Talk:Myth (disambiguation): Difference between revisions
imported>Ed Poor (Examples concerning the US) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Christian Right" to "Christian Right") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
And whose view is it that it is a "myth" that America was founded on Christian principles? (Or to what extent do certain historians say America was '''not''' founded on Christian principles?) In any case, using a controversial example is a poor way to illustrate the meaning of a term. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) | And whose view is it that it is a "myth" that America was founded on Christian principles? (Or to what extent do certain historians say America was '''not''' founded on Christian principles?) In any case, using a controversial example is a poor way to illustrate the meaning of a term. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I completely agree that controversial examples are not appropriate for disambiguation pages. Nevertheless, some of the particular points you raise are worthy of balanced discussion in other articles, if only that some have become oversimplified [[meme]]s or [[sound bite]]s in current politics. Comparing the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers are one example of questioning the infallibility of the Founding Fathers; there are discussions in [[unitary executive theory]]. The role of Christianity is certainly complex, and can fall into [[American exceptionalism]] and Christian Right, part of the problem being changes in the meaning of words (e.g., [[Thomas Jefferson]] being regarded as a deist or as a Christian).[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
== More on what disambiguation is not == | |||
Thoroughly agree with Ed Poor's assessment, above, and I am inclined to cut out the items on the disambiguation list that I think are more than a bit of a reach. | |||
However, there's an inherent contradiction in CZ policy. Our policy says that if a person feels inclined to list every possible imaginable use of a word, s/he should not be creating a disambiguation page, but a subpage. I concur. | |||
Trouble is, I also seem to recall that disambiguation pages were not intended to be clusters, just lists. | |||
We fix this how? | |||
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:31, 7 June 2024
Examples concerning the US:
- We have also developed a myth of the infallibility of the founding fathers, and the nation having been founded on Christian principles.
This mention is the first I've heard in my 50 years of life of the "infallibility" of the founding fathers. The way I was taught history, those guys made plenty of mistakes. (Not banning slavery right from the start was their costliest: see American Civil War.)
And whose view is it that it is a "myth" that America was founded on Christian principles? (Or to what extent do certain historians say America was not founded on Christian principles?) In any case, using a controversial example is a poor way to illustrate the meaning of a term. --Ed Poor 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I completely agree that controversial examples are not appropriate for disambiguation pages. Nevertheless, some of the particular points you raise are worthy of balanced discussion in other articles, if only that some have become oversimplified memes or sound bites in current politics. Comparing the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers are one example of questioning the infallibility of the Founding Fathers; there are discussions in unitary executive theory. The role of Christianity is certainly complex, and can fall into American exceptionalism and Christian Right, part of the problem being changes in the meaning of words (e.g., Thomas Jefferson being regarded as a deist or as a Christian).Howard C. Berkowitz 18:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
More on what disambiguation is not
Thoroughly agree with Ed Poor's assessment, above, and I am inclined to cut out the items on the disambiguation list that I think are more than a bit of a reach.
However, there's an inherent contradiction in CZ policy. Our policy says that if a person feels inclined to list every possible imaginable use of a word, s/he should not be creating a disambiguation page, but a subpage. I concur.
Trouble is, I also seem to recall that disambiguation pages were not intended to be clusters, just lists.
We fix this how?
Aleta Curry 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)