Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia

BTW, I'm a far right wing conservative writing this. Although some of your points are correct, and Wikipedia still has a few problems with POV, it's little compared to Conservapedia's blatant bias--and preference to "the majority of American's opintions" over all other data. What the opinion of American's is isn't really the main concern of a subject--if it was, I guess here would be a good place to go, if they want to find more solid information--even about such silly things as dogs--they might as well check out wikipedia, or citizendium. Even some of the controversial subjects, where Wikipedia is very anti conservative (sometimes to the point of dishonest) there articles are more informative then yours!--Jacklovedlucy 19:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree; Wikipedia requires conservative views and opinions to fit the mold of what liberals define as conservaitve views and opinions; and if an editor doesn't comply, they're soon off to the wikigulag. RobS 20:15, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Porn again

So no explanation of how opposing regulation of media (which is what opposition to pornography would necessarily require) is a liberal viewpoint, simply the statement that it is de facto the case without a lick of evidence to back it up. Marvelous. Your book deal with Regnery is a shoe in now sir. --RexMundane 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Rex, do you accept the notion of "correlation"? The correlation between liberals and less regulation of porn is very high. This isn't opinion. This can be easily seen by voting records and court decisions. It can be shown scientifically as easily as, say, the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. --Aschlafly 21:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy - if the correlation is so solid, and can be shown through voting records and court decisions, you could provide a citation. You know, so we don't think you're making it up. --Rustyjd07 21:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I have. Look in the most recent archives. I cited the decisions of the Warren Court (in the 1960s) and decisions since. The correlation between liberal Justices and less regulation of porn is nearly 100%.
Do I think a lack of citations are the issue here? No, I don't. I don't think people sincerely doubt the correlation.--Aschlafly 21:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I almost positive that Andy is correct on this. I'm also almost positive that correlations aren't reliable because there might be a tertiary variable unaccounted for... say... freedom of speech? Myk 21:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
So your entire argument is basically that percieved correlation is definite causation then. That being liberal makes one pro-pornography. You cite your personal view of the Warren Court and how they ruled in a few cases as proof that Endorsing pornography is a liberal position and no further explanation is necessary. Thats not the least bit pathetic.--RexMundane 22:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

...and about the math...

You say that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public, and one of the statistics you cite gives the American public as being 18% liberal.

