| Line 809: |
Line 809: |
| | | | |
| | 3, 8, 18, 52, 54: merge; these are all the same point that Wiki does not cite things correctly, although the actual point is accurate. | | 3, 8, 18, 52, 54: merge; these are all the same point that Wiki does not cite things correctly, although the actual point is accurate. |
| | + | |
| | + | : Those are separate examples of [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]]. It's not merely that Wikipedia is inaccurate, it is that it is biased. You seem to be missing that basic point, despite the many examples. Perhaps what is needed is even more examples, not less, so that you can finally see the pattern.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | 39. How much they donate is irrelevant to what they believe in. | | 39. How much they donate is irrelevant to what they believe in. |
| | + | |
| | + | : Wow, what a statement. How someone spends his money is highly relevant to reflect what his beliefs are. Surely you don't dispute that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | 44. “Citation needed” does not mean that it may not be true, just that they need a citation. And first you complain that they don’t have it, but then you complain that they do? | | 44. “Citation needed” does not mean that it may not be true, just that they need a citation. And first you complain that they don’t have it, but then you complain that they do? |
| | + | |
| | + | : First we complained that Wikipedia censored the religious reference, and then (after Wikipedia reacted) we complained that they downplayed and discredited it. Is that so difficult for you to follow?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | 75. Meanwhile the same page is locked here, forcing only one side of the issue on us. | | 75. Meanwhile the same page is locked here, forcing only one side of the issue on us. |
| | + | |
| | + | : Our entry includes many quotes from the "other side." And we don't censor all opposition while pretending to be neutral, as Wikipedia does. As above, this item #75 is right on the mark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | 77. Fixed, and how do we know that? Meanwhile the same article about Conservapedia was blocked here. | | 77. Fixed, and how do we know that? Meanwhile the same article about Conservapedia was blocked here. |
| | + | |
| | + | :Your comment is incoherent. Wikipedia censored and deleted an entry about its bias, as I recall. There is no such entry there now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | 98. True, but they definitely are in the minority, so they would want to self-identify more. It’s like saying people with hair have no category, but people with no hair do, so they're anti-hair. | | 98. True, but they definitely are in the minority, so they would want to self-identify more. It’s like saying people with hair have no category, but people with no hair do, so they're anti-hair. |
| | + | |
| | + | : Again, your criticism is incoherent. Fairness dictates that having a self-identification for one type of group requires having a self-identification for the alternative type of group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | Sorry again about the bad formatting. When I originally did it, it was in the right type: line by line. Is there a way to make it the correct format? --[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 15:37, 23 February 2008 (EST) | | Sorry again about the bad formatting. When I originally did it, it was in the right type: line by line. Is there a way to make it the correct format? --[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 15:37, 23 February 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | :To skip to the next line in wiki formatting, type in <nowiki><br></nowiki> after the previous line. But in any case... none of these are going to be changed. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:51, 23 February 2008 (EST) | | :To skip to the next line in wiki formatting, type in <nowiki><br></nowiki> after the previous line. But in any case... none of these are going to be changed. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:51, 23 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | :: Right, because there is no logical reason for changing any of these items. Now if we allowed [[liberal logic]], then the outcome would be different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST) |