Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Aschlafly

954 bytes added, 22:13, 3 December 2015
/* Plans for growth? */
:::We address topics that traditional hard-back encyclopedias fail to include, which may be why traditional encyclopedias are failing. For example, we criticize the [[NFL]], which is an addiction for millions of Americans and is being exported to the rest of the world. As to our American focus, the U.S. has been and continues to be the fountainhead of conservatism so it's not surprising this would be the starting point. This is what the U.S. should be exporting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:00, 3 December 2015 (EST)
::::Addressing topics that a traditional encyclopedia does not is one of the benefits of the Internet. But I was referring to the professionalism of how articles are being written, not the scope or types of articles written. When I say it has an overemphasis on the USA, I don't mean we should downplay the importance of the USA. But if you were to pick up the Encyclopedia Britannica, would you see a logo on the front with the United States flag? The fact that the US flag is not there does not mean the US is unimportant, it just is not the central focus when considering the entire encyclopedia as a whole. If conservative concepts are good (which I think generally they are), they are universally good, without regard to any particular nation. See this: [] --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] ([[User talk:Ymmotrojam|talk]]) 17:13, 3 December 2015 (EST)