So... Wikipedia is 108% liberal then? I mean that is what you're saying by treating the numbers that way. Of course thats just silly little me for thinking that cant be right. Here I am, brain the size of a planet and it looks for all the world to me like you're twisting math around your middle finger to make numbers say something they self evidently can't. --RexMundane 20:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually Wikipedia being 108% liberal may be estimating it on the low end. RobS 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Give User:Mtur/Critique of "Liberal Quotient" a read. Realize the flaws of a self selected survey. Realize the problems of multiple counts in that self selected survey. Realize the lack of identification on wikipedia (several conservative editors here who also have wiki accounts do not identify themselves as conservative for whatever reason). Realize that this discounts the majority of Americans who do not identify themselves as either conservative or liberal (the plurality is moderate). There are so many statistical errors in claiming six times, its not even funny. --Mtur 20:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Those stats, Conservative 23% Liberal 68% Moderate 9% is entirely beleivable, and those Conservs are really closet conservatives, few willing to admit it openly or engage in controversial subjects.
Wikipedia has its internal icons who are looked to for guidance in varrying fields of specialization. For as long as I've been involved in the project, there's been a desire from the highest levels to create a Conservaitve spokesperson, one widely viewed moreless as the Bill Buckley of Conservapedia wiki editors. Of course this has been about as successful as the NHL signing Black hockey players. RobS 21:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Those numbers are self selected meaning that they are completely and totally useless for any sort of comparison. Self selected surveys are junk - misleading at best.[1] --Mtur 21:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps the biggest lesson I've learned so far from this project is that liberals won't admit any liberal bias. It's remarkable, really. Mtur, if you don't think Wikipedia has liberal bias, do you think any group does? The NEA? The Democratic Party? Rock musicians? A board meeting at the Village Voice?--Aschlafly 21:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Mtur did not question the presence of liberal bias... Mtur is smart and knows there's no way your would budge on that. He's saying your math is misleading. Myk 21:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps the biggest lesson we can learn from this is that Aschlafly won't admit that he did poor math; he rather blames others to be liberal. He doesn't (want to) understand that you can have a wrong proof, for a correct theorem. User:Order April 5 2:00 (AEST)
I am not doubting that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I am doubting that it is 6x more liberal than the United States. I am calling into question the math that generates that number and ignores the majority of American voters. I am calling into question what 'liberal' means to a person in another country. To compare a self selected poll to one that is done with proper statistical background is folly. --Mtur 21:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Bloody h***. Why won't you people admit that 3:1/1:2≈2.25? It's not "liberal math", there's no such thing, it's simply math. Math is a bloody fact, not a point of view.
Furthermore, "liberal bias" on Wikipedia is not defined by the number of liberals in the group, it is defined by the liberal bias of their edits. If you claim that liberals can't edit without significant bias, than you claim that conservatives can't either. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 21:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
  • liberals won't admit any liberal bias
Indeed; there's no evidence for this claim at Liberal;
  • Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
I just haven't got around to disposing of this kenard, yet. But when I do, the libs themselves will agree as well. RobS 22:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I acknowledge the existence of liberal bias. I even acknowledge that some people in the media have a liberal bias. I do not acknowledge that there is a pervasive, systemic liberal bias. Frankly, we're not that organized. Myk 22:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
People are entitled to thier biases; but so-called American "liberalism" has become just a massive jumble of contradictions with a few nihilists and hedonists who seem to be the only remaining groups with any discernable doctrine.
What's frustratating is, they actually hold immense poltical power, but haven't a clue what to do with it. Liberalism, as best I can discern, is just traditional Cain & Abel type stuff. Cain killed Abel cause he was envious, but he wasn't any better off in the end. And that's all libs seem to offer us, is hatred, envy, and sense of getting even. RobS 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
What major news outlet is owned, in whole or in part, by identifiably liberal corporations? Crackertalk 22:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Forgive me if I am disinclined to trust the personal opinion of a man who's publically gloats about his utter inability to understand basic mathematics. --RexMundane 23:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Bad data

The discussion about the six times more liberal is going strong again. But lets organize the discussion. There are two problems. First the data that is used is corrupt. Second, the definition of Liberal bias is nonsensical.

First "Bad Data"

The Wikipedia bias is computed with data, obtained from this page:Wikipedians by politics.

  • It relies on raw data from a self-selected sample.
  • You compare the outcome of a poll with 3 possible answers, to one with 131 different answers.
  • You compare the outcome of a poll where you can only choose one option, with one where you choose as many options as you like.
  • Wikipedia is not measured by the Wikipedians, but by the articles that Wikipedians write.

Each of the first three issues make any conclusion drawn from this data set useless. As someone said, counting bumper stickers on your way to work would be more reliable. The last mistake to measure Wikipedia by its editors is easily made, but also easily avoided. Wikipedia gives you a tool to select a random sample of articles, which you could use to determine bias. User:Order 5 April 2:15 (AEST)

Wrong bias.

The second problem is that the Conservapedia claim reads currently "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public". So, this sentence talks about "liberals", and "the public", and that is what you need to compare: "Liberals" and " the public". It doesn't mention conservatives in any form, except that they are part of "the public".

We know that User:Aschlalfy doesn't want to count moderates. In his world view moderates don't count, even if they are the majority. He doesn't care that according to his math 997 moderates, 1 conservative and 2 liberals are as biased as 666 liberals, 333 conservatives and one moderate. Most of us would disagree. If Wikipedia's articles would be for 99.7 percent unbiased (moderate), we wouldn't have this discussion, nor would Conservapedia have a reason to exist. User:Order April 5, 14:25 (AEST)

