Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Southall Spammer reveals his true colours | |
Posted by: | Robin Taylor | |
Date/Time: | 26/06/10 00:09:00 |
"read the Wikipedia rules on posting opinions as opposed to facts, and provide an adequately-referenced rebuttal of the piece you object to. If you can provide a properly-referenced, factual piece, then it might stand some chance of remaining in place." Well, Dickie, you don't seem to mind your nationalist Wiki friends "posting opinions as opposed to facts" and failing to write "properly-referenced factual pieces", do you? As two of many examples, check out these passages from the second paragraph of the 'Rivers of Blood' article:- ------ "The speech caused a political storm, making Powell one of the most popular politicians in the country, and leading to his dismissal from the Shadow Cabinet by Conservative party leader Edward Heath." ------ - This passage is unsourced. Who decides that he was one of the "most popular" politicians in the country? He was one of the most hated, too. So what was wrong with me replacing the word "popular" with "controversial"? ------ "According to most accounts, the popularity of Powell's perspective on race was a decisive contributory factor in the Conservatives' surprise victory in the 1970 general election." ------ - Again, unsourced. On what basis does the author say "according to most accounts"? The article is based on value judgements, Dickie. It's based on OPINIONS - the very thing you condemn me for having. But because they're pro-Powell opinions, you don't mind. |