Talk:Ellen DeGeneres

I assume by "thoughts" you mean "unsubstatiated opinion"? If so, could you please change back my edits which weren't "thoughts"? I'm not sure which you consider inappropriate and I don't want to start an edit war. Jazzman831 00:16, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I guess my biggest difficulty with your edit is that you didn't add anything, but merely played off of the information I put to change it to a more "neutered" form, or at least that is how is appeared. There was certainly room for expansion - including the whole part of Ellen's life with Anne Heche. Fact citations should be rare and discussed within talk. Did you really see something that you felt was in error, or is it more of the go out and dig to get a citation? Learn together 01:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, for starters the name of her 2001 sitcom wasn't mentioned, and neither was the length of its run. Phrases like "diving in the ratings" and "[having] another stab at a sitcom" aren't very professional language. I also changed a misspelling of DeGeneres, and capitalized the name of a TV show. I also cleaned up the messy grammer in the line about her media attention surrounding her outing.

As Andy likes to say all the time, CP is a meritocracy, and my strength lies in copy editing. I don't know anything about Anne Heche, so I didn't add anything about her. The reason I removed "surprising few people" is because (a) it's not professional, (b) it's not supported, (c) it's wording is vague. As far as I've seen, there aren't any rules for adding {{fact}} tags, so there's really no way for me to know . I think a cause/effect statement like that needs to be backed up. I'm not saying in any way that it's false, just that something which appears like opinion needs cited. Otherwise critics can use that line to unfairly discredit Conservapedia. Jazzman831 13:39, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure you've made many good alterations with copy editing. Many articles can be improved with small word, grammar, and punctuation changes and I've been fortunate to have contributed in this area myself. But you mixed in other changes to alter the tone to change what it said, and that is not the same. I attempted to mix in your copy edit changes into the revised version. There was no misspelling of DeGeneres as you stated above, but I did include your show capitalization. If I left any other concrete material out, then I'm sure we can put it back in.

"surprising few people" is telling it like it is. There was a buildup before the "big announcement" to test the waters and a lot of "wink wink" articles before hand. That's what separates us from the other pedia. We're allowed to acknowledge that. The show's ratings did dive, but if you don't like the wording I'll change it to "rapidly declined". Fact citations detract from the readability of the article and the intended audience - kids doing research. We're supposed to give them a straight forward presentation, not question our own (true) work because some critic may not like it. That doesn't mean you can't question anything I've said (with 3,000 edits I've made mistakes), but try to do so in the talk section.

On a different note, I personally prefer to be more discrete when doing copy edit work based on how I describe my edit in the summary line. I also defer to someone's particular style, being careful to differentiate between outright errors versus a different form of word choice. I recognize that Conservapedia is made off the backs of contributors, not self-appointed English teachers, so when I do put on the "hat" of a teacher, it is only with the utmost respect of the people who did the actual work. Learn together 15:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I fixed the "spelling" error, which was actually a capitalization error, heh. I think that's all the concrete edits left, but I still think "had another stab at" doesn't fit in an encyclopedia.

As for "surprising few people," I'm not arguing that it's not true. If you feel it's of utmost importance to the subject (which I think you do) at least clarify it. For example: "Ellen made her homosexuality public on The Oprah Winfrey Show in February 1997. This did not surprise many people, as X reason."

It might be hard to tell from this one edit, but I usually try to edit grammar only for clarity, technical correctness, or professionalism. I try not to simply change a person's style (though if we want to be a real encyclopedia one would hope there would not be too much individualism in the articles) or meaning. That being said there will be times when I make what I think is a harmless edit, but the origonal editor thinks I changed a major point.

As for being a self-appointed English teacher working off the backs of the hardworking contributers, I think that's an unfair accusation. I have made contributions other than grammar changes, but I stick to my areas of expertise (chemistry, and some politics, for the most part). When I'm not doing "actual work" I still improve the encyclopedia; CP is more than just pages and pages of facts. Jazzman831 22:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I did not make the accusation you claim, although I do stand by the belief I expressed. When I am doing copy editing, and therefore become a self-appointed English teacher, I do so as respectfully as I can. I am also aware it is much harder to write than to correct. An English teacher can grade and correct twenty papers in a night, but he would be hard pressed to write twenty papers wouldn't he? That being said, since I put on the hat myself, I apparently believe it has importance, true? Learn together 10:19, 27 July 2007 (EDT)