Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sexually explicit"

From BoyWiki
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 BLSmileyface.png 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? User4 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)