2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $9223.37Goal: $10000

Talk:Minnesota Forward

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Last I checked, WP didn't even have an article on this outfit, which I found odd to say the least. Also, again last I checked, MF didn't even have a web site. (corrected) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey LX, thanks for creating a whole pile of work integrating your edit with what was already there... damn this place! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
What are you on about, and why did you revert me? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You mucked up a lot of bits, although added a few good lines. In the end, integrating what you deleted (come on, you removed the quote of their mission!) with what you added was overwhelming, so I undid, but pasted in the "bipartisan" bit. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph read like a quote-mine, so I streamlined it through the use of paraphrasing. I also removed certain ranting that was either demonstrably false or missing the point. We can get into specifics if you prefer. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The "quote mine" was a "quote". Thanks for helping make it better. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The WP article needs third-party references, particularly for the "controversy." (Multiple newspaper coverage, ideally.) I'm saying this here rather than there so as not to attract rampant early deletionists - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. That is why we have an article before they do! — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 10:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)