Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexual censorship"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
::If that's all you looked for you weren't looking very hard. There is a lot of information out there on this subject. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:26, 8 November 2011 (EST) | ::If that's all you looked for you weren't looking very hard. There is a lot of information out there on this subject. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:26, 8 November 2011 (EST) | ||
Now I get it. I looked at your homepage here and I see that you support gay rights. I don't know what your beliefs are about that issue and it's ok for you to believe whatever you want of course but it seems you were biased when you looked at this article and said it contains unfounded assertions without doing anything but a quick search for the wrong terms. The assertions made in the article are not unfounded just because they did not have citations until I added one... I don't like WorldNetDaily or the Family Research Institute for theological reasons but I imagine they have materials on this subject - you thought so too but you didn't even look at either of those sites before you said this article makes unfounded assertions. That's not fair. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:40, 8 November 2011 (EST) | Now I get it. I looked at your homepage here and I see that you support gay rights. I don't know what your beliefs are about that issue and it's ok for you to believe whatever you want of course but it seems you were biased when you looked at this article and said it contains unfounded assertions without doing anything but a quick search for the wrong terms. The assertions made in the article are not unfounded just because they did not have citations until I added one... I don't like WorldNetDaily or the Family Research Institute for theological reasons but I imagine they have materials on this subject - you thought so too but you didn't even look at either of those sites before you said this article makes unfounded assertions. That's not fair. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:40, 8 November 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | :I said the article made unfounded assertions because there were no references and a quick look showed little with regards to claims of censorship. In addition, claims such as '''''the mainstream media refuse to publish information about the social harms that same-sex marriage has caused in those jurisdictions that have adopted it''''' need, at the very least, an example, even if it's just hypothetical. You can't just say something is true, you have to prove it. Assuming you want people to believe you. Otherwise I can write an article about how gay people are secretly vampiric dragons from space with designs to take over the world.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:09, 8 November 2011 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 01:09, November 9, 2011
This is the sort of article that needs sourced examples in order to be the least bit credible. The slogan here is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," and we can't be making unfounded assertions.--CamilleT 16:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
- A quick search for "homosexual censorship" returns only results concerning the censorship of homosexuals in various fields. You'll have to search sites like worldnetdaily and the Family Research Institute's site to find anything to support your claims.--CamilleT 16:47, 8 November 2011 (EST)
- If that's all you looked for you weren't looking very hard. There is a lot of information out there on this subject. Nate Nate 18:26, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Now I get it. I looked at your homepage here and I see that you support gay rights. I don't know what your beliefs are about that issue and it's ok for you to believe whatever you want of course but it seems you were biased when you looked at this article and said it contains unfounded assertions without doing anything but a quick search for the wrong terms. The assertions made in the article are not unfounded just because they did not have citations until I added one... I don't like WorldNetDaily or the Family Research Institute for theological reasons but I imagine they have materials on this subject - you thought so too but you didn't even look at either of those sites before you said this article makes unfounded assertions. That's not fair. Nate Nate 18:40, 8 November 2011 (EST)
- I said the article made unfounded assertions because there were no references and a quick look showed little with regards to claims of censorship. In addition, claims such as the mainstream media refuse to publish information about the social harms that same-sex marriage has caused in those jurisdictions that have adopted it need, at the very least, an example, even if it's just hypothetical. You can't just say something is true, you have to prove it. Assuming you want people to believe you. Otherwise I can write an article about how gay people are secretly vampiric dragons from space with designs to take over the world.--CamilleT 20:09, 8 November 2011 (EST)