Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Reliability"
(too subtle) |
HeartOfGold (talk | contribs) (Suggestions) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Point 4 "A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated " is too subtle. As a non-American I don't know what this point is trying to say. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | Point 4 "A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated " is too subtle. As a non-American I don't know what this point is trying to say. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==too stupid== | ||
| + | |||
| + | This article is bizarre. At least it is editable for sanity. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Suggestions == | ||
| + | |||
| + | It seems that this article is intermixing two different types of reliability: that of contributors, and that of sources. Is this correct? I'll followup after this point is clarified, but for now, as for sources, I concur, I think, that reliable sources can be handled differently, while partisan sources should be handled with care (e.g., TalkOrigins, a favorite of Devout evolutionists). [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:40, 18 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:40, May 18, 2007
See also Bias-Original Work--PalMDtalk 16:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
too subtle
Point 4 "A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated " is too subtle. As a non-American I don't know what this point is trying to say. --Scott 10:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
too stupid
This article is bizarre. At least it is editable for sanity. Human 01:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Suggestions
It seems that this article is intermixing two different types of reliability: that of contributors, and that of sources. Is this correct? I'll followup after this point is clarified, but for now, as for sources, I concur, I think, that reliable sources can be handled differently, while partisan sources should be handled with care (e.g., TalkOrigins, a favorite of Devout evolutionists). HeartOfGold 15:40, 18 May 2007 (EDT)