From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy theories related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

Main thing the article needs for bronze is a "see also" section, and a couple more actual references (not footnotes).

Clarification Request/Notification[edit]

Is there a template for an article written at least partially tounge-in-cheek? I feel this article needs one.— Unsigned, by: Imarcuson / talk / contribs 01:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost all our articles are at least partially tongue in cheek or "snarky" yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 01:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I do feel that some points are inappropriately conflated. I think that increased survivability of pedestrian-automobile collisions at lower speeds is far less debatable than gun control on safety. I also think that under "neighborhood safety" there are items that many conservatives (admittedly fundamentalist ones) would like (opposing legalizing gambling and keeping liquor stores out of neighborhoods) and those they would hate (gun control), which to me makes the second part of the sentence of conservatives ignoring those things a bit incongruous. Imarcuson (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is a wiki, which means that anyone, you included, can edit it. Now that you've made your point on the talk page, why not edit the article. You'll soon see if anyone agrees or disagrees with you by the reaction, if any, to your edits. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 13:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Last Sentence[edit]

is completely sarcastic, right?--cm2 22:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Unlike the rest of it, which is only 75% sarcasm. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)