Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive10

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

"Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D."

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A restriction of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.Archibald 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
  • A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.Archibald 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"
Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced politically correct speech and nothing more. I never heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a pagan writer openly hostile to the Christian basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a neologism. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of multiculturalism and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. Parrothead 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
" 'C.E.' is a neologism." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.Shocktherapy 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

New #1 - WP's CP entry

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --Jenkins 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of liberal education and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --Ed Poor Talk 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --Jenkins 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.
I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.
Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for Wikipedia, so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.
Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of Wikipedia's defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."
This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. RWest 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear Conservapedia with a falsehood in front of Wikipedia's liberal audience. You are right that Wikipedia has featured that defamation for many months.--Aschlafly 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --Jenkins 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Bow out if you like, but Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --Jenkins 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." Wikipedia lies about Conservapedia, and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)


RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life!Alloco1 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Although this is the wrong place to bring this up, 'Alloco1' is right - the wikipedia page for 'Jesus H. Christ' mentions that the phrase is considered blasphemy.

Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:


All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-MichaelS 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the Bible is. Did you bother to read the teachings of Jesus Christ, and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find one single historical incident that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake on Malta and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of God.

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of Jesus Christ after His execution--even while the lions were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([1]) recently stated that conventional medicine is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal cancer. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had no confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved cures through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend Scripture.

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--TerryHTalk 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:

  1. What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
  2. The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
  3. Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, res ipsa loquitor.-MichaelS 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

  1. A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when Jesus Christ Himself returns to earth to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that Osama bin Laden wants to set up, because God--in the Person of Christ--would be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
  2. In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime (Revelation 13 )--in all its secular inglory--are to parachute into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir Winston Churchill.
  3. Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", abortion, and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie," compels the military to allow open homosexuals to serve therein, et cetera ad nauseam.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to me of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is incapable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley.--TerryHTalk 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science can go horribly wrong, but religion does go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:

  1. Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
  2. Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
  3. Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
  4. Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
  5. Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-MichaelS 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)


Well, let MichaelS be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

  1. I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. What observed fact? The facts that I have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. Piltdown Man, anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read Richard Dawkins' books.
I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. Order 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
  1. The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually had the privilege of having God in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp. With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, Jesus Christ provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not set ourselves apart from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under Moses did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a drug fix.
  2. Yes, indeed, the Bible does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that Napoleon Bonaparte once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the United States of America has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, George W. Bush, let them think again. A leader is coming who will make Adolf Hitler look like a beginner, and Nero look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against Rome--it was a memorandum of things to come.
  3. Of course the Bible explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
  4. As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of abortion on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for cancer that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that MichaelS's confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.


Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-MichaelS 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality

Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on Homosexuality. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. Parrothead 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-MichaelS 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the Christianity Portal shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this entire wiki. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of homosexual and gay and subtracting the quotient of homosexual gay and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans Christian Andersen, Enola Gay), but you get the point. PostoStudanto 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, Gay should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to happiness and homosexuality as well as things like Enola Gay. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to strange and homosexuality, again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a politically correct "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. Parrothead 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in the second sentence and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
"and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual" ?!? No, men who have sex with men is the very definition of homosexuality. I think what you mean here is it includes men who don't wrap themselves in the dominant "gay culture", to wit: rainbow flags, gay pride parades, drag shows, calling each other 'honey', feminine mannerisms and lispy speech, over the top campy attitude, obsession with divas, preference for Abba and the Pet Shop Boys over, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hank Williams Jr., strong propensity toward mocking Christianity and treating it as something ridiculous, and obsessive identity politics and political correctness. Doesn't matter. If a man is having sex with another man he is, by definition, a homosexual. Parrothead 07:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before The Lord! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by Wikipedia politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't homosexual". This is a typical part of the homosexual agenda, to spread confusion about the subject.

A "homosexual act" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born kleptomaniac", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in kleptomania), you should be locked up in an insane asylum. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a prison. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic sharia law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by sexual identity, or sexual orientation or sexual preference, the fact remains that homosexual behavior is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --Ed Poor Talk 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...
The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:
  1. Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
  2. Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
  3. Some terms, such as Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Please note that I did not mean should be locked up to be taken literally. Someday, when I'm running for Senate, this quote will be used against me. *sigh* I should have said bears the guilt instead. --Ed Poor Talk 20:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Glad to hear you say that. Remember, locking up homosexuals has been tried before. I can think of one notorious example.Maestro 23:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

No Entry for liberal

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. Jelx 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --Ed Poor Talk 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.Monkey998 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)

What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--IDuan 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia

I am the developer of the Ubuntu Christian Edition which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

Ubuntu Forums Discussion
[Locked AfD Discussion]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--Mhancoc7 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, will do!--Mhancoc7 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

What is Ubuntu
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing.
What is Ubuntu Christian Edition
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support.
What does Ubuntu mean?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’.

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--Mhancoc7 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in ubuntu. I'm intrigued.--Aschlafly 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--TerryHTalk 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?). Feebasfactor 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like here. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found here. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to GLAAD the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. SkipJohnson 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his user page, he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. PostoStudanto 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
You are saying that he gave money to further the homosexual agenda and he is somehow conservative? SkipJohnson 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even one issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... Feebasfactor 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. SkipJohnson 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox conservative. Feebasfactor 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) Feebasfactor 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools