Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-16T15:53:51Z

James M Hayes:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in.

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-16T15:53:26Z

James M Hayes:

Talk:Genocide

2007-04-15T15:33:08Z

James M Hayes:

Genocide can refer to the killing of cultural, political, or religious groups too. Thanks. [http://library.thinkquest.org/13915/gather/glossary.htm] --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: I thought that that was referred to as ethnocide. Still, it usually ends up the same, though. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::Deleted phrase
:::''but has yet to take any concrete steps to resolve.''
::What is is this supposed to mean, is the US govt supposed to bring vicitms back from the grave in order to "resolve" a genocide? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Word of caution==
I would caution against over reliance upon citations to the United Nations as being some sort of authoritve or definitive source on this subject; this may have the unintended consequence of nobody taking an issue of such vital importance as serious at all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Definitions and editorialisation ==

1. It was not an attempt to define genocide, it was one of mant possible definitions of the term. For others, see Chalk and Johnasson, Kuper, etc. 2. Removed editorialisation re: MSF.They are beyond any doubt a humanitarian group. One may question their politics and their methodology, but that does not make them any less humanitarian.

The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.[[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* The reason the UN and African Union refuse to call it genocide is that people would be confronted with the fact that '''Arabs''' are committing genocide. It amazes me that Eurabia, which insists that the car-B-ques in Paris are the work of "youths" (not Arab youths), has even decided to call it genocide. Perhaps the blood of 6 million Jews weighs on their souls. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any sources to document your claims? Read Alex de Waal's book on the subject, as well as maybe the article in the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly to get a sense of the role of racial identity in the Darfur situation. Are you aware that the victims -the Darfurians - are Muslims? The binary of African and Arab, besides being a part of the legacy of colonialism, is a simplistic way of understanding a conflict with deep political, economic and yes, to a certain degree, ethnic roots. But to just say "it's because Arabs are doing the killing" does no justice to what's actually going on. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 11:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::It is the structure of the article that causes the concern: we have two sentence Introductory parargraph followed by this statement,
:::''The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide"''
::This is clearly problematic. It creates the unfounded and baseless assertion for an unenlightened student that the Untied Nations is some sort of supra-national authority. It is pure propagandizing. There is no problem discussing the UN's role in its various paper resolutions over the years somewhere within the article, but not preseting it as authoritve of definitive. I would suggest either immediately expanding the article with some substance, or temporarily removing these references to the United Nations until such a time the undue weight is no longer a problem. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== History ==

I am a little puzzled on why this site wishes to start in the 20th century, rather than reveal atrocities of the earlier periods, e.g. 19th century, Medieval and Ancient periods.

Talk:Boudica

2007-04-15T15:30:25Z

James M Hayes: New page: == Genocide == Is it OK to mention that after her defeat the Romans went on a genocidal spree against the Iceni tribe, thus virtually whipping them out.

== Genocide ==

Is it OK to mention that after her defeat the Romans went on a genocidal spree against the Iceni tribe, thus virtually whipping them out.

800 BC

2007-04-15T15:28:28Z

James M Hayes:

[[Helot]]

[[Olympics]]

[[Plebian]]

[[Rome]]

[[Romulus and Remus]]

[[Homer]]

[[Illiad & Odyssey]]

[[Celts]]

[[Category:Years]]

800 BC

2007-04-15T15:28:15Z

James M Hayes:

[[Helot]]

[[Olympics]]

[[Plebian]]

[[Rome]]

[[Romulus and Remus]]

[[Homer]]

[[Illiad & Odyssey]]

[[Celts]]

[[Category:Years]]

Talk:Etruscans

2007-04-15T15:27:21Z

James M Hayes: New page: == Not very good == You may want to know that the Etruscans did not create the Roman Republic, but they did establish the Etruscan Empire in Northern Italy. Surely you Americans should r...

== Not very good ==

You may want to know that the Etruscans did not create the Roman Republic, but they did establish the Etruscan Empire in Northern Italy. Surely you Americans should realise that Romans and Latins built the Roman Empire!