|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Washington Irving
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
"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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- 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)
Irving Washington[edit]
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)