Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

One of two articles from first-time contributors about American politics... fun times. This whole article reads more like a journal entry than an article and blurs factual reporting with an opinion piece where the boundaries are not clear.

For an article that's supposedly fact checking a controversial event, there seems to be surprisingly little effort made; e.g. you leave the first rumour completely unaddressed while apparently not sending a message to either the convention or Peacewolf to ask directly. The other, major, problem with this whole article is the near-complete absence of supporting information. At times, the article is arguing something that everyone is just assumed to know. In the first rumour we are told that Peacewolf has said some hurtful things but never told what they are. The following sentences about those statements are meaningless because we don't know what the exact accusations and statements are. And we can't follow up anything because there are no links to anything. There are multiple statements and accusations in the first two rumours but not a single link to anything.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.