4,994
edits
Changes
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 22:16, March 31, 2007
, 22:16, March 31, 2007→Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information
==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=75691&oldid=75577 this]? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.
:Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is ''schadenfreude,'' delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.
:One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's ''not'' just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm ''guessing'' that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm ''guessing'' it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)