Talk:Vanessa Mae: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger (→Intro) |
imported>Larry Sanger (→Intro) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I very much doubt it can plausibly be regarded as in conflict with our family-friendly policy. The question is simply whether it is something both interesting and true--according to a sizeable number of people who know about (and love?) Vanessa Mae. When presented with the proposition of whether someone is a "sexy babelicious hottie," I consult Google Image search. Go ahead, try it. The comment seemed well-placed. | I very much doubt it can plausibly be regarded as in conflict with our family-friendly policy. The question is simply whether it is something both interesting and true--according to a sizeable number of people who know about (and love?) Vanessa Mae. When presented with the proposition of whether someone is a "sexy babelicious hottie," I consult Google Image search. Go ahead, try it. The comment seemed well-placed. | ||
Robert, you say, "The initial author of this stub was also warned for material posted in CZ previously. (see article history)" But that doesn't seem to be the case: the article history only has John Stephenson saying, "deleted one link that seemed a bit seedy." JS saying that does not mean that the initial author was "warned" in any way. | |||
Anyway, the fact that an opinion is subjective, and an opinion, does not mean that we should delete it. Rather, we should attribute it, tastefully and appropriately (and in good English style, too). Our neutrality policy shouldn't be used to strip all articles of all controversy, opinion, and subjective judgment. How boring CZ would be then! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:46, 31 January 2008 (CST) | Anyway, the fact that an opinion is subjective, and an opinion, does not mean that we should delete it. Rather, we should attribute it, tastefully and appropriately (and in good English style, too). Our neutrality policy shouldn't be used to strip all articles of all controversy, opinion, and subjective judgment. How boring CZ would be then! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:46, 31 January 2008 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 23:53, 31 January 2008
NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.
Intro
"sex appeal." somebody should reconsider this phrase. Doesn't this go against Citizendium's family-friendly policy? (Chunbum Park 21:04, 31 January 2008 (CST))
- Possibly. The initial author of this stub was also warned for material posted in CZ previously. (see article history) In any case, I have just removed it. --Robert W King 21:48, 31 January 2008 (CST)
I very much doubt it can plausibly be regarded as in conflict with our family-friendly policy. The question is simply whether it is something both interesting and true--according to a sizeable number of people who know about (and love?) Vanessa Mae. When presented with the proposition of whether someone is a "sexy babelicious hottie," I consult Google Image search. Go ahead, try it. The comment seemed well-placed.
Robert, you say, "The initial author of this stub was also warned for material posted in CZ previously. (see article history)" But that doesn't seem to be the case: the article history only has John Stephenson saying, "deleted one link that seemed a bit seedy." JS saying that does not mean that the initial author was "warned" in any way.
Anyway, the fact that an opinion is subjective, and an opinion, does not mean that we should delete it. Rather, we should attribute it, tastefully and appropriately (and in good English style, too). Our neutrality policy shouldn't be used to strip all articles of all controversy, opinion, and subjective judgment. How boring CZ would be then! --Larry Sanger 23:46, 31 January 2008 (CST)