Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
20,682
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + + +
Debate:Is Conservapedia neutral or onesided? (view source)
Revision as of 01:13, August 13, 2008
, 01:13, August 13, 2008→Conservapedia is neutral
It really depends what you are asking. Yes - conservapedia is neutral to FACTS. One could argue that Conservapedia is one-sided because sometimes it omits a point of view, but the truth is that most of these people are liberals who simply do not accept that the truth often sides with a particular point of view that they do not like. Neutral does not mean using falsehoods to balance out an article - it means telling the facts as they are.--[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 15:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
It really depends what you are asking. Yes - conservapedia is neutral to FACTS. One could argue that Conservapedia is one-sided because sometimes it omits a point of view, but the truth is that most of these people are liberals who simply do not accept that the truth often sides with a particular point of view that they do not like. Neutral does not mean using falsehoods to balance out an article - it means telling the facts as they are.--[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 15:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
CP is neutral. I side with the Conservative POV and I push a one-sided agenda. Go my team!!! I believe question posed is worded wrong. Is CP neutral, what is neutral? Neutral to right and wrong? NO. Is CP onesided? If you mean does CP side with the truth? YES. Side with conservatives? YES. Side with lies? NO. Find me an article on Wikipedia that glorifies Republicans or slanders a Democrat? Impossible. On CP, I see liberals posting Republican scandals such [[Buz Lukens]]. Neutral?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
== Conservapedia is one-sided ==
== Conservapedia is one-sided ==