Talk:Harry Reid

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Harry Reid as edited by Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) at 14:09, 28 August 2009. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Reid is conservative on many issues, like abortion. He supported Bush on the financial bailouts but he voted "NO" on the auto bailout. On the health issue, he's backing away from the "public option" of socialism right now. Tagging his as an exemplar of the positions included on the "Liberalism" banner is misleading to our readers. RJJensen 12:01, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

So says you, RJ. But sorry, conservatives disagree....if anything the article needs major review if anything even approaching that POV is included. While Reid's constant shifting of positions might be represented as nothing more than the usual waffling of a clever politician, to say, or even intimate that Reid is anything other than a liberal is a great disservice to our readers, and what will ultimately mislead them. Sorry to over-rule you on this one, Doctor, but you are 100% wrong in stating he isn't a leftist, when he is. Duplicity of position, voting one way after publicly stating for the cameras another, is a liberal hallmark. We call it deceit. Unless and until you get Andy Schlafly to support your position, Conservapedia will accurately label liberals like Harry Reid for what they are. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 12:19, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
Do we have a chart or table which shows the basic liberal vs. conservative positions on current issues? --Ed Poor Talk 12:11, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
Ed, see template "Liberalism". --ṬK/Admin/Talk 12:22, 24 August 2009 (EDT)


My concern here is that Mr. Reid be treated with some NPOV. Wikipedia has a policy of long standing, "[1]

" Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda ... article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. ... some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this....

and so on. In February 2006, when the Rothenberg Report stated,

"Democrats will gain Senate seats in November, but a net gain of six seats, which they would need to get to 51, continues to be a stretch." [2]

Even Wikipedia's own entry on the subject at that time anticipated Republicans holding the Senate [3]

Nonetheless, a high level Wikipedia Adminstrator and the Arbitration Committee chairman, Mr. Fred Bauder wrote to Wikien-1 mailing list,

"Harry Reid will likely be Majority leader of the Senate. I have not followed any controversy regarding his article, but some attention needs to be paid to the quality of the article." [4]

Mr. Bauder is recorded in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia #69 refering to WP's "unwritten rule" (albeit speaking about Health care & Michael Moore's film Sicko) as saying,

"we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [5]

This statment comes from the man entrusted to enforce WP's policies. In conclusion, I'm not an lawyer, I couldn't judge if WP's treatment of Harry Reid was an unreported campaign contribution. However, for encyclopedic and informational purposes, Conservapedia needs to offer the balanced POV that WP's own cabal has publicly abrogated. Rob Smith 23:42, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, their use of double standards is egregious. --Ed Poor Talk 14:09, 28 August 2009 (EDT)