16:2116:21, 22 June 2020diffhist−10
Michael Crichton
→Global warming: Chrichton didn't call global warming a hoax. In his testimony before Congress, he literally said he didn't deny that it was occurring. He just said that he was concerned because a lot of the studies were not falsifiable and/or reproducible, which he didn't think could reliably be described as "science."
31 July 2019
23:5123:51, 31 July 2019diffhist−146
Reagan tax cuts
cut editorial comments comparing tax rates and benefits in US and Europe because irrelevant and subjective. It's likely false anyway. Regardless, it's not worth an extended discussion, since this article is about Reagan's tax cuts.
21:3521:35, 15 March 2019diffhist+146
Sad Puppies
Additional citations and context. Removed editorial argument -- without citation -- suggesting that Correia's purpose was to get his book a Hugo win.
01:0201:02, 15 March 2019diffhist−330
Sad Puppies
Undid revision 887811691 by
Grayfell (
talk) Admitting it's biased means that it's inherently subjective. It should be deleted. The fact that you agree with the bias doesn't make it appropriate.Tags: Undoreferences removed
14 February 2019
03:3503:35, 14 February 2019diffhist−991
Sad Puppies
Get rid of the editorializing about what's supposedly good and bad. Just report the facts. For example, there are several articles suggesting that Sad Puppies was successful, and Sad Puppies themselves claimed that they were pro-diversity. (Corriea himself is a minority.)Tag: references removed
6 February 2019
23:3123:31, 6 February 2019diffhist−658
Sad Puppies
Took out partisan arguments so the article can focus on facts, rather than opinions about motivations and who "won" or "lost." If re-inserted, article needs countervailing opinions. Also, saying that Correia started Sad Puppies to get his own novels nominated is simply false.Tag: references removed
16:2116:21, 22 June 2020diffhist−10
Michael Crichton
→Global warming: Chrichton didn't call global warming a hoax. In his testimony before Congress, he literally said he didn't deny that it was occurring. He just said that he was concerned because a lot of the studies were not falsifiable and/or reproducible, which he didn't think could reliably be described as "science."
31 July 2019
23:5123:51, 31 July 2019diffhist−146
Reagan tax cuts
cut editorial comments comparing tax rates and benefits in US and Europe because irrelevant and subjective. It's likely false anyway. Regardless, it's not worth an extended discussion, since this article is about Reagan's tax cuts.
21:3521:35, 15 March 2019diffhist+146
Sad Puppies
Additional citations and context. Removed editorial argument -- without citation -- suggesting that Correia's purpose was to get his book a Hugo win.
01:0201:02, 15 March 2019diffhist−330
Sad Puppies
Undid revision 887811691 by
Grayfell (
talk) Admitting it's biased means that it's inherently subjective. It should be deleted. The fact that you agree with the bias doesn't make it appropriate.Tags: Undoreferences removed
14 February 2019
03:3503:35, 14 February 2019diffhist−991
Sad Puppies
Get rid of the editorializing about what's supposedly good and bad. Just report the facts. For example, there are several articles suggesting that Sad Puppies was successful, and Sad Puppies themselves claimed that they were pro-diversity. (Corriea himself is a minority.)Tag: references removed
6 February 2019
23:3123:31, 6 February 2019diffhist−658
Sad Puppies
Took out partisan arguments so the article can focus on facts, rather than opinions about motivations and who "won" or "lost." If re-inserted, article needs countervailing opinions. Also, saying that Correia started Sad Puppies to get his own novels nominated is simply false.Tag: references removed