Conservapedia talk:How to write an article

Isn't this implying that editors should discuss proposed changes to an article before editing? And isn't that a contradiction of the 90/10 rule, which suggests that constructive editing is better than talk? Sideways 16:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Carte blanche?

This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a carte blanche that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --DirkB 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

"Sweeping" condemnations

"Never imply that a sweeping condemnation of liberal evils is "wrong" or "exaggerated".": I would rather say, "Never make sweeping condemnation of liberal evils". Condemnation of specific evils is okay, but sweeping condemnation should always be avoided, I would think. I also have reservations about other aspects of this proposal. Philip J. Rayment 00:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Reading it again, this doesn't actually say "how to write an article" at all. It seems to be about what to do - or what not to do - with an existing article. There is already a Conservapedia:Guidelines page - should this content be proposed & discussed as an addition to the guidelines, rather than a stand-alone article or essay? Sideways 09:10, 30 August 2008 (EDT)