Talk:Ronald Reagan

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Daniel 19:21, 7 Aug 2005 (PDT) In the interest of not turning off readers who stumble in from Google and such, could we please avoid certain language like "enough said"? Also, unsourced claims like "Alleged to have sabataged election 1980" probably hurt the site's reputation.

Patrioticliberal , 7 Aug 2005 (PDT) I edited it for him. I also reverted an edit on GWB where he changed facts that were gathered by several including DRolfe and made them inaccurate; also, I changed the Clarence Thomas entry because he decided to also say, "or Uncle Tom as he is known". No one will take this site seriously if you don't hold yourself to some professionalism. It's OK to be a liberal but it's not ok to be an ass. I hope we don't have a troll here. We need to keep this a reliable website. It is not a joke. DRolfe's edit was great; don't screw around with it Deaniac with your lame attempt at humor.

Daniel 19:52, 7 Aug 2005 (PDT) Thanks. I hope the new version will make it easier to prevent these incidents.

this is a liberal site. We're already biased anyway and people know it, so why not bias it to adress ALEGATIONS I put. Many liberals do accuse Reagan of the October Surprise, so there is nothign wrong with adressing the allegation. This is a liberal site, so why hold back?

Daniel 20:02, 7 Aug 2005 (PDT) People come here looking for information, not for speculation and ranting. Writing "America was in deep shit" will only serve to taint this site's reputation. We don't need to push potential readers away.

Dude, the chance is our potential readers are going to be liberals who agree with the all the repug hating, or they are going to be conservative apologists. Why accomodate people who would hate us whether we were softer on them or not. Just look at George W Bush. I suppose we should put somethign in the accomplishments part, oh in the name of getting GOP sympathizers to read. No we should not, but anything on this site can be called solely an "allegation" by a lot of people but us, who know the truth. So i think there is nothing wrong with putting the fact that people were alleged to have done certain things. OK I won't curse, but lets not cut and paste who wikipedia articles without putting our perspective in. We are liberals! before I touched the reagan page, we had nothing negative about him.

Daniel 20:27, 7 Aug 2005 (PDT) I don't think most readers will be liberal -- see here for statistics showing that the majority of readers are referred from Google searches. These people may or may not already have a strong bias. I don't think it's necessary to include praise for conservatives, but it wouldn't help to look like a liberal version of LGF in wiki format. I agree with you though that copying from Wikipedia is silly.

patrioticliberal 20:51, 7 Aug 2005 (PDT) I don't personally mind including some Wiki information or SourceWatch information, i just try to source it if I ever do use it. And I try to find as much information outside of that as possible as well. Just a fine line of self-moderation you should walk on that, that's all.And sometimes, adding some of that information from SourceWatch or the like is particularly helpful (some people have REALLY researched the topics) and important to the topic at hand, so as long as you reference it, try to do some investigative work yourself, and walk that fine line (do I *need* to use this? is there something more pressing? can I dig deeper into this aspect?) it's OK with me. But silly little things like Bush's favorite book is My Pet Goat is just retarded. Don't do that.

Personal tools