Talk:Sexually explicit: Difference between revisions
From BoyWiki
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
the "sexually explicit" is '''in bold''' rather than being a link? [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | the "sexually explicit" is '''in bold''' rather than being a link? [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
: I am not sure what you are asking. I looked at it and I was still not able to see a formatting problem. However my comment is that this is not a definition as much as it is an explanation and it is not written in a way that is anything close resembling a neutral POV. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|50 px|link=Etenne]] 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | : I am not sure what you are asking. I looked at it and I was still not able to see a formatting problem. However my comment is that this is not a definition as much as it is an explanation and it is not written in a way that is anything close resembling a neutral POV. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|50 px|link=Etenne]] 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
::Wouldn't a (so-called) "neutral" POV in an article about the (pseudoscience) of astrology require that astrology ''not'' be referred to as a pseudoscience? | |||
::Wouldn't a (so-called) "neutral" POV in an article about the (pseudoscience) of divining through reading tea leaves require that divining through reading tea leaves ''not'' be referred to as a pseudoscience? | |||
::Wouldn't the above be a huge ''disservice'' to the public by ''furthering the myths'' of the (in fact, false) efficacy of astrology and tea-leaf reading? [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 16:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:17, 7 April 2016
Etenne--how come in the following phrase in the article:
referred to as a "nude photo" or a sexually explicit photo
the "sexually explicit" is in bold rather than being a link? User4 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you are asking. I looked at it and I was still not able to see a formatting problem. However my comment is that this is not a definition as much as it is an explanation and it is not written in a way that is anything close resembling a neutral POV. --Etenne
16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a (so-called) "neutral" POV in an article about the (pseudoscience) of astrology require that astrology not be referred to as a pseudoscience?
- Wouldn't a (so-called) "neutral" POV in an article about the (pseudoscience) of divining through reading tea leaves require that divining through reading tea leaves not be referred to as a pseudoscience?
