Essay talk:Too much snark considered harmful

Somewhat agree

I'm one of those who didn't know, when I got here last August, that PETA had actually gone in some unacceptable directions. Absolutely, I don't think that vicious into is at all appropriate -- I'd click right on out of here if I encountered that. It's more snarky against the reasons reasonable people are predisposed to think well of PETA rather than at anything specific to PETA.)

When I founded the Targeted Individuals article, I was put off by a rush of other editors who turned the intro into excessively vicious mockery, and who wanted to label them all insane without any consideration for whether this would be clinically justified by most mental health professionals. So, I toned that stuff down -- tho, to be sure, I left a lot of the snark and agree with much of the contempt.

Snark has a place of honor here and I generally do like that, but think it is often not best used in the intro. That is, if we want people to keep reading. Also, on really controversial issues among editors or the skeptical community at large, I use quite a bit less of it, e.g., Israel-Palestine topics.---Mona- (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)