More bias

Check out Chinaman, Oriental, and related topics on Wikipedia. They espouse the liberal notion that while Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Irishmen, Englishmen and Scotsmen are proper English, but Chinamen is an outrage? They edit away any attempts to challenge the notion that "Eurocentric" terms are okay. Everwill 11:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*GASP* Bias alert! Quick, let's see...
Frenchman: a native or inhabitant of France
Englishman: a native or inhabitant of England
Scotsman: a native or inhabitant of Scotland
Irishman: a native or inhabitant of Ireland
Dutchman: a native or inhabitant of the Netherlands
Chinaman: often offensive : a native of China
Notice the difference between the last definition and the others? Or is Merriam-Webster now also liberally biased? --Sid 3050 12:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
My God! They're everywhere!! Crackertalk
Cracker, this is in addition to your sarcasm on my own talk page. Your account is going to be blocked if you continue to pollute the pages here with silly sarcasm.--Aschlafly 12:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I can kinda understand that you forbid sarcasm on YOUR Talk page, but last time I checked, opinions were explicitly allowed on Talk pages in general, and sarcasm was not classified "not family-friendly" yet... Or did I miss some sort of "Do not use sarcasm" rule? --Sid 3050 12:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Chinaman is an example of the poison of political correctness. Diane Ravitch, a scholar, historian, author and Dept. of Education director under Clinton and Bush, has documented how easy it is for special interest groups (read as liberal whacko's) to get words banned by pressuring small groups of educators in large states like California. Her book "The Language Police" explains how a tiny minority can get textbooks and reference books altered to frame a political mindset which is not reflective of the majority of Americans. [1][2]

In other words, yes. Your source is biased. A quote from an online dictionary doesn't mean that a word is offensive. It means that liberal pressure groups are redefining some words to frame their world view. Not everyone agrees with your world view and traditionalists are revolting against your world view. Newsflash: some people think that there's nothing the matter with being an Irishman and there is nothing the matter with being a Chinaman. I'm sorry about your ignorance if you think Chinamen aren't good enough to rate up there with Northwestern Europeans like Welshmen and Scotsmen.

That said, I am willing to concede that I will never convince you (or anyone else) to think anything other than what you already think. The problem is if we as a language culture start a policy of banning words or thoughts because those words are considered offensive by some people then many useful terms and expressions will disappear due to ignorance. Thus in a fair (and not liberally biased) encyclopedia, it's important to report that some people are offended by a term, expression or idea. However, it's equally important to report when and if the perceived offense is considered baseless by traditionalists.

The perfect example of this is the outrage a few years back when a congressman used the word "niggardly". A lot of people were offended. They weren't offended because he said something wrong. They were offended because they were ignorant of of the distinction between "niggardly" and "niggerly".

Therefore, it's an encyclopedia's mission to educate people. It's not an encyclopedia's duty to coddle people because their feelings are hurt when they read or hear a term. Everwill 13:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Merriam-Websters has a print version, too. It's pretty well known. What's the difference between Irishmen, Englishen, Dutchmen, Scotsmen, Frenchmen, etc. and Chinamen? Irish, English, Scots, Dutch, French = adjectives. China = noun. Myk 13:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
My print edition of "The New Penguin Compact English Dictionary" also lists it as "dated or offensive". So do Dictionary.com, Dict.cc, TheFreeDictionary.com, and and and... But sure, go ahead. Andy will most likely support it. And that's all that counts on this site, anyway. --Sid 3050 13:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Fine. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. In the liberal world, the elites dream up a way of thought and everyone has to ascribe to it. Here in the conservative world, people are free to think what they want to think. Thus, if that's what you want to believe, more power to you.

But thank God, I don't have to think the same way as you do. I confess to remembering when colored wasn't considered offensive. You can change your lexicon if you like, but I can warn you is that changing words don't really change people's perceptions. Consider the evolution from colored to negro to black to Afro-American to African-American ... do you think that made any difference to Snoop Dogg or to the guy with the shot-gun in his pick-up? It did not. Rather, evolving lexicon is nothing more than a sign of weakness and cultural insecurity.

