1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 16:35, June 6, 2009
, 16:35, June 6, 2009no edit summary
<!-- ===============Archive below this line! Do not remove anything above this line.=========================== -->
<!-- ===============Archive below this line! Do not remove anything above this line.=========================== -->
== Validity of claims of Evolution page bias ==
I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:
"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."
It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.
A liberal could just as easily state,
"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."
and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.
== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==
== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==