User talk:Mamalujo/Archive 6

Your edits to Kulturkampf
The sentence you propose simply makes no sense, not to mention that it is wrong, and thus pushes a POV. Lars T. (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
Way to go shortening the Spanish Civil War article! What you're removing is stuff I wanted to take out too but was too shy. I was going to start working on that spinoff article I mentioned on the talk page, what do you think? (I mean, you can keep editing the article, I'll work on the spinoff in my userspace then make one edit to the main article replacing the section with a summary when I'm done). delldot  &nabla;.  19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we shouldn't remove important substance. But I think it will work well to move the foreign involvement to the spinoff article (which I realized already exists) though because a lot of that is really quite detailed. I think it'll be good to leave like a one- or two-para summary with about a sentence or two for each subsection currently in that section.  But yeah, there's still a ton of fluff wording and unnecessary detail in the other sections that can get cut out too.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

North Korea section of State atheism
I've reverted your change to State atheism where you added the words "brutal" and "Orwellian" to the North Korea section. I'm not going to claim that I don't personally agree with you about the North Korean government, but Wikipedia should describe disputes, not engage in them. Instead of simply saying that it is brutal, consider expanding the section to describe the situation so readers can form their own opinions. I realize it can be difficult to not pass judgement when writing about terrible things, but it's not our place to do so. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry
I replied to your comment on the article talk page, but I think it's fair to point out re: POV that the proposal was up for a week with no dissenting comments, and the discussion goes back to the beginning of the month. MSJapan (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the move/redirect was initially proposed by an editor who came to the page to give a neutral third opinion, and was acting as an informal mediator. Hardly POV Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't so much the move but the rewriting. JASpencer (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a page with the sourced material and referenced it in the talk page. The current page is a mess due to a rather strong and detectable bias. JASpencer (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)