It doesn't matter if you look down on Mic's / Hooligans / Irishmen. They aren't going to change their name. It doesn't matter if you say Jew nicely or if you say it with a derogatory tone: a Jew is still proud to be a Jew. Thusly, those of us who remember Oriental, Chinaman, et. al. aren't going to change our way of speach because to do so would be an insult to our fathers and their fathers before them. Is it quite alright with you if traditionalists keep on doing what they have always done? Or do you feel the need to impose your perceptions and connotations upon everyone around you?Everwill 13:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

You seem to have a pretty poor understanding of the way language and cognitive science work. Language constantly evolves, and yes, that means words that were once considered inoffensive become offensive and vice versa. Words are defined by how they are used, they are not used by how they are defined. If you don't believe me, check out how words get into the dictionary. Read The Professor and the Madman.
And as any good politician or speechwriter will tell you, words mean things. The other ethicity terms are adjectives used to describe people. China is a noun... it's a thing. It is inherently derogatory. Oriental is ethnocentric in the extreme, as is Occidental. Normal people are here, those other people are from the East (Note, this is also flatearthcentric).
And you missed a step in the progression of what African Americans are called.
You can refer to people however you like. That's your right, I'm not going to deny it. What I'm wondering is if Conservapedia wants to be known as ethnocentric and derogatory. Is that what conservapedia wants? Myk 14:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


It's your opinion that those words are ethnocentric and derogatory. It's my opinion that that this assertion of yours is not only derogatory toward me and inflammatory toward Conservapedia, but that this type of name-calling is a tactic that has been used by liberals to great effect to guide the public debate.

It is true that by labeling someone a racist for using the world "niggardly" (NOT a racist term by the way) you can force an apology. It is true that by having a bunch of misguided college students hold up placards you can force Ted Turner to apologize for remarks that he intended as compliments. But this tactic is beginning to ring hollow with some. Therefore, calling me names won't change my thoughts or mind. I know my heart and my life. However, I will defend your right to think and say what you think. I sincerely hope you can allow me the same right. I hope that Conservapedia doesn't kowtow (pun intended) to your name-calling tactics. Everwill 14:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


"Here in the conservative world, people are free to think what they want to think."
Um, I just got threatened with a ban for not agreeing to a conclusion that is argued using quite evidently flawed math. We, in fact, aren't free to think here, we're free to conform or be punished. Just clearing that up for you, since you didn't seem to realize.--RexMundane 14:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


Your characterization of what happened doesn't mean that is the actualization of what happened. However, you are certainly free to think that's what happened. Therefore, you do have freedom of thought. On the other hand, we cannot act without impunity. Actions can be limited or rendered by a higher authority. (That authority, by the way, can be reduced, replaced or eliminated if the authority is not used in a just manner.) I'm quite sure the authority acted in a just manner. Therefore, you've provided a perfect example of conservative principals in action. Everwill 14:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Um, its in my discussion page, and its not so much my interpretation as my basically stating what Aschlafly told me. That I was being threatened with a ban for saying that I don't implicitly trust the opinion of a man with such a bad grasp of mathematics. I honestly don't, and am not being sarcastic. Check, please, if you care to. So if you think that the situation (and now just my presentation of it) is the perfect example of conservative principals in action, then youre basically saying that a core principal is expelling dissenters, right? If I'm wrong, please explain.--RexMundane 14:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Rex, this page is filled with sarcasm and atrocious spelling by you. I think this statement by you is even defamatory: "Forgive me if I am disinclined to trust the personal opinion of a man who's publically gloats about his utter inability to understand basic mathematics."
Apologize and promise to change your approach or it will be necessary to block your account. I think you are polluting this site too much. Thank you.--Aschlafly 14:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I disagree that the statement is defamatory, unless defamation is merely making a person look bad. In which case, calling my spelling atrocious is also defamation. This is beside the point though, because for that definition of defamation, there is no "Commandment" prohibiting it. You are free to ban me if you like, but it would only be because you don't care for me, not because I broke a rule or opposed authority. Given the seemingly arbitrary nature of my offense, you could ban me even if I did apologize because you want to believe I'm only being sarcastic, or that such an apology would be further pollution. This isn't the place for this discussion I realize, but I think a very important question to ask is "If we're subject to these rules and whims, then what rules are you subject to?"
Fine though. I, RexMundane, apologize to... well everybody I suppose, for using sarcasm, for spelling "atrociously," and for saying that I am not inclined to trust the opinion of someone who misapplies mathematics, even when that misapplication has been explained repeatedly, and becomes, in my personal opinion, flippant about it. "It's remarkable, really." I was very wrong to say that I don't trust his opinions, to be sarcastic, and to misspell words. I promise to try to change.

