nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
675
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 366:
Line 366: − − == #25, 63 == − − *25: Actually, that's appropriate. If that information should be anywhere, it should be in an article on American atheists, not on atheism in general. − *63: "Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." Umm . . . didn't CP do [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Conservapedia|exactly the same thing]]? − -[[User:PathologicalMonsters|PathologicalMonsters]] 19:58, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 01:04, November 9, 2007
, 01:04, November 9, 2007Remove vandalism
Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)