Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians"

Revision as of 16:00, March 31, 2007

Removed "while in office" from the Clinton example because that's when impeachment takes place. If the person reaches the end of their term they cannot be impeached. --Cracker^talk 11:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Heh... I was actually just copying something we had on the CLinton page, but good catch. And glad to see someone is reading this! Myk 15:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Non-gossip scandals vrs. gossip

Can someone please clarify what the difference between “non-gossip scandals the person is known to have been involved with” and “Gossip” is. I thought that any scandal that the political figure had been involved in that they had admitted to involvement in would clearly qualify – I am told that is not correct (which is fine, but it makes knowing when I am editing in accordance to the guidelines and when I am unintentionally violating them hard to do.)--Reginod 10:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, good question. I suppose that only if a court or an official body (a house of Congress, say) investigates; or if a "special prosecutor" leaks info...then that SHOULD be acceptable. But we don't know, for sure, eh? Cracker_talk 11:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

For instance, anything from the Clinton Chronicles alleging a trail of bodies that leads to the White House would be gossip would be gossip. Similarly, George W. Bush's cocaine use as a youth would be gossip. Myk 11:38, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I’m with you on the examples, but what I am looking for is a rule—what makes something that was gossip into a non-gossip scandal, when does something become appropriate to this site (is it when a person is convicted? When a charge is brought by the Grand Jury? When a prosecutor seeks a charge? When a prosecutor looks into it? When the person admits to the charges? When the person denies the charges? When the scandal makes mainstream news media outlets? When the charge becomes well enough known that it changes public opinion? – Any of those points could be reasonable dividing lines and I think which if any of them is the dividing line should be made clear to avoid confusion and inadvertent rules violations). --Reginod 11:47, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

As gossip is not defined by the commandments, neither is gossip defined here. Honestly, gossip is what Andrew and the sysops decide it to be. These are not rules, per se, as conservapedia has only seven, clearly-defined, concise rules. This is a style manual which tries to implement those rules. Myk 11:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Try to...

Try to refrain from giving your opinion of those views

and what if I fail - is it OK then?

WhatIsG0ing0n 11:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

That, my friend, depends entirely on your opinions of the views. Also note, the main page is not locked. Feel free to edit it to be more clear. As most of the pages on a wiki are supposed to be, it is a collaborative effort. Myk 11:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Giving my opinion would contradict Commandment 5 Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.

WhatIsG0ing0n 11:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm not talking about what the commandments say, I'm talking about what will be enforced. Some opinions have the weight of fact around here... some do not. You know which way the wind blows here. Myk 11:57, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

To give an example, look at the history of the Rudy Giuliani and John McCain pages before I got my hands on them. They were diatribes on why they were not electable or conservatives should not support them. The article on the 2008 Presidential Election was an analysis of why Tommy Thompson was more electable than John McCain. But the author of those diatribes pays the bills so many of them found their way back in to the articles. Myk 12:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)