Talk:Carceral archipelago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 28 November 2019 by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F0AD:6D5A:2B1E:3552 in topic Neutrality
Jump to navigation Jump to search

<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".

Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Annual readership

2003 comments

Mav, can you explain why you have made this cut? It seemed ly useful (although not well-written) information) Slrubenstein

The edits in question were made by 142.177 who is banned from the Wikipedia. See [1] for more details. The Anome

I think it should be edited probably. But, the article is good. Who could edit it ? Can you do it The Anome ? Or can Slrubenstein edit it ? John Stewart

Ho, I had not seen someone put a comment. Yes, it should be edited probably, but it is interesting I think. Maybe someone will be better than me for that.John Stewart

Neutrality

This describes a political theory as a neutral fact. Needs serious rewriting. Goldfritha (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It needs some simple rewriting. forestPIG(grunt) 20:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the simple addition of the phrase "the theory of" or "the notion of" appended before the term "carceral state" might obviate nearly all perception of this article being non-neutral, as it is. It seems merely a case of poor writing, rather than the author meaning to write a polemic piece. Too many of these and too many things on my plate, but it is a simple edit for someone who has a half-hour to spare.Googlyelmo (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

We agree on the writing quality. And yes, a few bright candies too. To me the only consequential question is; is it clearly explaining reality? To me, no it is not. Language in this context should be clear, focused, and invisible, not wandering and distracting. At first glance it looks like half belongs on the editor's floor. ....and a lot longer than 1/2 hour. OK. "If I'm not learning on-topic stuff, then the article is failing, cut it." Does that sound something like a consensus attitude for editing the article??
To me it looks more like a pile of lumber than a building. It's been 9 years. Is it even worth trying to fix?
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F0AD:6D5A:2B1E:3552 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)--Just AskingReply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carceral archipelago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Template:Sourcecheck

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carceral archipelago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Template:Sourcecheck

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply