Talk:Washington Irving
From RationalWiki
"It is incumbent on the editor who adds this template to an article to explain why they did so, in order to start the discussion. "Drive-by" templating without stopping to discuss is discouraged." ListenerX, why do you feel that it doesn't meet with the purpose of this site, since it links from a page that refutes Conservapedia's ability to be used as an educational tool for homeschooled students? --Irrational Atheist 18:08, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- Because the flipping Wikipedia article contains any information you would want. Phantom Hoover 18:11, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- There's no obvious relevance on the page'. I would suggest it be amplified & linked back to the appropriate page/section of the other page (& snarked up a bit?) or deleted. Toast 18:20, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- There's no real guide on literature and authors (and for that matter, history). Can we come up with a consensus and point out the faults of other subjects beyond math and science on CP? --Irrational Atheist 20:23, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- Yes, we can, but we don't need to refute everything written on CP in close detail. & This article doesn't mention CP at all. wassaiLOId
~ 20:26, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- Would you prefer RW's article on Irving point out the absurdity of Conservapedia's? --Irrational Atheist 20:29, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- It's kind of missing the point that we almost certainly don't need a RW article on Washington Irving at all. We're not a lit crit site. Mostly we're about issues of science, politics & belief. We only deal with a very few literary, musical & entertainment subjects, when they relate to our missions in some way. If you want to comment on CP's coverage of the subject, the Conservapedia:Failure of Literature article/essay you started is probably the best place. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:03, 2 January 2009 (EST)
- It's kind of missing the point that we almost certainly don't need a RW article on Washington Irving at all. We're not a lit crit site. Mostly we're about issues of science, politics & belief. We only deal with a very few literary, musical & entertainment subjects, when they relate to our missions in some way. If you want to comment on CP's coverage of the subject, the Conservapedia:Failure of Literature article/essay you started is probably the best place. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Would you prefer RW's article on Irving point out the absurdity of Conservapedia's? --Irrational Atheist 20:29, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- Yes, we can, but we don't need to refute everything written on CP in close detail. & This article doesn't mention CP at all. wassaiLOId
- There's no real guide on literature and authors (and for that matter, history). Can we come up with a consensus and point out the faults of other subjects beyond math and science on CP? --Irrational Atheist 20:23, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- There's no obvious relevance on the page'. I would suggest it be amplified & linked back to the appropriate page/section of the other page (& snarked up a bit?) or deleted. Toast 18:20, 31 December 2008 (EST)
[edit] Irving Washington
surely? Toast 14:34, 2 January 2009 (EST)
- Depends how bored you are when reading soldier's letters. Totnesmartin 14:39, 2 January 2009 (EST)