| | What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST) | | What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST) |
| | + | : Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST) |