Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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. --Crackertalk 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? Crackertalk 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)
I guess my real concern is the Commandments not the style manual then. I’ve read them, and the Manual of Style to try to find clarity in them, but I can’t, apparently, wrap my mind around Commandment 3 – especially the “no gossip” part. I’ll move this discussion over to the Commandments if you think I’ll get a better response there. --Reginod 12:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Ha ha hahhahah ahhaahaha... a better response? I promise you, you will be told that the commandments mean what they say, that they're clear, clean and concise and nothing like the overbearing abusive "rules" that they follow over there on wikipedia. And your questions will never be answered. Myk 12:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, it can’t hurt to try. (or at least it can’t hurt too much)--Reginod 12:46, 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)

I like this idea, I think. MountainDew 02:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Term of Office / Presidency

For Presidents, the sub head should be "Presidency" and if more than one term, could be split into first and second terms, IMO.

The style manual is freely editable. Go to town. I feel that all the pages can look like anything, so long as they all look like the same thing. Myk 19:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
ROLF! Well at some point, it needs to be locked down, unless the point is constant revision? Presidential terms, unlike other elected offices, are usually vastly different between the first four and last four years. The sub heading wouldn't apply to anything else in the US elected offices, I don't think...... --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I think the theory that a project page like this has is that people who are interested in a specific area, in this case politicians, come to a group consensus as to how those articles should work. Locking the page, or any page for that matter, stifles growth. Let someone make a drastic change to it. Users can then discuss and adopt, adapt, or reject. I see no need for locking. Myk 02:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


There have been a number of less than flattering photos recently uploaded. Would it be reasonable to say that only authorized photographs from the individual's website be valid submissions? These tend to have copyrights that are granted for use. To use less than flattering ones from the press creates a less than professional appearance of the website (are you trying to smear the politician? or provide useful information?) and have questionable copyright status. --Mtur 21:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, always a highly subjective matter, photographs, and what is or is not flattering, eh? I have had political candidates, and their families not be happy with a choice of over 100! One needs to be awfully careful, Mtur, as you pointed out about Dr. King, and Copyright infringements.....--~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 22:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
This is just censorship. Brian Williams dug up a two year old photo of Bush holding King Abdullah's hand when he read t he news item that Abdullah refered to the "illegitimate foreign occupation of Iraq." My God, what's next, we can't show pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadam or Pelosi shaking hands with Assad? RobS 22:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, wasn't the picture of Bush holding hands with Abdullah an attempt to show what their relationship was like two years ago? That seems appropriate to the story of Abdullah referring to the occupation as, well, an occupation. And an illegal one to boot.
As to the greater scope of Mtur's original question, I have no opinion on that. I believe someone (User:Alloco1)got a 2 hour temp block for suggesting that Hillary Clinton's picture was chosen because it was less than flattering. I certainly don't want to get in the middle of that. Myk 23:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  • It will be a grim satisfaction to me, personally, when we are asked to send troops to spare the King's head, in a matter of a few years. Insurgents are filling up his country, and it is only a matter of time now.....--~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 00:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)