Changes

*Nihiltres, merely repeating gossipy junk, no matter the source, isn't any excuse. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font>} 18:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

*Nihiltres, merely repeating gossipy junk, no matter the source, isn't any excuse. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font>} 18:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Our Banner for the article is poor.  Wikipedia has been called by some the National Enquirer of the internet?  ==

== Wikipedia has been called by some the National Enquirer of the Internet?  ==

Wikipedia has been called some the National Enquirer of the internet?  Who is some?  Please cite your sources!  Please do not claim something without giving a source!  It is better to not make a claim then make a unsourced claim!  Who disagrees with me regarding the futility and undesirability of unsourced claims?  I looked thoughout the article and could find no source for this claim.  I could also find no source for this claim in the Wikipedia article.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:28, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has been called some the National Enquirer of the internet?  Who is some?  Please cite your sources!  Please do not claim something without giving a source!  It is better to not make a claim then make a unsourced claim!  Who disagrees with me regarding the futility and undesirability of unsourced claims?  I looked thoughout the article and could find no source for this claim.  I could also find no source for this claim in the Wikipedia article.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:28, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: Google says that it used by many people. See [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22National+Enquirer%22+Wikipedia] which gives many different commentators making the comparison. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:39, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:Google says that it used by many people. See [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22National+Enquirer%22+Wikipedia] which gives many different commentators making the comparison. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:39, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

::::CelebRookwood, you didn't give me a single citation showing that a reputable commentator called Wikipedia the National Enquirer of the internet but said here is Google go and find it.  I don't appreciate your "Go fish" post.  This article via its unsourced claims is making us look bad and Wikipedia look bad.  There is simply no need for us to look bad via the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article.  It should be easy to make Wikipedia look bad without making us look bad if we only followed the Conservapedia commandments.  The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources and everything must be true and verifiable.  If it wasn't so irritating the irony of it would make me laugh about it.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:45, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

::: It didn't take me long to find an example: [http://conservativeeccentric.blogspot.com/2007/05/wussification-of-wikipedia.html].  In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

 

:::It didn't take me long to find an example: [http://conservativeeccentric.blogspot.com/2007/05/wussification-of-wikipedia.html].  In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

 

*It is apparent some editors are more interested in defending anything and everything that even hints at denigrating Wikipedia, under the guise of "protecting" CP's integrity, they seek to "soften" the points being made for fear of what? Taking a conservative POV, and calling a spade a spade?  That reference to Wikipedia has been around since WP started, in blogs, newspaper and television, politicians and web masters.  Headlines, for comparative lists, which is what "Examples" is, do not need sources.  At least not in scholarly circles, for lists are not scholarly articles. At least this list is properly sourced, and comparisons provided.  These constant nit-picks, liberal-like parsing of words (worthy of Bill Clinton!) and plaintive edit notes have become an embarrassment to read.  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font>} 22:00, 16 September 2007 (EDT)