'''s. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la ''letters to the editor'' in [[Biblical Archaeology Review]]. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==
== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==