Jump to content

Talk:Tea Party Nation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeutralityPersonified (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 1 April 2011 (→‎Anti-Protestantism?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconConservatism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Right to vote

I changed the statement to make it clear that he supports the idea of requiring property ownership to vote. Dylan Flaherty 10:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote said he thought it made sense in the past. This wasn't a clear endorsement of enacting it today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.76.182 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense," Looks like present tense to me. Not "and that used to make some sense, but it's like totally idiotic for the United States to withdrawal whimpering to the past instead of standing up and winning the future" or something else that's clearly past tense. Hcobb (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Protestantism?

Why is Anti-Protestantism a category on this page? Gtbob12 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Criticism" Section

I have removed the purported "criticism" section for mulitiple violations of Wikipedia policy:

(1) The section relies primarily on non-reliable sources, such as an apparent blog called "Homebrewedtheology." Also cited is Thinkprogess, a highly partisan left-wing site.

(2) The section violates the policy by giving undue emphasis to the alleged "critcism", which is essentially the author's POV.

(3) Although the section cites to some blogs which are maintained by ostensibly reliable sources (e.g., the Atlantic), the purpose is merely to give a one-sided account of left-of-center criticism. If this were a proper criteria, nearly every article on Wikipedia could have a similar "criticism" section, collecting the opinions (say) of right-wing blogs criticizing the subject of the article.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]