nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
11,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 253:
Line 253: +
→Pervasiveness: reply
It is liberal hostility to contrary ideas, especially coupled with personal attacks, that is the hallmark of liberal bias. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more likely to say, "If you can prove it, I'm willing to change my mind." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:26, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
It is liberal hostility to contrary ideas, especially coupled with personal attacks, that is the hallmark of liberal bias. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more likely to say, "If you can prove it, I'm willing to change my mind." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:26, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I suggest that liberal bias certainly exists but 1) it has to be carefully identified as a way of presenting information (and NOT as a set of poltiical values; everyone has values); 2) it must be distinguished from other kinds of bias, like leftism (the leftists and liberals fight like crazy on campus); and 3) the article should be as free as possible of any bias so it does not open itself to charges of hypocrisy. in a word, "If you can prove it, CP can use it." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I suggest that liberal bias certainly exists but 1) it has to be carefully identified as a way of presenting information (and NOT as a set of poltiical values; everyone has values); 2) it must be distinguished from other kinds of bias, like leftism (the leftists and liberals fight like crazy on campus); and 3) the article should be as free as possible of any bias so it does not open itself to charges of hypocrisy. in a word, "If you can prove it, CP can use it." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:::I disagree with point #3 "the article should be as free as possible of any bias". We do not try to be neutral here. This is [[Conservapedia]] for a reason. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 15:29, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
::I deleted the sections of the article that at present fail Ed Poor's test "If you can prove it". They can be restored when proof is found. An example of the kind of evidence that should be looked at, see the LA Times report on Edwards in October 2007 at [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-j.html LA TIMES on Edwards affair]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I deleted the sections of the article that at present fail Ed Poor's test "If you can prove it". They can be restored when proof is found. An example of the kind of evidence that should be looked at, see the LA Times report on Edwards in October 2007 at [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-j.html LA TIMES on Edwards affair]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
----
----