--RexMundane 14:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this is a serious site. We mean it. One more example of silly sarcasm here will result in an account block. I'm not kidding and I'm tired of wasting time on this.--Aschlafly 14:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


I don't believe in expelling dissenters ... and yet I was expelled from Wikipedia. However, I do believe in rule of law. I trust authority. If they say you're guilty, then by God you're guilty. Case-closed. If authority abuses its power, then authority should be deposed. In the meantime, I trust authority. So if you need to keep crying, please cry about that elsewhere. I just want to document one more example of Wikipedia bias: Oriental and Chinaman. Everwill 14:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Authority currently fails to point at the law that's being broken. Andy just doesn't like sarcasm or off-hand remarks being used against him. The end. And I think the issue here is less a Wikipedia bias and more a political issue. It's not like Wikipedia arbitrarily chose to classify "Chinaman" as offensive. Can we at least agree on that? --Sid 3050 14:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't purport that the liberal opinion is abritrary or even baseless. But Wikipedia does not allow for the possibility that many Americans don't agree with the liberal point of view that Oriental or Chinaman are offensive. Wikipedia editted away evidence that supports the traditionalist point of view. Wikipedia portrays the liberal perception of these terms as if they were the only perceptions of this word. Thus this is an example of Wikipedia's liberal bias. Everwill 14:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[2], [3]. It seems that both POVs are represented. In usage outside those articles, wikipedia errs on the side of the people being offended. What is the nature of your concern? Myk 14:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Like most Wikipedia hit-jobs, start with the first sentence "Chinaman is an outdated term that refers to a Chinese man." And it gets worse from there. Now search for Irishman, Welshman, Dutchman, etc. and see if you can find an editorial like this posing as an article. This is an essay describing someone's feelings about why they don't like the word. This is not an encyclopedic article.

Oh, and your second example is Wikipedia true-to-form, "The Orient is an antiquated term traditionally used in Western culture to refer to the Southwest Asia (Middle East), South Asia and East Asia." Wrong. That's a liberal's opinion of what the word means. Everwill 14:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How would you define those words?Myk 15:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
And I point you to oriental, the current version[4] starts with:
The Orient is a term that traditionally refered to the Middle-East, South Asia, and East Asia, or more specifically most regions east of Europe.
Whats the difference between what you've written here? --Mtur 15:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Upon inspection, I realized that the Oriental article was copied wholesale from wikipedia and then adjusted. Myk 15:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong again, sire. I wrote crafted the Oriental article on which the current abomination is based. I copied a version of the article I wrote and then editted further before porting it here. The bottom line is, it makes no difference how I define these words. The real truth is that people will say or think whatever they want regardless of whatever is written herein or therein. This argument is not about the meaning of those terms per se. I'm point to those articles as yet one more example of liberal bias which quietly pervades every corner of Wikipedia. There's nothing the matter with that. Just don't try to pretend like this is NPOV, because it's not. It's a liberal view of the world. Everwill 15:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

But---and I just can't help myself---the opening sentence is just plain silly when you think about it: "The Orient is an antiquated term traditionally used in Western culture to refer to the Southwest Asia (Middle East), South Asia and East Asia." The Orient is not a term used in "Western culture". The Orient is an English word. Of course the term wasn't used in the Orient ... they didn't even know England existed! The term is not antiquated because there is no term which effectively replaced the term. When one needs to refer to all of that part of Asia which is not Russia, not India, not the Middle East, then there is no better alternative than the Orient. Everwill 15:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How about naming the countries you are refering to? That is specific and has the added benefit of not lumping them all together as if they were all the same. Myk 15:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
As I recall, I tried to define Orientalism at Wikipedia as the view (presented by the famous author of Orientalism) that Westerners cannot understand the Orient. In this context, "Orient" includes the Islamic culture of the Middle East.
This idea was part of a "you couldn't possible understand" movement which resisted any scholarly or punditish commentary on non-WASP doings. It was used to justify Afrocentrism and to attack "Western logic"; to justify "invented mathematics" and "ethnic math"; etc. --Ed Poor 15:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Why would one ever use the world "Europe"? Why not just name all of the countries of Europe everytime you wanted to say Europe? That way Turkey, which wants to be a part of the EU, wouldn't be offended?

