Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:How to write an article"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Carte blanche?: new section)
("Sweeping" condemnations: new section)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
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. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 
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. --[[User:DirkB|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.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 22:30, 29 August 2008

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)