Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll"
(→Great American Tradition) |
RodWeathers (Talk | contribs) m (→Admin only?) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST) | Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST) | ||
==Great American Tradition== | ==Great American Tradition== | ||
Revision as of 21:17, November 28, 2008
We should probably divide it up into several issues. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --Ed Poor Talk 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- The number of his gaffes. --MugiK 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- The number of his gaffes. --MugiK 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example John McCain, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, the choice should be clear.
- "Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when George W. Bush became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --AlanS 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--RossC 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with truth not, (per Wikipedia), verifiability.
- The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
- Philip J. Rayment 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--RossC 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Admin only?
Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start taxing me! - Rod Weathers 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see talk:Barack Obama --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive voting. But I see your point. - Rod Weathers 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --Ed Poor Talk 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. Bugler 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)Bugler 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Who are these Liberal administrators? HenryS 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh Henry, look and read. Bugler 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "Anti-democratic cliquism"! Philip J. Rayment 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. Bugler 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
- Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "Anti-democratic cliquism"! Philip J. Rayment 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh Henry, look and read. Bugler 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Who are these Liberal administrators? HenryS 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. Bugler 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)Bugler 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --Ed Poor Talk 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --Ed Poor Talk 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. Philip J. Rayment 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- I see. That seems rather reasonable. - Rod Weathers 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Great American Tradition
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimSell (talk)
- Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. -- JArneal 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)
My comment
I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.
Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.
This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.
Philip J. Rayment 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--Aschlafly 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
- Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries. Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. Bugler 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
