Changes

I'm just listing what I think of these.

I'm just listing what I think of these.

# So? If you were a Jew, would you be offended for people not using the Hebrew calendar? And how does wikipedia not give credit to christianity<br>

1 So? If you were a Jew, would you be offended for people not using the Hebrew calendar? And how does wikipedia not give credit to christianity<br>

: If one is using the Christian dates, then give attribution to the meaning of those dates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: If one is using the Christian dates, then give attribution to the meaning of those dates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

# How is this bias? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... having an entry on it isnt bias. It does not support or oppose anti-racist mathematics.

2 How is this bias? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... having an entry on it isnt bias. It does not support or oppose anti-racist mathematics.

: Real encyclopedias don't have patently absurd entries just because some liberals believe in them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Real encyclopedias don't have patently absurd entries just because some liberals believe in them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

# Again, how is this bias? It says specifically that a small number of people believe this, and is cited well. And saying that 'no credible historian makes such a claim' is both false and biased.

3 Again, how is this bias? It says specifically that a small number of people believe this, and is cited well. And saying that 'no credible historian makes such a claim' is both false and biased.

: Small number of people believe this?  Try zero credible historians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Small number of people believe this?  Try zero credible historians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

# There are alot of Renaissances. Look at wikipedia's article on 'Italian Renaissance'. Christianity is credited on that article.

4 There are alot of Renaissances. Look at wikipedia's article on 'Italian Renaissance'. Christianity is credited on that article.

: There is "The Renaissance," and it does deny credit to Christianity.

: There is "The Renaissance," and it does deny credit to Christianity.

# Why is this still here? I think its been discussed on the talk page.

5 Why is this still here? I think its been discussed on the talk page.

:Because it's still true.  It has been proven on the talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Because it's still true.  It has been proven on the talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

# How does it read 'like a brochure for the abortion industry'?

6 How does it read 'like a brochure for the abortion industry'?

:By concealing the harms from abortion--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:By concealing the harms from abortion--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

# Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias, does not include articles that are insignificant. Conservapedia only recently became famous; therefore, in response to publicity, the entry was created. It makes sense. And although wikipedia's article may include 'obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements', I could say the same for this article as well.  

 

8 Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias, does not include articles that are insignificant. Conservapedia only recently became famous; therefore, in response to publicity, the entry was created. It makes sense. And although wikipedia's article may include 'obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements', I could say the same for this article as well.  

: You could say that, and your statement would be false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: You could say that, and your statement would be false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: To show the implicit admission by Wikipedia that the criticism is valid.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: To show the implicit admission by Wikipedia that the criticism is valid.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

# There is no point of view. It states the opinions of others; it does not say 'JPandS is an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.'

 

10 There is no point of view. It states the opinions of others; it does not say 'JPandS is an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.'

: No point of view????  I'm wondering about your point of view.  Before I go further, I'd like to hear you disclose your point of view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: No point of view????  I'm wondering about your point of view.  Before I go further, I'd like to hear you disclose your point of view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

# 'Out of date.'

11 'Out of date.'

# Using 'foreign' spellings is not bias.

12 Using 'foreign' spellings is not bias.

# The article on Benjamin Franklin says 'A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing "erratum".' Another out of date citation?

13 The article on Benjamin Franklin says 'A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing "erratum".' Another out of date citation?

# How can you distort and omit facts at the same time? And if those are true, then that would be an error, not bias.

14 How can you distort and omit facts at the same time? And if those are true, then that would be an error, not bias.

# How is that gossip? A famous person becoming injured isnt gossip. Would you consider Dick Cheney shooting somebody with a shotgun gossip?

15 How is that gossip? A famous person becoming injured isnt gossip. Would you consider Dick Cheney shooting somebody with a shotgun gossip?

Ill stop here. Feel free to respond ><

Ill stop here. Feel free to respond ><