Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexuality"
From Conservapedia
(→length of article) |
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→length of article) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST) | ::I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST) | ||
| + | :::Why don't you write an alternative article and see if the owner of the site likes it better? I wish you the best should you decide to pursue this endeavor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:51, 26 January 2012 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 04:52, January 27, 2012
length of article
This article is very long, making it inconvenient to read. Most of the sections here seem to have their own pages. Editing is locked for regular users, so I can't do it, but has there been any discussion condensing the article to make it more reader-friendly? --JHunter 16:25, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- I was actually thinking of adding some material: Black pastors confront Southern Poverty Law Center for smearing as ‘hate groups’ pro-family organizations opposed to homosexual agenda. [1] Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with homosexual perversion.Conservative 18:41, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --JHunter 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- Why don't you write an alternative article and see if the owner of the site likes it better? I wish you the best should you decide to pursue this endeavor. Conservative 23:51, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --JHunter 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST)