Hi. Europe is a continent. Myk 19:15, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

In other words, you keep trying to drag me into an long and tedious argument about why others like myself think the way we think. I'm not going to convince you to use this word, so why should we continue to waste time arguing about this. We can agree on this: you think the term is offensive. I think it is not offensive, nor do I think the term is antiquated. We can also agree that many people agree with you. We can agree that some number of people (up until about two weeks ago Ted Turner was one of that number) do not think there is any problem with this or other similar terms. Since we can agree on these facts, can we agree that this is an example of Wikipedia's bias against the traditionalist point of view? Again, I'm not trying to get you to concede anything about the term. I'm just trying to establish that Wikipedia has liberal bias in every corner where one may look for it. Everwill 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, to an extent you have a point. I am Italian. I don't find the words WOP, Guinea, Goombah, Daigo, or Guido offensive. But many Italians do. Hence, I don't use those terms. Politically correct? Maybe. Sensitive to others? Definitely. Myk 19:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Breakthrough!  ;^) I don't doubt that some people find the term offensive. But, I'm equally sure that others don't. I also think that admitting there is something wrong with being Oriental is like admitting there is something the matter with being an EYE-talian. I don't like it. So that's my opinion, but my opinion is really irrelevant. The real point is that Wikipedia buries the controversy and takes the position that some terms are "antiquated and offensive". Then Wikipedia pretends it represents a neutral point of view. A truly neutral point of view (all I'm arguing for) would present the facts and let people do/say whatever they want. Everwill 21:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't grant you that point. I believe the terms are antiquated and they are offensive. You don't. And wikipedia doesn't even say the terms are antiquated or offensive, they say there is some controversy over the subjects and they give both sides. So what exactly is your point?!?!? There is nothing wrong with being a person from East or South East Asia, just as there is nothing wrong with being from the Italian peninsula. But that doesn't mean the terms used to describe those people aren't offensive to some people. And that should be respected in a society.Myk 00:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Huh?! Let me juxtapose your statments with a quote from the first line of the article: "wikipedia doesn't even say the terms are antiquated or offensive" vs Wikipedia which says, "The Orient is an antiquated term traditionally used in Western culture to refer to the Southwest Asia (Middle East), South Asia and East Asia." and "Chinaman is an outdated term that refers to a Chinese man. " BTW, outdated is another word for antiquated.

And that's just the first line! You have to read a little deeper to read the long list of why these are derogatory words.

BTW, here's the distinction you might be missing between Dego, WOP, Guinea and Oriental: Oriental was NEVER a slang word. Oriental was NEVER a slur. There is no schlarly organization similar to the American Oriental Institute which uses a word like Guido. The academic works (which are many) which studied the Orient never used the term Oriental as an insult.

If you do your research, you'll find that the word was relabeled an insult by radicals in the 1980's who were pushing for power in the State of Washington. The purge of the word radiated from there. You'll find that relabeling words is a form of reframing the argument and a common political tactic. Changing the meaning of words is not an academic practice. The reason the dictionary was invented was to prevent the erosion of the language. These days the dictionary is used as a tool by liberals to frame their arguments.

So far as I can tell, the word Chinaman became taboo no long after the TV series Kung Fu. I must confess I was always confused why the bad cowboys liked calling David Caradine a "Chinaman", but I was mostly confused because he didn't look remotely Chinese. Imagine any other immigrant character in a similar TV series. The ethnic monk is quietly drinking a glass of water when the evil cowboy walks up and says, "Whut er you lookin' at ... Frenchman?" It has the exact same impact as Chinaman, and yet that doesn't mean there is anything the matter with the word Chinaman or Frenchman.

That said, I don't want to spend days, weeks and years wasting my precious life energy arguing with you about why I feel the way that I feel especially when you haven't read the first line of the articles you are defending. I think that your opinion is formed from ignorance of historical usage, practical usage, traditional usage and ignorance of liberal politcal agendas. On the other hand, I'm quite sure you feel that my opinion is formed from ignorance; I suppose from ignorance of sensitivity.

