Difference between revisions of "Talk:Stereotype"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(VMI)
(final reply to Ames)
Line 31: Line 31:
  
 
I dispute your pov-pushing in the "political correctness" diatribe (it can be called nothing less), and I dispute the reasons behind removing the lines I had in the article.  Also, if you want to talk about the "legal opinion" issue, I've rebutted your contentions at long length on your talk page.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 
I dispute your pov-pushing in the "political correctness" diatribe (it can be called nothing less), and I dispute the reasons behind removing the lines I had in the article.  Also, if you want to talk about the "legal opinion" issue, I've rebutted your contentions at long length on your talk page.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Ames, our [[rules]] prohibit converting opinions into fact, and I'm not going to waste any more time on the obvious reasons why.  Your objection to my entry is not specific enough.  I'm moving on to other entries at this point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 18:33, 20 April 2007

Intro

A few comments on a basically-good article:

  • VMI? What's that, please?
  • There's no citations at all (perhaps they are still coming?). Not that I disagree with any of it to any significant extent.
  • "The stereotype that Jews are all successful and wealthy underlay much of the violence and hatred that defined the Holocaust...". I would question this. Was it the stereotype that they were all successful and wealthy that was the problem, or a suspicion that they achieved this success and wealth by less-than-honest means?

Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Citations are forthcoming. VMI is "Virginia Military Institute," as clicking the link shows. And the Jewish stereotype - it'd be both.-AmesGyo! 11:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, you mean that link that was red when I asked the question?. I still think it should have the full name, though, but I can do that. Philip J. Rayment 11:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

VMI

Andy requested that the material be objective. As such, I removed any opinion, merely discussing how Ginsburg's opinion grounded its analysis in a discussion of stereotypes. This is objective fact; TK I will e-mail you the reporter-image of the decision if you want it. As it has been corrected to accord with Andy's request, it was reverted.-AmesGyo! 21:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Fine by me, Ames. I will resist reverting and locking it. I emailed Andy my opinion, since you didn't ask mine. I am sure he will know better how it needs to be. Please keep on winning friends and influencing people as you are. I so enjoy your idea of collaboration. ;-) --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:30, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor seemed to like it, and so did Phil, with minor changes that were fixed. They are pretty reasonable, and often disagree with me, so I especially value their concurrence in this case.-AmesGyo! 21:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • LOL. Ok, have it your way, Ames. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:41, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

What does that mean?-AmesGyo! 21:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

  • The VMI case does not belong there at all, per Andy. Can you not see the Liberal opinion of the Judge(s) are merely being converted into "facts"? --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

First I would disagree that the decision is liberal. Second, though, whether or not it is liberal, it is more than mere opinion. Calling a decision "Opinion" is a polite convention, but be not deluded into thinking that it is not the law of the land. This Wiki is not the province for Andy to carry out his crusade against bad decisions. Rather, it is the place to state as a fact what the law is. TK, this is shockingly ignorant. Whether or not judicial decisions rest on a political slant, that does not mean that they are not 'factual and LEGAL.-22:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, this article is unequivocally worse. Please respond to the notes on your talk page. It's hard to want to improve this wiki when you remove good articles at every turn. Facts that disagree with you are still facts.-AmesGyo! 19:10, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Ames, I spent far too much time on my talk page responding to your attempts to include an opinion in a factual page here. Opinions, even legal opinions, are merely that.
Do you dispute the factual accuracy of anything I added? Be very specific.--Aschlafly 19:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I dispute your pov-pushing in the "political correctness" diatribe (it can be called nothing less), and I dispute the reasons behind removing the lines I had in the article. Also, if you want to talk about the "legal opinion" issue, I've rebutted your contentions at long length on your talk page.-AmesGyo! 19:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, our rules prohibit converting opinions into fact, and I'm not going to waste any more time on the obvious reasons why. Your objection to my entry is not specific enough. I'm moving on to other entries at this point.--Aschlafly 19:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)