Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Big science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
A mention of Conservapedia is way over the top. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release. Also, the statement itself didn't mediate the rest of the article, it attempted to confirm the article's conclusions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 
A mention of Conservapedia is way over the top. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release. Also, the statement itself didn't mediate the rest of the article, it attempted to confirm the article's conclusions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 
: I partially agree, which is why ultimately I think moving this to Essay is the best solution (since in that scenario, we can keep the Conservapedia references). --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 15:09, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 
: I partially agree, which is why ultimately I think moving this to Essay is the best solution (since in that scenario, we can keep the Conservapedia references). --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 15:09, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
==Response==
 +
I defy the drivel contained in the posts above, contributed by overt and closet [[Liberals]] and fellow-travellers at the cesspit. The Liberal clique has revealed itself in its full,  unappetising colours. If any of you dogs had any sense of decency you would come out in your open colours and resign from CP; instead, you prefer to be cancerous cells, attempting to destroy it from within. Well, you will fail, anmd what goes around, comes around. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 14:47, 18 September 2008

This essay article needs a whole heck of a lot more references than the, uh, zero that it currently contains. HelpJazz 13:12, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

"The aim of furthering 'world government' and the overthrow of national sovereignty"? This is pushing paranoia and hysteria to new levels of credulity. Sideways 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Rename or something

I suggest this article be deleted (since it was created to prove a point), moved to essay, or at least renamed. The term "Big science" is already defined. Please read the Britannica article on the subject for its definition and the history of the phrase. We can't just redefine established terms. HenryS 11:53, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Delete..... Hrm, on second thought, maybe move to essay with the proper redirects so that nobody in the future gets the bright idea to do it again. HelpJazz 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree with both of you. It's just not encyclopedic, & would take a lot of work to make it even remotely encyclopedic. Delete or move to essay. Sideways 11:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
I would support moving this to Essay (definitely better than deleting it). On a side note, in the general case, I don't think we should let the main-stream media and others dictate term definitions for us. --DRamon 12:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
There are two problems: (1) I don't think Britannica is part of the MSM and (2) the term "big science" (and anything with "big" used to denote "evil capitalist" e.g. big oil, big pharma) was invented by the MSM. HelpJazz 12:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Mention of Conservapedia

A mention of Conservapedia is way over the top. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release. Also, the statement itself didn't mediate the rest of the article, it attempted to confirm the article's conclusions. HelpJazz 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I partially agree, which is why ultimately I think moving this to Essay is the best solution (since in that scenario, we can keep the Conservapedia references). --DRamon 15:09, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Response

I defy the drivel contained in the posts above, contributed by overt and closet Liberals and fellow-travellers at the cesspit. The Liberal clique has revealed itself in its full, unappetising colours. If any of you dogs had any sense of decency you would come out in your open colours and resign from CP; instead, you prefer to be cancerous cells, attempting to destroy it from within. Well, you will fail, anmd what goes around, comes around. Bugler 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)