Difference between revisions of "Talk:Defense of Marriage Act"
From Conservapedia
m (Explanation) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Its been a few days since i posted the above suggestion, without any responses, positive or negative. I'm going to go ahead and change it, and if it gets reverted again i only ask that you explain to me why. | :Its been a few days since i posted the above suggestion, without any responses, positive or negative. I'm going to go ahead and change it, and if it gets reverted again i only ask that you explain to me why. | ||
::So, I notice that it got reverted again...--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 16:16, 20 June 2011 (EDT) | ::So, I notice that it got reverted again...--[[User:Jasonb242|Jasonb242]] 16:16, 20 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Biased? Of course it is. It's Conservapedia - we have a conservative bias, which means that our articles can admit that the act was created to defend a sacred union.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 12:40, 24 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:40, May 24, 2017
I'm not sure of the proper ediquette for editing articles on this site, so i'll wait for a response before i edit it again, as it got reverted last time. In the opening paragraph it says "It defends traditional marriage by enabling...". This is a biased statement. The article should explain what the act does, and let the reader decide whether or not it actually defends traditional marriage. I suggest that it be changed to "It enables...". I apologize for changing it without asking before, i'm new here and dont really know how things work.--Jasonb242 00:06, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
- Its been a few days since i posted the above suggestion, without any responses, positive or negative. I'm going to go ahead and change it, and if it gets reverted again i only ask that you explain to me why.
