[002]
Jormungar
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Mentioning historians is fine. I agree, how different people view or write about something is interesting information. I guess my main problem was ''ranking'' historians in-article. If you want to say,
to:
Mentioning historians is fine. I agree, how different people view or write about something is interesting information. My main problem was \'\'ranking\'\' historians in-article. If you want to say, \"Russian historians tend to paint Stalin in a more sympathetic light,\" that\'s fine rather than, \"Ignore Russian historians, they\'re all biased.\" I don\'t think that kind of ordering the reader should be in the article because it personalizes it too much.
I still think having large walls of text behind notes isn\'t what notes were intended for, but if you disagree I\'ll let it be.
I still think having large walls of text behind notes isn\'t what notes were intended for, but if you disagree I\'ll let it be.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Mentioning historians is fine. I agree, how different people view or write about something is interesting information. I guess my main problem was ''ranking'' historians in-article. If you want to say,
to:
Mentioning historians is fine. I agree, how different people view or write about something is interesting information. I guess my main problem was \'\'ranking\'\' historians in-article. If you want to say, \"Russian historians tend to paint Stalin in a more sympathetic light,\" that\'s fine rather than, \"Ignore Russian historians, they\'re all biased.\" I don\'t think that kind of ordering the reader should be in the article because it personalizes it too much.
I still think having large walls of text behind notes isn\'t what notes were intended for, but if you disagree I\'ll let it be.
I still think having large walls of text behind notes isn\'t what notes were intended for, but if you disagree I\'ll let it be.