Here's what we can agree on: Wikipedia favors your point of view. Wikipedia believes that being politically correct, ie. "not offending anyone", has merit. If we can agree on this, then this practice is one of the most basic indicators of liberal bias. Political correctness and politically correct terminology reflects a mentality at odds with the conservative mindset and traditional values. Everwill 07:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

This thread should be suspended here, and continued at talk:Political correctness. It's part of the larger theme of pressure groups banning the usage of certain words and images on the ground that such usage is "offensive". Like calling your school football team the "Braves" or "Redskins".
Even though you mean no offense, a pressure group professes to take offense or accuses you of giving offense. Personally, I think it's ridiculous. "Imitation is the sincerest [form] of flattery." I wouldn't name my kids or my team after anything or anyone I didn't like or admire.
It seems to me it's part of a particularist trend which asserts, "Only we have the right to talk about ourselves, to describe ourselves, to name ourselves. You outsiders must leave us alone, or accept our self-description 100%, and you must never use any names for us other than the ones we authorize.
I'm not saying this attitude is illegitimate, but (like anything else) it can be taken to extremes. Here's a legitimate example. In one computer lab, some of the middle-aged men took to calling themselves "old farts" but took offense if anyone else called them that. And US blacks are frequently heard to call each other "nigga" but can become angry rather quickly if they hear a non-black use the word. It's somewhat the same with "hackers", a term whose meaning became co-opted.
Perhaps it becomes illegitimate when terms are used to shut off discussion and censor scholarly work. Anyway, it's a large issue and not precisely and solely a matter of Wikipedia bias. So I think it needs a page of its own.
So I propose to move this discussion to another page. How about talk:Political correctness or at least Conservapedia:Should we ban the use of offensive terms? (maybe Conservapedia:Which ethnic terms are offensive, and why?. --Ed Poor 07:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed the Wise, thanks for an injection of your guidance. I will suspend my argument here and I agree it is not productive. I don't think this is the forum to decide the limits of racial terminology or political correctness. However, I do believe that Wikipedia's unflinching support for politically correct notions is evidence of Wikipedia's liberal bias. Everwill 08:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Bias against AD/BC? Not obvious...

You probably do not recall that on February 5th, User:TimSvendsen edited Wikipedia's article on Nero, with the edit comment "clarify dates," so that the years of his reign are given as October 13, AD 54 – June 9, AD 68, rather than October 13, 54 - June 9, 68 (as they had been). (The edit is here). There have now been over two hundred subsequent edits to the article by something like twenty different editors. Not one of them has thought it was sensible to remove the AD or important to change it to CE. The BC/BCE, AD/CE thing is just a bee in the bonnet of a relatively few Wikipedians and does not represent any kind of widespread "anti-Christian" bias. Dpbsmith 21:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Great to hear from you, Dpbsmith, as I recall your early contributions to this project well. Ah, how we have grown! You may be right abotu the Common Era stuff and I'll demote it immediately. But note that this is not the only example of anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 01:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia vs. The American Public

All the outraged comparisons between the views of "Wikipedia" vs. the views of "The American Public" are misleading, because Wikipedia, despite its mainly American editorship, is a worldwide encyclopedia, so to use an example from the article, whilst 61% of the American public may believe literally in the Great Flood of the Bible, only a very small percentage of the rest of the world do (or ever have done), and thus of course, Wikipedia articles reflect that fact. Orgone 23:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

No, I think your comments reflects a biased view of the world also. Do you have any polls to support your claim? All cultures have accepted the Flood and Wikipedia editors are badly out of touch even worldwide.
But to the extent you concede the point in Bias in Wikipedia about Wikipedia editors compared to the American public, you're right.--Aschlafly 01:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I refer not merely to cross-cultural and scientific evidence pointing towards the occurance of a great flood, but specifically to the Great Flood of the Bible, which amongst other things, includes the literal belief in the extinction of all land mammals with the exception of those aboard the Ark. Orgone 16:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools