Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Hacker

2008-09-22T01:19:01Z

JonathanDrain:

A '''hacker''' can be defined as '''a person who solves problems in clever ways''', especially regarding computer programming and hardware engineering.<ref>[http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.html]</ref> The term is often used to [[security cracker]], since hackers most frequently appear in the news involving computer security breaches.

'''Hacking''' may refer to a number of activities, including:

* "Digital lockpicking", or breaking into computer systems; this is also called "cracking", and is the most well known form of hacking
* Modifying software or hardware for extra functionality or performance
* Creating software or devices to solve problems
* Using an existing computer system in an unusual, clever way to solve a problem
* Staging pranks

Hackers act for a variety of reasons, ranging from curiosity and bragging rights to personal gain or vandalism. Hackers who act without malicious intent are termed "white hat hackers", and may act to counter the effects of criminal "black hat hackers".

'''Hackers''' is also the title of a 1995 film.<ref>http://imdb.com/title/tt0113243/</ref>

==See also==
*[[Security hacker]]

==References==
<references />

[[category:culture]]

Patriot Act

2008-06-09T18:57:51Z

JonathanDrain:

[[Image:Gwbushsigningpatriotact.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President George W. Bush signing Patriot Act before bipartisan gathering of members of Congress]]
The '''USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001''' -- The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (more commonly known as simply the Patriot Act) -- is an anti-terrorism bill written in response to the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. It was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on October 26th, 45 days after the terrorist attacks. The primary purpose of the bill was to provide [[law enforcement]] with the tools it needs to fight the domestic war on terror. The bill expanded the definitions of other crime-fighting bills to include [[terrorist]]s, it provided funds to the [[Justice Department]] for fighting terrorism, and, made broad changes to [[surveillance]] and intelligence procedures.

==Passage of the Act==
[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in the final bill), but in the wake of a successful attack upon American soil and the demands of the American public for action gave Congress the impetus to pass the measures. <ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2nd, with few minor changes. A [[sunset provision]], the hallmark of [[Newt Gingrich|Gingrich]]-style reform, was included requiring renewal of the act within two years. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Anti-terrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The Democratically controlled [[United States Senate|Senate]] version of the bill went more in favor of the White House. While the bill was never considered by the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], the committee’s chair [[Patrick J. Leahy]], a [[Democrat]] from [[Vermont]], along with members from both parties met with the Bush Administration to negotiate a bill that the Senate and [[White House]] could agree on. This version (finalized on October 4th) did not include a sunset provision, and it allowed lower barriers for obtaining [[search warrant]]s. Additionally it gave the [[federal]] government new tools to fight [[money laundering]]. <ref name="CQ" />

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 96-1 vote (only Senator [[Russ D. Feingold]], a Democrat from Wisconsin voted nay) after just three hours of debate on October 11th. The House revised its version of the bill to make it a little more to the Administration’s and Senate's liking than the version approved by the House Judiciary Committee, including moving the date of the sunset back three years, to 2006. The Senate agreed to the sunset provision and this version passed the House the next day by a massive 337-79 vote. The House and Senate reconciled an agreement between the two versions (including changing the sunset date to December 31st, 2005) and sent the bill, now officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, back to their respective chambers, where it passed 357-66 in the House on October 24th and 98-1 in the Senate (with Senator Feingold dissenting) a day later. It was signed into law by President Bush on the following day, 37 days after the original proposal to Congress.<ref name="CQ" />

==How the Act Fights Terrorism==
The Patriot Act Fights Terrorism in three main ways: disrupting terrorist’s funding, improving methods of prosecuting terrorists, and expanding surveillance procedures and intelligence sharing. There were other minor parts, such as setting up a fund in the Treasury Department to reimburse the Department of Justice for fighting terrorism and a section which condemns discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans.<ref name="leahy">Leahy, Patrick. “USA PATRIOT Act – Section by Section Analysis.” http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Most of the provisions deal directly with terrorism, but some have broader applicability, and some are not related to terrorism at all.

===Roving Wiretaps===
The first step in disrupting terrorism is finding the terrorists before they can successfully act on a plot to attack the United States. The Patriot Act provides the means for the federal government to gather intelligence on these plots, primarily through wiretaps and search warrants. One such provision is the so-called [[roving wiretaps]] provision. Roving wiretaps themselves are not new, they have been use investigating crime since 1986; the Patriot act simply extends this tool to gathering intelligence of terrorists.<ref name="206derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Before roving wiretaps, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] would need to get a separate FISC ([[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]) warrant for each method of communication used by a terrorist. This means that if the suspect switched phones or used public [[computer]]s the FBI would need to get multiple warrants. The Patriot Act allows for FISC warrants on a specific person, rather than a single specific phone line as under the old law. This means that the FBI could get one warrant, and tap whatever line the suspect happens to be using at the time.<ref name="206derosa" />

===Sneak and Peek Warrants===
Another tool provided by the Patriot Act is delayed-notification search warrants, or [[sneak and peek]] warrants.<ref name="213derosa" >DeRosa, Mary. “Section 213: ‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-213 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref>These are warrants which allow for the execution of a [[search and seizure]] of a property in a federal crime without notification of the subject. The government must show the court “reasonable cause” to believe that notifying the suspect would lead to an “adverse result” such as destruction of [[evidence]], [[intimidation]] of a [[witness]], or jeopardizing the investigation. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in the act. Sneak and peek warrants, like roving wiretaps, have been used in the past under other circumstances, but they had never before been allowed to retrieve physical evidence, only information or photographs of a scene.<ref name="213derosa" />

===Libraries Provision===
A third tool provided by the Patriot Act is the so-called “libraries provision,” sometimes just called Section 215. Section 215 broadens the FBI’s power to seize records of terrorist activities, specifically business records. Before the Act, the FBI could only subpoena “hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities,” but these powers were expanded through the act to include records from any place of business.<ref name="215derosa">DeRosa, Mary. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Section 215 also expands the items the FBI can obtain to include “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”<ref name="215derosa" /> The Act also loosens the requirements to procure a warrant. Whereas before the FBI had to show evidence that the subject under surveillance was a foreign power or agent thereof, after the act, the FBI simply has to assert that the seizure is for a foreign intelligence investigation, clandestine intelligence activities or to protect against international terrorism. There is no requirement for an [[evidential hearing]]. Section 215 is called the libraries provision because it could potentially be used to subpoena a list of books checked out from a library, or a list of websites visited at a library computer, all without notifying the suspect.<ref name="215derosa" />

===Intelligence Sharing===
The Patriot Act also has several provisions which allow for information and intelligence to be better shared among the investigative and intelligence agencies. The Act allowed information about terrorist activities to be shared between federal, state and local governments, as it was previously allowed for other types of crimes. It also allowed for adding [[DNA]] samples of terrorists and other violent offenders to the national database which already includes DNA samples of other certain crimes.<ref name="leahy" />

===Money Laundering===
Another way the Patriot Act fights terrorism is by cutting off sources of illegal funding, which it does by attempting to curtail money laundering. The act requires all monetary institutions (the definition of which is very broad; it includes [[pawn broker]]s, [[insurance]] agencies, and [[diamond]] dealers) to enact a four part program.<ref name="serino">Serino, Robert. “Anti-Laundering Concerns Not Just for Banks Anymore.” American Banker, November 30th, 2001, vol. 167, iss. 229, p. 9</ref> The institution must appoint a compliance officer, establish a training program to recognize money laundering, establish a testing or auditing program to evaluate the accuracy of laundering detection and establish policies to avoid being used to launder money.<ref name="serino" />

===Definition of Terrorism===
Finally, the Patriot Act expands upon the definition of terrorism to include acts which were previously not part of [[federal law]]. It makes illegal terrorist acts against [[mass transportation]] systems as well as harboring terrorists or persons one knows or should know to be terrorists. The Act also expands the definition of [[conspiracy]] to allow for conspiracies in other types of crime, such as [[arson]], and creates a definition of [[domestic terrorist]] (someone who commits an offence which is “(1) dangerous to human life and violate[s] the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear[s] to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a [[civilian]] population; influence government policy by intimidation or [[coercion]]; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, [[assassination]], or [[kidnapping]] (or a threat of)”). <ref name="leahy" />

==Expiration==
Sixteen sections of the original bill were set to expire on December 31st, 2001, unless Congress decided to extend them or make them permanent. These sections were all from Title II of the act, the title which contained surveillance procedures, including the controversial ones mentioned above. After months of wrangling, negotiation, and debate (and two deadline extensions) Congress finally on March 2nd, 2006 passed a bill which renewed the Patriot Act but implemented additional safeguards for civil liberties.<ref>Diamond, John. “Senate Passes Patriot Act Changes; Civil liberties protections added to anti-terror law clear way for renewal” USA Today. March 2nd, 2006, p A.8</ref> Most of the measures were permanent, but the roving wiretap provision was extended only until 2009. Section 215, the libraries provision, was also extended to 2009, but now recipients of the FISA warrant may petition the government after one year to remove the gag order.

==Success==
The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General [[Alberto R. Gonzales]], says that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It has disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,<ref>U.S. Department of Justice. “Waging the War On Terror,” http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

==External Links==
*[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Text of Patriot act]
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: Library of Congress info on Patriot Act]
*[http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html view of American Library Association]
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/patriot-games-terrorism-law-and.php view of the Jurist]
*[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Department of Justice Official Website]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm FBI Official Website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:United States Law]]

John McCain

2008-06-09T18:57:01Z

JonathanDrain: /* Homeland Security */

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|right|thumb|275px|'''Senator John McCain, R-Arizona''']]
'''John Sidney McCain III''' (born in the Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936) <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m0003http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.png
Line break03 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> is the conservative senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from the state of [[Arizona]], having served 20 years after replacing [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1986. He is currently the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> McCain, a [[Baptist]],<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html McCain Identifies Himself as a [[Baptist]]</ref> has clinched the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 Election]]. <ref>[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NATIONWORLD/803050441/0/LOCAL1901 ''McCain clinches GOP nomination; Huckabee bows out''] 5 March 2008 IndyStar.com</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255535,00.html John McCain Announces Plans for '08 Presidential Candidacy on 'Late Night With David Letterman'], Associated Press, 1 March 2007</ref>

John McCain and the Bush Administration agree on most issues. These include making the Bush tax cuts permanent, continuing the war in Iraq, reforming Social Security, and continuing and expanding Bush's supply-side economic policies. Voteview.com even rated McCain as the second most conservative Senator in the 109th Congress (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2007).[http://voteview.com/SEN109.HTM]

John McCain is a war hero.

==Early Life==
McCain's family has a long history in the U.S. military, with ancestors fighting as army soldiers in the Indian Wars, [[American Revolutionary War]], [[War of 1812]], for the Confederate States of America in the [[American Civil War]], and in [[World War I]]. Both his father and grandfather were high-ranking United States Navy admirals. In addition, McCain's two son's are currently serving in the U.S. Navy. In 1951, the McCain family moved to Northern [[Virginia]] and he attended Episcopal High School, a private preparatory boarding school in Alexandria. McCain was on the wrestling team and went on to graduate in 1954. He later joined the U.S. Naval Academy and graduated in 1958, where he graduated 894 out of 899.

==Military career==
[[Image:McCain 1965.jpg|left|thumb|200px|McCain photographed in 1965]]
McCain served in the [[United States Navy]] from 1958 to 1981. He spent two and a half years as a naval aviator in training at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas. By 1967, McCain was a veteran pilot aboard the [[USS Forrestal]] aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam. On 29 July 1967, while preparing to take off on a bombing run over North Vietnam a missile accidentally fired from another plane, hitting the fuel tanks on McCain's aircraft and triggering explosions and fire. McCain escaped from his plane by crawling onto the nose of the aircraft and diving on to the ship's deck which was ablaze from burning fuel. His attempt to rescue a fellow pilot whose flight suit was on fire was prevented when McCain was blown over by further explosions. When the fire was contained 24 hours later, 134 men had been killed and hundreds more injured. It was called the worst non-combat-related accident in U.S. naval history.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=526451&in_page_id=1811 ''The coronation of the ultimate survivor, John McCain''] 5 March 2008 [[Daily Mail]]</ref>

On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi. He fractured both arms and a leg during the accident, bringing him to unconsciousness. A group of Vietnamese guerrillas quickly surrounded him. After spiting on and kicking him, they took him Hoa Loa Prison to became a prisoner of war (POW). They interrogated him to give them information in return for medical care. However, McCain only gave them his name and date of birth. He did not receive medical treatment until the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral and they brought in a doctor for medical care. McCain spent six weeks in the Hoa Loa hospital. At the hospital, McCain lost 50 pounds and his hair turned white. He was sent to a prisoner-of-war camp in December of 1967. In July 1968, McCain's father was named Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC); John McCain was offered a chance to return home. However he turned it down, afraid of being used of propaganda purposes, and wanting to honor the POW "code of conduct, "first in, first out": he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.

The North Vietnamese began to intensely torture McCain, subjecting him to frequent beatings and using rope to bind him into painful positions, causing McCain's teeth and bones to be broken. He was forced to tape and sign an anti-American "confession" that said, in part, "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died, and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors." McCain would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine." Two weeks later the Vietnamese tried to force him to sign a second anti-American statement, but this time he refused to. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal. Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five-and-a-half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 15, 1973.

===Decorations===
*Silver Star
*Legion of Merit
*Bronze Star
*[[Purple Heart]]
*Distinguished Flying Cross
*Prisoner of War Medal
*National Defense Service Medal
*Vietnam Service Medal
*Vietnam Campaign Medal

==Political career==
===Congressional===
McCain had been working in [[Phoenix]] for his father-in-law's company Hensley & Co, which is an Anheuser-Busch beer wholesaler and distributor. After gaining support from local business leaders, he ran for a congressional seat for Arizona's 1st congressional district as a Republican in 1982. His [[liberal]] opponents labeled him as a "carpetbagger." McCain responded to a voter making this charge, saying,

"Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi."

With the endorsements of local newspapers, McCain easily won the election. In 1983, he became President of the Republican freshman class of representatives. His voting record generally fell in line with the policy's of President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s. During his four years in [[Congress]], McCain and his wife Cindy had three children.

===Senatorial===
[[Image:Reagan mccain.jpg|left|thumb|300px|3/3/1987 President Reagan and Nancy Reagan greet John McCain in the Blue Room during a dinner for newly elected members of the 100th Congress]]
When Republican and [[conservative]] icon [[Barry Goldwater]] retired from the United States Senate in Arizona in 1986, Congressman McCain announced his candidacy for the seat. He easily won the election, defeating his Democratic opponent Richard Kimball, by 20 percentage points. When entering the Senate, he became a member of the powerful Armed Services Committee, and he also joined the Commerce Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee. During the 1988 Presidential Election, McCain was named chairman of Veterans for Bush. In 1991, Senator McCain became part of the "Keating Five" scandal, were McCain and four other Senators (all Democrats) were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined that McCain was only minimally involved, and McCain (and the four other Senators) were not charged with any crimes.

==="Maverick" Image in the Senate===
John McCain has gained a reputation as a "maverick" for his sponsorship of many bills and leadership on almost every issue. Starting in 1994, he worked with Democrat [[Wisconsin]] Senator [[Russ Feingold]] on campaign finance reform. The McCain-Feingold bill banned "soft money." It passed and was signed into law on November 6th, 2002, by President Bush. In the 1990's, McCain gained attention for his strong opposition to pork barrel spending. He championed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, which gave the President the power to veto individual spending items. However, in 1998, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled the act unconstitutional.

After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues, such as tax cuts, climate change, and gun legislation. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], McCain wrote legislation that created the 9/11 Commission, while he and Democrat Senator Fritz Hollings co-sponsored the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that federalized airport security. In May 2005, McCain led the so-called "[[Gang of 14]]" in the Senate, which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances". McCain also co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform (see below under political record for details).

===2000 Presidential Campaign===
McCain launched his first campaign for President in 2000, when he challenged then-[[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican nomination. McCain's campaign was surprisingly strong, by ignoring the [[Iowa Caucus]], he was able to win the [[New Hampshire]] primary by nineteen percentage points. And then won the [[Michigan Primary]]. However he went on to lose [[South Carolina]], and 9 out of the 13 [[Super Tuesday]] states. McCain withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

==The following are Senator McCain's political views based on his stated positions and voting record:==
'''Domestic Issues'''
===Balanced Budget===
McCain has emphasized reducing government spending over tax cuts. He is one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of pork barrel spending and has pledged to veto any bill with pork as President.

===[[Education]]===
McCain supports school vouchers and charter schools. His voting record shows support for reducing the federal government's role in education. He voted for school vouchers for Washington, D.C., education savings accounts, and against $5billion for grants to local educational agencies. McCain sponsored the Education A-Plus bill in 1997 and again in 1999, which said that parents can open tax-free saving accounts for their children's school supplies. McCain also co-sponsored the Child Nutrition Act, which would provide federal funding for at-risk children. He has publicly stated he supports [[intelligent design]] teaching in schools.

===Health Care===
McCain's record and stated positions on health care is conservative. He is against socialized health care, or health coverage mandates. McCain supports tax credits for personal health savings accounts and enhancing competition in the health care industry to improve quality and lower costs. He also supports allowing citizens to purchase out of state health insurance. In an October 2007 statement, McCain said: "In health care, we believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care. We do not believe in coercion and the use of state power to mandate care, coverage or costs."

===Energy===
McCain supports increasing ethanol imports and more production of hybrid vehicles. He is co-sponsor of a Senate cap-and-trade bill designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. McCain also supports increasing nuclear power. He has consistently voted against drilling for [[oil]] in the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] (ANWR), because of environmental concerns.

===[[Environment]]===
McCain's position on [[global warming]] and other environmental issues have put him at odds with [[conservative]]s. On January 2007, McCain said, "we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed." On October 30, 2003, he co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act (S.139), which would require the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations to limit the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors. The bill was defeated in October 2004 by a margin of 43-55. McCain is a member - and was endorsed - by the Republicans for Environmental Protection organization. He has taken some conservative stances on the environment, such as voting to confirm [[Gale Norton]] as Secretary of Interior, a vote in favor of preserving the budget for ANWR oil drilling (although he has voted against drilling there), and a vote in favor of reducing funding of renewable and solar energy.

===[[Immigration]]===
Senator McCain's position on illegal immigration has arguably given him the most criticisms from conservatives. On May 12, 2005, McCain joined Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]) as co-sponsor of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. The bill would legalize and eventually grant citizenship to the estimated 12–20 million [[illegal alien]]s in the United States and have them eminently start collecting social security and other government benefits. The bill never came for a vote on the Senate floor. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 are two additional compromises based on the original McCain-Kennedy bill. McCain has consistently voted for visa's for skilled workers. McCain voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and has said border security should be a bigger priority the the illegal aliens who are currently here.

===Outsourcing===
McCain has supported reducing barriers to trade and globalization. He supports the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

===[[Social Security]]===
McCain is a strong supporter of private Social Security accounts.

===Tax Reform===
In 2001, McCain gained attention as one of only two Republicans who voted against President Bush's tax cuts. He opposed accelerating the cuts in 2003, saying, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit (although the budget deficit has gone down since the tax cuts)." He has now changed his stance, by voting to make the tax cuts permanent, and says he would do the same as President. In 2002, Senator McCain was one of only two Republicans to twice vote against the permanent repeal of the Death Tax. He has also refused to sign a pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Freedom not to impose any new taxes or increase existing taxes. However, many of McCain's votes has shown support for lower taxes, such as eliminating the marriage penalty, a 1997 vote to cut capital gains taxes and he introduced measures that would require a sixty-vote majority to pass a tax increase.

'''Foreign Policy'''

===Homeland Security===
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk [[helicopter]] for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]
McCain has voted in support of the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] as well as National Missile Defense. However, he has joined [[liberal]]'s in support of immediately closing [[Guantanamo Bay]], and moving all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. On October 3, 2005, he introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The bill was passed and signed by President [[George W. Bush]]. McCain has recently criticized the practice of water boarding, saying "they [other presidential candidates] should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." However, McCain still voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from water boarding prisoners.

===[[Iran]]===
McCain has said that "We continue to be concerned about Iranian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons." He tried to ban Iran from playing in the 2006 World Cup, citing Iranian President [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]'s [[Holocaust]] denials.

===[[Iraq]]===
McCain voted with the majority of the Senate in favor of the 2002 "Iraq War Resolution" authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq and overthrow the [[Saddam Hussein]] regime. McCain went on to became a critic of the management of the war, arguing that there wasn't enough troop strength in the area. McCain publicly stated that he had "no confidence" in then-Secretary of Defense [[Donald Rumsfeld]]. However, he refused to call for his resignation, saying that "the president picks his team, and the president has the right to stay with that team if he wants to." McCain became one of the strongest leading advocates in the Senate for the 2007 troop surge, which increased the number of American troops by 20,500, deployed to the Iraq War to provide security to [[Baghdad]] and [[Al Anbar Province]]. On February 4, he criticized a non-binding resolution opposing the troop buildup, calling it a "vote of no confidence" in the US military.

==Social Issues==
===[[Abortion]]===
[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|100px|A human fetus in the womb]]
McCain's record in the Senate on abortion is generally pro-life. He voted for the 2003 [[Partial Birth Abortion]] Ban Act. McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education. However, during his first Presidential campaign for the 2000 election, McCain said the following on [[Roe v. Wade]], "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." He has since changed his position, saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned. McCain is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership and supports embryonic stem cell research.

===[[Gun Control]]===
[[Image:Gun.jpg|left|100px]]
McCain's record on gun control is mixed. He co-sponsored the [[Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001]], that would reduce gun shows, force gun-owners to purchase trigger locks making their firearms useless for self-defense, and would encourage federal agents to arrest and convict gun-owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal gun laws. However, McCain has frequently voted in support of the Second Amendment, such as voting against background checks at gun shows and voting in support of prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In August of 1999, McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details. However, he still voted against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the efforts to renew it, as well as the Brady Bill.

===[[Same-sex marriage]]===
McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, arguing that the issue of same-sex marriage should be left to the states.

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]''
McCain began the race as the presumptive front runner and the most formidable of either party, based on his longevity in the Senate and his previous race in 2000. McCain informally stated he would be a candidate for the 2008 Presidential Election on the Late Show with David Letterman on February 28, 2007, and officially announced his candidacy in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, two months later. By a few weeks prior to making his announcement on Letterman, he was beginning to trail behind former Mayor of [[New York City]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in the polls. McCain supported the 2007 proposal by President George W. Bush for a "surge", an increase in the number of U.S. troops deployed in the Iraq War. He started a series of campaign events entitled the "No Surrender Tour." His campaign became far more prominent with his wins in the New Hampshire primary and on Super Tuesday, and since [[Mitt Romney]] endorsed him was considered a virtual certainty to win the nomination. He finally reached the 1,191 delegates to win the nomination on the Super Tuesday II contests on March 4th. Current polling shows Senator McCain ahead of both Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] in head-to-head match ups.

McCain has been criticized by John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the Obama-Daley machine as being a Republican Only in Name; see [[RINO]].{{fact}}

== Fundraising in 2007 ==
McCain struggled to raise money for his 2008 presidential campaign, a sign of weakness for a front-runner. "Former [[Massachusetts]] Governor [[Mitt Romney]] raised $23 million for his presidential campaign in the first three months of [2007], almost doubling the total of top Republican contender John McCain. McCain, an [[Arizona]] senator, brought in about $12.5 million in the first quarter, his campaign said. 'We had hoped to do better,' said Terry Nelson, his campaign manager. Former [[New York]] Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]] said he raised $15 million, including more than $10 million in March alone."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aZ7SuEo0wuMM&refer=home</ref>

However, for all his money and spending, [[Rudy Giuliani]] won only one delegate.

== Electability ==

He has been called "the Democrats' worst nightmare" in an ad created by the John McCain campaign.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w7OKBAT0Fk&feature=related ''Democrats Worst Nightmare''] Accessed 5 March 2008</ref>

Of the major contenders, only McCain has a background that includes military service. [[Colonel]] [[George "Bud" Day|Bud Day]], the United States' most highly decorated officer, and the most decorated since [[General]] [[Douglas MacArthur]], said: ''"Having stood side-by-side with John McCain on the battlefield, I know that he has the character and will to lead this great country. John McCain is the Commander-In-Chief our military needs during this generational struggle against global terrorism."''

McCain has the reputation as an independent-minded maverick<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402301.html McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid], [[Michael Shear|Michael D. Shear]], ''[[Washington Post]]'', March 15, 2007</ref> and favorite of the media.<ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/blumenthal McCain Mutiny], [[Max Blumenthal]], ''[[The Nation]]'', February 21, 2007</ref> David Limbaugh said, "McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back -- not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the [[Mainstream media|mainstream liberal media]]." <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24669 'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms], [[David Limbaugh]], ''[[Human Events]]'', 01/25/2008</ref>

John McCain was a member of the [[Keating Five]], a scandal relating to the [[Savings and Loan Crisis]]. The Senate Ethics Committee criticized him for "questionable conduct."

John McCain has cancer (melanoma) and has undergone multiple operations for it.<ref>http://www.riskworld.com/PressRel/2001/01q3/PR01a027.htm</ref> Cancer was an issue that hurt the presidential candidacy of Paul Tsongas in 1992. However, it was not even mentioned in the 2004 presidential campaign, despite the fact that John Kerry was treated for prostate cancer in early 2003.

McCain is also known to not like reading from teleprompters, and prefers to speak off-the-cuff from his heart.

John McCain is 71 years old, making him one of the oldest candidates to seek the presidency. Several issues relating to McCain's advanced aged and health have been discussed in the media.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/mccain.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref>

McCain was shot down over Hanoi and held as a [[Prisoner of War]] for five-and-a-half years.<ref>[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html John McCain] at the New York Times</ref>
{{cquote|On October 26, 1967, during his 23rd air mission, McCain's plane was shot down over the North Vietnamese capital of Hanoi. His captors soon learned he was the son of a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Navy and repeatedly offered him early release, but McCain refused, ... knowing that the North Vietnamese would use his release as a powerful piece of propaganda.

He eventually spent five and a half years in various prison camps, three and a half of those in solitary confinement, and was repeatedly [[US POWs in Vietnam|beaten and tortured]] before he was finally released, along with other American POWs, in March 1973, two months after the Vietnam cease fire went into effect.

Though McCain had lost most of his physical strength and flexibility, he was determined to continue serving as a naval aviator. After a painful nine months of rehabilitation, he returned to flying duty, but it soon became clear that his injuries had permanently impaired his ability to advance in the Navy.<ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography (1936-)]</ref>}}

McCain graduated from the National War College in 1974. Upon his retirement from the Navy in 1981, as a Captain, he had been commended with the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and Distinguished Flying Cross.<ref> [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref>

== Votes missed ==
As of August 2007, McCain had missed more votes during the current session of Congress than any Senator other than [[South Dakota]] [[Democrat]] [[Tim Johnson]], who had suffered a brain hemorrhage that had kept him from Congress. He had missed over 48% of his votes. <ref>Lawrence Journal-World, August 10, 2007</ref> This is due to the fact that he is running for President, and he has to attend political rallies across the country.

==Personal life==
[[Image:Cindy McCain.jpg|thumb|Cindy McCain]]
McCain has been married twice. His first marriage, to Carol Shepp, ended in [[divorce]] in 1980. His second and current wife is Cindy Lou Hensley.

His son John Sidney IV is a Midshipman at the [[United States Naval Academy]], Annapolis, and his son James is a non-commissioned officer in the [[United States Marine Corps]], who is serving in [[Iraq]] as part of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]].

===McCain's family===
*Wife Cindy
*4 sons
**Douglas
**Andrew
**John (''"Jack"'') Sidney IV
**James
*3 daughters
**Sidney
**Meghan
**Bridget
*Parents
**[[Admiral]] John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from [[Indiana]])
**[[Roberta McCain|Roberta Wright McCain]] (from [[Oklahoma]]).

== Books ==
* ''Faith of My Fathers'' (Random House; 1999) ISBN 0-3755-0191-6
* ''Odysseus in America'' (Scribner; 2002) ISBN 0-7432-1156-1
* ''Worth Fighting For: A Memoir'' (Diane Publ. Co; 2002) ISBN 0-7567-6759-8
* ''Medal of Honor'' (Artisan; 2003) ISBN 1-5796-5240-9
* ''Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life'' (Random House; 2004) ISBN 1-4000-6030-3
* ''Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember'' (Random House; 2005) ISBN 1-4000-6412-0
* ''Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them'' (Twelve; 2007) ISBN 0-4466-9911-X

==Further reading==
*McCain, John [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513224&in_page_id=1811 ''My six years of hell: John McCain recalls life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam''] 8 February 2008 [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 9 February 2008

==See Also==
* [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/John McCain|Articles about '''John McCain''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[White House]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQsckD9trn4&eurl=http://evangelicalsformccain.org/meetthesenator.htm ''John McCain: Courageous Service''] - Streaming video documentary hosted at YouTube, including footage of McCain's time as a POW and the Forrestal incident.
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography]
*[http://evangelicalsformccain.org/index.htm Evangelicals for McCain] - Christians, Families and Patriots for John McCain
*[http://studentsformccain08.blogspot.com/ Students for McCain 2008]
*[http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/mccains-mom-pop.html McCain's Mom Pops Off]
*[http://www.rd.com/national-interest/people-and-politics/our-interview-with-sen-john-mccain/article.html Presidential Candidate John McCain on the Issues]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:McCain, John}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-09T18:53:34Z

JonathanDrain: /* Foreign policy experience */

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama is a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]], first elected to statewide office in 2004. [[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor when in actuality he only held the title of "Senior Lecturer." <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref>

Obama does not wear an American Flag lapel pin.{{fact}}

In his memoir, Obama made reference to a Life magazine article that he claimed had a major impact on him, though Life never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama claimed his parents fell in love during the upheaval in Selma, even though he was born 4 years before it. {{fact}}

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.{{fact}}

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two-years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two-years. Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam. It is clear that Obama would have participated in school days off for observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> As of June 2008, Barack Obama had been campaigning for President as a Democrat for 16 months.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guide of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama is speaking at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Barack Obama now uses [[Liberal obfuscation]] when claiming to be a military supporter. As of 2008, he now supports the military and it's funding as long as America commits to the upgraded GI Bill.<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/05/22/mccain,_obama_spar_on_gi_bill]</ref> This bill essentially adds $50 billion over 10 years as added benefits to our sworn military personnel. Democrats created this as political tool to use against the GOP presidential nominee, who opposes, and to remind America that the Democrats support the troops. If you look closely, you will notice that the Pentagon, the Generals and the military commanders in theatre, do not want this bill. It is a virtual recruitment center blockade. The Army Public Affairs office estimated the military spends $50,000 - $64,000 training our enlisted. First tour veterans would receive the same benefits as re-deployed soldiers get. Three years of duty is enough for the benefits to start. This upgraded benefits entice the trained soldier to leave active duty, estimated at 16% loss. This bill guarantees we will deplete our noncommissioned officers, which John McCain feels would hurt the military and our country very badly. This bill is projected to cost the military an addition $2.8- $4 billion per month, not including new recruitment services. Adds to troop readiness decline in a time of war. It will be paid for in taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year, for ten years. If crafted without political intention, a satisfactory bill that all could agree on would have emerged. Democrats want Americans to believe if you don't support the upgraded GI Bill, you are not supporting the U.S. troops.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In Russia and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten day tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]
[[Daniel Pipes]] concludes that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]],
<ref>In his autobiography, ''Dreams of My Father'', Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.</ref>
yet in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama is described as growing up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years and a local [[Catholic]] school for two years, according to his own books.<ref>"Obama has noted in his two books, 'Dreams From My Father' and 'The Audacity of Hope,' that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10." [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]</ref> His father was a non-practicing [[Muslim]].

Obama attended a Muslim school but [[CNN]] states that it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. In April 2008, to advance his presidential campaign, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his wife currently define themselves as Christian. <ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref>[[Image:Barack

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Sanctity of life

2007-09-18T16:36:26Z

JonathanDrain: New page: The '''sanctity of life''' the important Christian value which recognises that all human life is sacred and inviolate. In addition to condemning the act of murder, sanctity of life rules a...

The '''sanctity of life''' the important Christian value which recognises that all human life is sacred and inviolate. In addition to condemning the act of murder, sanctity of life rules against all abortions and so-called mercy killings.

Sanctity of life is considered a part of the "[[culture of life]]", espoused by many Christians including [[Pope John Paul II]] and President [[George W. Bush]].

==See also==

* [[Terri Schiavo]]

Stop press

2007-09-18T16:28:41Z

JonathanDrain: New page: A '''stop press''' is a leaflet issued with a publication to correct an error or omission. The term comes from newspaper printing, where sudden breaking news would require the presses to ...

A '''stop press''' is a leaflet issued with a publication to correct an error or omission.

The term comes from newspaper printing, where sudden breaking news would require the presses to be stopped. Including the update on a separate sheet provides an alternative to actually stopping the presses and abandoning the current print run, which may be costly in time and money.

Michael Mukasey

2007-09-17T15:51:14Z

JonathanDrain:

'''Micheal B. Mukasey''' (born 1941, Bronx, [[New York|NY]]) was a former federal district judge for the Southern District of [[New York]] after being nominated by [[Ronald Reagan]]. His tenure as judge, which he held until 2006, was widely viewed favorably. Mukasey was picked by [[President George W. Bush]] to be federal attorney general after the position was left vacant due to the resignation of [[Alberto Gonzales]].<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RMR8300&show_article=1</reF>

Conservatives had anticipated that Bush would pick former Solicitor General [[Theodore Olson]], but Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] vowed to block his confirmation. A former member of the Justice Department stated that the decision "came down to confirmability."<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5850.html</ref>

He is a member of the Justice Advisory Committee of Giuliani's presidential campaign and his son is a law partner with Guiliani.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5850.html</ref>
[[Democrat]] senator [[Chuck Schumer]] has praised Mukasey past work and in 2003 he placed him on the acceptable "consensus" candidate list for the Supreme Court.<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/09/018472.php</ref>

Mukasey presided over thousands of cases, many of them high-stake affairs. In 1996, he presided over the trail of [[Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman]], the jihadist behind the [[1993 World Trade Center bombing]], and eleven co-defendants, who were convicted and received lengthy prison terms.<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY3MTM5ZDFjYTk2YTc3ZDliNzcyY2FkYjhlYTRmOWU=</ref> His work in this important trial earned praise from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which stated in a review of the trial,
<blockquote>
"The trial judge, the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, presided with extraordinary skill and patience, assuring fairness to the prosecution and to each defendant and helpfulness to the jury. His was an outstanding achievement in the face of challenges far beyond those normally endured by a trial judge."<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY3MTM5ZDFjYTk2YTc3ZDliNzcyY2FkYjhlYTRmOWU=</ref>
</blockquote>

He also presided over the recent dispute between [[Larry Silverstein]] and insurers related to the World Trade Center site.<ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/07/21/judge-michael-mukasey-to-join-patterson-belknap/</ref>

Mukasey earned his bachelor’s degree at Columbia before graduating from Yale Law School in 1967. He left his law practice in 1988 for his appointed position as federal judge. In 2006, Mr. Mukasey announced that he was retiring to take a job at the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/washington/16attorney.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin</ref>
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mukasey, Michael}}
[[Category:Lawyers]]

User:JonathanDrain/conserv.css

2007-09-06T14:51:22Z

JonathanDrain:

#content
{
font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans", "Verdana", "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif !important;
}

User:JonathanDrain/conserv.css

2007-09-06T14:50:30Z

JonathanDrain:

#content p
{
font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans", "Verdana", "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif !important;
}

User:JonathanDrain/conserv.css

2007-09-06T14:49:25Z

JonathanDrain:

#content p
{
font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans", "Verdana", "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;
}

User:JonathanDrain/conserv.css

2007-09-06T14:48:28Z

JonathanDrain: New page: #bodyContent p { font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans", "Verdana", "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif; }

#bodyContent p
{
font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans", "Verdana", "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;
}

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-07-31T16:06:46Z

JonathanDrain: /* It's more than bias */

{{debate}}

'''Reply: There are some examples for you [[Wikipedia|here]]. Have a great day!
--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:23, 27 December 2006 (EST)'''

==Catch 22==
Look at the function of the Conservapedia... It was created to represent the views of Conservative America, that was being edited out of the Wikipedia.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does not''' affect its reliability then the Conservapedia is redundant.

If bias in the Wikipedia '''does''' affect its reliability, then creating a purposfully biased "answer to the problem" will suffer from the same problem, making it redundant (and the wikipedia).

The difference between the two is, the Wikipedia strives not to be biased, whereas this site was created to represent a certain view point, so will always be biased and always unreliable. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I challange the idea that Wikipedia strives not to be biased. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 19:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==The Pot and the Kettle?==
I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is "liberally biased", then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a "conservative/Christian bias" -- especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.

If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling "knowledge" or "fact" instead of citeable and/or independantly verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labelled "knowledge" or "fact" -- or at the very least, have the decency to call it "belief" instead of "knowledge" or "fact". -- Duncan Blackthorne, 22 Feb 2007

--------I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of the views expressed in the various entries I have seen on Conservapedia. But I think that Conservapedia has become a bit hypocritical. When I looked up 'homosexuality' it was necessary to dig through several paragraphs before I could find an adequate description of the term. What I did find however was lots of conservatively biased viewpoints on a subject which had not even been sufficiently explained.

This would be acceptable if this website portrayed itself as a place for people to simply come and state views. But considering that this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia' many of the term definitions themselves belong in the 'debate topics' section due to their lack of information and tendency toward conservative bias.

I heard that this website was supposed to cut-down on the pointless paragraphs of garbage, and offer concise informative entries. Instead I found much of bias, which whether I agree with or not, does not belong in an encycolpedia.

For the most part I believe Conservapedia is still on the right track, and far more reliable than Wikipedia. If it simply changes its policy slightly to eliminate biased entries such as the one on homosexuality, and sticks to simply stating the facts then it will greatly increase its credablity. (Note that I would have stated a term on homosexuaity more like this: The tendency of a person towards the same sex... This does not say whether or not homsexuality is right or wrong, it merely states what it is...) JB--------

How can "A conservative encyclopedia" (see front page) '''ever''' be unbiased --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 09:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==

Abso-freaking-lutely. Go here: [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]

Any bias impairs reliability as much as it impairs respectability. Conservapedia is just as unreliable as wikipedia because of the conservative bias.

They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!

Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].

'''Question?'''
How do you define liberal bias

:*Liberal: "marked by generosity."
:*Bias: "a zero-frequency voltage combined with a signal to move the operating point to more linear response area."
:*Liberal bias = generously allowing everyone to output their signal without distortion. [[User:dpbsmith|I'd have to be crazy to sign this]] 11:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes bias creates a thought police mentality of patrolling articles and reverting changes of things the "thought police" do not agree with. For example, the Hugo Chavez article is patrolled by Pro-Chavez people, most of whom are administrators. Someone had added a quote with a link to a Youtube video of Chavez calling George W. Bush "El Diablo" and then wrote that since Chavez is supposed to be a Christian, than this name-calling was an unchristian thing to do. Despite the proper citation, and NPOV, the changes got reverted and the user was cussed out on their talk page by one of the article contributors. Later on it was added, but in a POV way that made Chavez look good and Bush look bad. There are many more examples of this. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:It's a good thing we don't have [[User:Aschlafly|anything like that here]]. :)

:How is it NPOV to call someone unchristian?--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 11:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== No. Not always: ==

No. Wikipedia is edited by people from all around the world (even the English language version), so obviously the average point of view expressed on Wikipedia is not going to be the same as the average point of view in the US. And it's especially not going to be the same as the average point of view expressed by American conservatives (who don't represent all Americans). And it's especially especially not going to be the same as the average point of view expressed by American-Christian-biblical-literalist-creationist-pro-war-anti-free-trade conservatives (who don't represent all American conservatives). Is representing the whole world somehow evidence of bias???

And what nuthead got the idea to call this thing "conservapedia" anyway, when it clearly does not represent conservatives as a whole??? --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 05:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.

For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.

:Where does WIkipedia say that President Reagan was a bad president? The opening paragraphs of the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan Ronald Reagan] say things like
::"He strongly opposed communism and socialism, and as president he pursued policies for fewer regulations, lower taxes, free trade agreements, and welfare cutbacks."
:and
::"His legacies include restoring America's strength and prosperity following a period of stagflation in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the withdrawal from Vietnam, reaffirming America's commitment to free market economics, large budget deficits, rejecting Détente and escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union through a military build-up and a firm foreign policy of "peace through strength", and peacefully ending the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev, including a massive reduction in nuclear arms."
:and
::"In several recent ratings of American presidents, Ronald Reagan ranked high."
:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? An article that gives every view point of Jesus that exists. If I wanted to know what Christians thought about Jesus I would go to a Christian web site. Why go to an encyclopedia to look for biased articles that exclude every one else's opinion just because it isn't your opinion? Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.

In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?

I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is often a reliable resource.

-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Like any wiki will be when it is that big, wikipedia definately hase ''some'' unreliable content, yet wikipedia is still mostly reliable.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Just because they have terms on everything doesn't mean that they are unreliable. Infact I bet that people will be putting just as much stuff on Conservapedia soon.

----
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.

I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.

For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.

Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.

Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I just checked wikipedia and it actually uses A.D. B.C., try looking up Mesopotamia or Rome, maybe others. I'm not trying to be aginst Conservapedia, I'm just being objective.

Double Edge

Wikipedia is a tool of the reality-based community! It should be avoided by all people of Faith. -Unscrewyourhead

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. If people want want to live in a fantasy world they will come and edit this site.

It depends on how you see things. I have no clue why Liberals and Conservatives are fighting in the first place. The interior battle causes many bad apples and possibly civil war. Maybe not about the civil war but still. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 22:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I doubt wikipedia is biased; it's just wrong a lot, given that anybody who thinks they know something can edit it. That said, I'd be much more afraid of a site where anybody who thinks they know something can post, but the site itself advocates a specific ideology. A site like that could get away with outrageous claims, like it invented the question mark, or like the earth was created at 6:00 pm Saturday, October 22, 4004 B.C.--Rumple

== Never, or at most rarely: ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]
I think the base idea of Wikipedia is that everyone in the world is bias in some way and therefor wrong, so if you get them all together you'll make something that no one agrees with, but isn't far from the truth.

All jokes aside, the ideal of Wikipedia is to contain every fact in the world while having no real opinion about them. For those of us that choose to be extremely opinionated this dispassionate viewpoint can sometimes come across as a bias against whatever we believe. Because the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia believes nothing, it is essentially nihilistic insofar as it will(in theory at least) never say something is right or wrong, good or bad. It will state the facts and if such a conclusion exists at all, wikipedia lets the user make it.

[[Crimesofthelemon|Crimesofthelemon]]

To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.

Well think about it religion is based on faith not fact so to use noahs ark for instance in any sort of artical is just wrong unless refering directly to the bible itself. plus wikipedia is based on fact not beleif. so that said conservipedia is way more bias then wikipedia.

The only reason people think any sort of "Liberal Media" exists is because said sources base their claims on fact, evidence, and obsective logical inquiry. Religious conservative positions are unavoidably at odds with these claims because faith-based and religious claims are claims made upon little or no evidence. Wikipedia is a neutral perspective, and having that perspective means that fact outweighs faith. It's that simple. Wikipedia isn't biased... it just doesn't favor Conservatism, a luxory that Conservative Christians have become far too attached to. - [[Crazy Mother|Crazy Mother]]

==Wikipedia is a biased Nightmare==
Dan Rather and Meredith Viera are fair and balanced compared to Wikipedia. There are many examples. Compare the Jesus as Myth article to the Intelligent Design Article. Compare the Christmas article to the Passover Article. Compare any article about anything Christian, to, say, an article on Wicca, Voodoo or Paganism. Wikipedia is on a mission to topple the dominant culture of America. Wikipedia complies strictly with "politically correct" notions such as the ridiculous belief that "Chinaman" and "Oriental" are slurs. Would someone please explain why Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman, Englishman, Frenchman and Dutchman are not slurs, but Chinaman is? The site is founded on the belief that it's important to "question" (read as undermine) the credibility of the thoughts and philosophies that made America the envy of the world, but at the same time treat every minority crack-pot theory with kid gloves.

Thank God this site exists. I'm looking forward to contributing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:10, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==It's more than bias==

Any wiki which intends to report factual information will be limited in its reliability by the individuals who edit it and the direction those individuals take. Even within a system of strict rules designed to avoid misinformation and bias creeping in, you will still have individuals who disagree with each other. Suppose for example you posted a statistic which cannot help but put the African-American community in a positive light; a white separatist editor may demand that you provide adequate citations and references to back up your numbers, or edit your contribution to sound less positive, and in either case he is still within the rules.

Since rule enforcement is also done by editors, the rules are going to be more strongly enforced in proportion to the demographic of the editors. You see this throughout history; where one group holds more political power than another in the nation, the laws will favour the powerful group unless they are also supremely fair. Any wiki will be biased in favour of the kind of people on the internet - they tend to be young men, who are well-versed in the use of technology. Young people are more likely to take traditions for granted and hold radical views, which I suspect is one source of this perceived [[liberal bias]] in Wikipedia - the conservatives there are simply just outnumbered by the young people. Technically-minded individuals these days are also less likely to be religious, so you can expect to find other editors who are openly biased against Christian viewpoints.

Ultimately, there are only so many editors, and topics that don't catch the interest any of them will fall by the wayside, while those that do will reflect the bias of any editor undisciplined enough not to take a neutral stance. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's a very interesting argument. I'd like to add another dimension to it: I think that there is a lack of consensus on what content is appropriate for an article. We'll use two examples: first is the Global Warming article. To go along with the GW article is an article called "Global Warming Controversy." Now, with this organizational structure, the most coherent way to organize the data in these two articles would be to put information pertinent to Global Warming (such as scientific staistics, history of the topic, etc) in the main article. Since there is a separate "controversy" article, any contention on points brought up in the original article should be pointed out in the second article. The structure of the "controversy" article should mirror the structure of the original article so recursive referencing can be used.

:The problem is that people think that "having the last word" wins the argument, which is why we get inappropriate discussions in articles. If things could just be split up and referenced recursively to each other, then it would be an excellent source.

:A final thing to point out - most people using Wikipedia as a serious reference don't use the actual article. They might get a summary of the topic from that article, but the articles sources will always be the direct reference, which is why it's so important to correctly and wholly source articles. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:33, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Oh, I've seen that happen. You get sections of Wikipedia entries that read like a debate in encyclopaedic form. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 12:06, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-31T15:51:56Z

JonathanDrain: /* 65 Findings of Bias */

{{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]]

==Johnny Appleseed==
Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. [[User:ChairmanMeow|ChairmanMeow]] 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. [[User:Amahony|Amahony]] 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

== #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. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==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)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the critical point that is missing here is that Wikipedia is '''not''' an American institution. It is a '''global''' one. Thousands of the English articles are not written by Americans. Why else would there be such comprehensive information about cricket? It has no need to represent America, nor should it. Any argument that Wikipedia should reflect America is evidence of severe tunnel vision and likely xenophobia. [[User:RWest]] 15:34, 24 July 2007.

Wikipedia is not 6 times more liberal than Conservapedia. The actual number is exactly 2Pi or about 6.28. I thought it might be 6.66, but that would be too much to hope. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers definitely have a liberal bias. I remember The New York Times stating once that a certain celebrity (who shall remain nameless) was pregn*nt. I would have much preferred a picture of the celebrity with a stork superimposed. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:06, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.
::Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans ''is more important'' than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that ''really'' the Conservative perspective?
:::In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ''...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."'' with the full list ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works''? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

==Chip Berlet==
I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cberlet contribs]). [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism]). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism New Anti-semitism] he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the [http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm Communist Party of India] (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
::I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Globalize?==
May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.[[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whinny Article ==

Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.{{Unsigned|MrDubya|MrDubya }}

*Ahhh, shut up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:41, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Notice how cranky Karajou and TK made it a quiet evening, Philip? 6 hours of quiet. If you are still around in another couple of hours, the user might need another time out, I am thinking..... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

: TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. [[User:Humunculous|Humunculous]] 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 18, 21, 22, 37 ==

Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer Wikipedia content disclaimer] which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.

number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#_note-3] to show that some people have doubted his existence.

number 22 seems to be outdated, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803 the current revision when I checked] says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to <nowiki>[Christianity]</nowiki>"

number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.

I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. [[User:Aristotle|Aristotle]] 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:

:: Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.

:: Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.

:: Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.

:: Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.

: Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: But Johnson credited [[Christ]]. The [[liberals]] controlling [[Wikipedia]] apparently don't want to admit that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== D. James Kennedy ==

Recently added to his Wiki article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy here]) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:

:1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State [http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special],
:2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" [http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=4],
:3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
:4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments [http://www.coralridgehour.com/coralridgehour.asp?page=topicmessage&id=777], and
:5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of ''four'' items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=intelligent+design] - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=creation].
That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).

And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.)
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

: I'll add this to the next update the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The [[liberals]] at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Midge Potts ==

A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midge_Potts#Status_of_Potts.27_gender_alteration_and_pronouns here] with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.

For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the [[Armenian Genocide]] or [[Premillennialism]], and the [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.

Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)[[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you misstate how Wikipedia works. Admins with special authority at Wikipedia review every edit and revert vandalism quickly. The instances cited here were approved by the Wikipedia authorities.

: None of the instances cited here are mere oversights, or random vandalism. They are examples of the bias in Wikipedia editors and admins in presenting factual claims to the public. Just look at how long the cited bias existed before someone heard about Conservapedia's criticism and then made a change in response to criticism here.

: Wikipedia allows and even encourages gossip, which we prohibit here. Wikipedia's use of gossip on Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, as numerous examples in this list illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, to assume that every single edit is immediately checked over (sit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges here] and watch how quickly they go by) is unrealistic. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, none of the examples in this list are vandalism. I don't think Wikipedia blocked any editor for these edits and typically multiple admins and editors saw and allowed these edits over an extended period of time. In the first example (Human Life International), the edit was by an IP address (unregistered user) to a controversial entry. That edit sticks out like a sore thumb even among a list of hundreds of recent edits. Yet it was allowed and I don't think the IP address has even been blocked for it.

::: If a Wikipedia admin speaking for Wikipedia says that one of these examples was vandalism and corrective action was taken (e.g., blocking the person responsible, posting an alert of some kind, locking the page, etc.), then I'll note that accordingly here. But that hasn't happened. More examples will be posted today. Lord willing, Wikipedia will do something to stop the injustice eventually.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Costello ==

I have to take issue with the statement about Jerry Costello. The ''exact quote'' from Wikipedia, as of July 8: "He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from the American Conservative Union and the John Birch Society." They are merely stating the facts, no? Did they say he was a ''member'' of the JBS? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: It may also be a fact that the American Communist Party endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Should that be in Kerry's entry? Of course not. Inserting that into his entry would only be designed to smear him. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. There's really no reason for Wikipedia to mention it, especially in a very short article. It could only be designed to make him look bad. Also, did the communists endorse John Kerry? Just wondering. [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 16:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: For the curious, the answer to your question could be provided in the entry on the American Communist Party, not the entry on John Kerry. But I doubt Wikipedia would smear Kerry like that anyway. The injustice is the campaign at Wikipedia to smear conservatives, and vulnerable people. Wikipedia is a bully, an unrestrained mob. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Call me dense, but I just read the CP article on the [[John Birch Society]], and I don't see how it's a smear to associate someone with them (whether warrented or not). Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-UN, pro-Constitution, pro Founding Fathers... it might be a little libertarian for some CP users, but not a smear. So could someone elighten this poor soul? :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: I won't call you dense, but the point is not whether a highly informed and fair-minded reader would be affected by this smear, but whether an uninformed reader might be. Obviously the intent behind Wikipedia's guilt-by-association is to smear the victims in the eyes of the general public. Obviously the Wikipedia's false claims of association with JBS are designed to smear the victims with guilt-by-association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's just it though; I ''am'' in uninformed, and I don't get how this is a smear. If Costello didn't actually get their support then sure, it's an untruth. I just don't understand how calling a conservative a libertarian is a smear, unless there's some sinister side to this organization which both CP ''and'' WP left out. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the Wikipedia entry about the John Birch Society? It says that the "Society had been marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s." Read on, as the Wikipedia entry gets much worse. And then Wikipedia smears Costello, who has absolutely no connection with the organization, with the appearance of being connected with it. Wikipedia's insertion of JBS into Costello's entry is obviously designed to smear Costello. If you want to continue to deny it, then go ahead, but you would only lose credibility by doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm definitely not saying that the statement is appropriate, but it is not a [[lie]]. However irrelevant it may be, it is still factual. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that Wikipedia's smear of Costello is not a lie. But it is still an unjustified smear. Ditto for Wikipedia's smear of Fred Schwarz. The objection to the use of guilt-by-association is not that it is a lie, but that it is an unjustified smear.

::::: The Wikipedia smears of Dave Dravecky and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are baseless and also out-of-date. Repetition of defamation is no better than the original defamation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Math Error ==

I know this is pointless, because it's just gonna be burried.... but simple math will tell you that 99.84% of 50000 would be 49,200 People, leaving room for 800 dissenters.... Therefore, the 700 that support still leaves another 100... Now, it's probably true that more than 100 scientists beleive in evolution, but you can't claim bias off of guesswork [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow your argument here. Obviously when several hundred people sign a paper, that does not imply that millions who didn't sign it somehow disagree and are on the other side. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, it doesn't, but it doesn't imply that they are for it either. It simply states that they either have no opinion (doubtful) for that they choose not to enter debate. When using statistics as reasoning for an argument, you can't assume a positive or negative from data that isn't there. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, failure to sign a petition does NOT imply a lack of opinion. It simply means the person did not sign the petition. The reason could be anything from too busy to "agree but don't want my name on a petition." Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's exactly what I said... either no opinion (doubtful) or choose not to enter the debate... However, as I said, statistics are effective in debate only when they're used exactly as reported. Therefore, according to the available data, Wikipedia is correct. Obviously, common sense tells that there are more scientists who support creationism, but only the available data can be used to make a logical point [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:For the record, 98.4% of 50,000 is 49,200. 99.84% of 50,000 is 49,920 leaving just 80 dissenters. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Golf ==

Again, this will be ignored, but I looked at the Zach Johnson page, and found that it only contains one quote from him (about his getting better). However, if you look at TIger Wood's page, which is about 2 or 3 times as long, it doesn't contain any full quotes and only one "half quote" about the desert golf course. Furthermore, none of the master's pages have any quotes from winners or other placers [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: What's your point? Zach Johnson won the upset of the year, if not the decade, which he expressly attributed it to his faith in Christ. Of course that should not be censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::My point is that no censorship exists.... None of the golfers have personal quotes on the masters pages, and most golfers don't even have quotes on their own pages.... On top of that, I see no past version of the page where his religious quotes were included but removed.... If you think there's a problem with the page, at least try editing it before coming over here and screaming bias... Just put the quotes in and get a reason for the deletion (if it occurs) Then you have a legit case for censorship.... As it stands, I see none [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sections for criticisms/controversies more often in articles for right-wing organizations than in left-wing ==

One can pick any of the well-known conservative groups from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_organizations_in_the_United_States this Wiki category list] and more often than not, you will find sections for criticism and controversies. Do the same for well-known liberal groups, such as "gay rights" groups on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_rights_organizations this list] (since Wiki doesn't have a "Liberal organizations of the United States" cat), and you'll find it difficult to find any sections for criticisms and controversies. Additionally, if you do find these sections on articles for liberal groups, they are much, much smaller than what you typically find for conservative groups. More examples of this bias can be found using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States this mixed category list] of political organizations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly right! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Take a step back==

I'm not trying to hide anything here: I'm from Wikipedia, and I don't like what you guys do here. If this is largely ignored, I won't be suprised or offended, but I have a question...

If Wikipedia is so biased, why run away from it, leaving it the way it is, to create your own version? Wouldn't it be infinitely more productive to help in the pursuit of a free encyclopedia by fixing the problems you see instead of seceding and forming your own faction?

Essentially, you see Wikipedia as full of liberals and have two choices:
 1. Fix the bias you see;
 2. Leave Wikipedia flawed and create your own flawed encyclopedia.

I mean, pages on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time with offensive, pointless, or unwanted material, and when people like me see it, we remove it and move on. We don't hole up elsewhere and complain about it. Reading some of these accusations of bias, I think to myself: why not fix it? I'm sorry liberal politicians have so little criticism; go find some! I'm sorry we ignored Johnny Appleseed's Christian whatever, add it!

It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boss1000 here]. - [[User:Boss1000|Boss1000]] 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.

:In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. ''As the histories will show'', Boss Man, if you care to look.

:And in ''other'' point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about ''that'', mate.

:So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!

:And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Very well put, TerryH. I might add that many Wikipedia defenders will hide behind "vandalism" to explain its [[liberal]] bias. But the 50+ examples of bias are not vandalism.

Wikipedia is a smear factory, a high-tech lynch mob. In addition to destroying people with smears and lies, Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. Wikipedia boosts its traffic for its for-profit search engine by promoting gossip and obscenity. It is worse than the National Enquirer. No thanks, I don't want anything to do with it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Adding my own two bob's worth, when Wikipedia's {{wp|Intelligent_design}} article was proposed for Featured Article status (or something like that), I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet ''many'' people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned. I even had another Wikipedian, a scientist, e-mail me and say that he disagreed with pretty well everything I stood for (regarding religion, evolution, etc.), yet he agreed with me that the article was biased, but that he had given up trying to fight the bloc of anti-ID people protecting the article. That's just one example of several that I could quote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

--

Adding to Aschflays useless comments which are unsubstantiated, why do you feel you need to change everything by creating a new deeply flawed with hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes? {{unsigned|Denzo}}
:I invite you to rewrite your comment in a less abusive manner and without the spelling and syntax mistakes of that sentence, let alone the unsubstantiated charges. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

My apologies, but what did I do wrong exactly? I'm dyslexic and to be honest I think a very good job of reaching a good level of grammer despite my limitations.

Also, speaking of 'Liberal bias' I am after seeing the Che Guevara article that he is a Liberal activist! There is such a thing of 'factual bias' trying to make something to suit your argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise Che wasn't a Liberal. He was a socialist with close ties with the Chinese regime. This is but one example of the complete hypocrysy of this site and the entire ideology you represent. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 06:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Taking your last point first, admittedly I don't have half a brain (mine is complete), but I wouldn't recognise that he wasn't a liberal, simply because I know next to nothing about him.
:But on to (slightly) more substantial points, the errors in your previous message are as follow (I've listed them all, but normally wouldn't mention most of these if they were the only error). I also accept that dyslexia may account for at least some of these:
:* "Aschflays" (a user name) is correctly spelt "ASchlafly" (I admit that I still have to look that one up most of the time).
:* "grammer" is correctly spelt "gramm'''a'''r".
:* "Aschflays useless comments" is being abusive; you could have written that more politely.
:* "...creating a deeply flawed with hundreds..." A deeply-flawed what? You've forgotten the noun that the adjectival phrase is supposed to be modifying.
:* What does "everything" refer to in "change everything"? I might ask about the evidence for the "hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes", but I guess first I'd like to know what it is that you omitted that is supposed to have all these mistakes.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, its a bit rich when I go on about grammar mistakes. That taken into account, my original point still stands, pedantary aside. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 07:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:You still haven't explained what is "deeply flawed". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fine:

<blockquote>
Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children
</blockquote>

Having spent a lot of time on wiki, and having looked up the reproductive articles, there is no pornography. Unless you consider educational diagrams pornography.

Oh right, you guys probably want to change science class because it refers to reproductive organs! I forgot! [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Denzo|Denzo]], answer me this: Since when do articles explaining in detail, ''with'' photographs, how ostensible adults (and, perhaps, teen-agers) can play "adult" kidnap games, qualify as "educational diagrams," or a fit subject for "science class"? Not to mention that the articles in question are lifted straight out of another Wiki that is ''devoted'' to that sort of sick, perverted game, and to teaching its readers how to play it!

:We weren't talking about the reproductive articles--but we ''do'' observe that the very subject of human reproductive science has of late been the subject of vandalism, with a view to the introduction of pornography. We ''also'' observe that education in that area is subject to frightful abuse, and therefore deem it best handled in the home, from parent to child.

:If you have a problem with that, then I suggest that you find another wiki--or establish one, since after all the MediaWiki software is [[free software]] and as such available free of charge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to mind it when they teach about plants reproductive organs. Not human ones though, its better to be ignorant than informed after all. Either we agree with educating children or we don't.
[[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:23, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Denzo, you still didn't explain ''what'' is "deeply flawed". Are you referring to Conservapedia itself? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. You cannot cancel a wrong and hope to make a right when you yourself go about it a wrong way. The aim is to make this place somewhere with a conservative bias. Would you prefer your children read something with any bias? I know I'd want my children to read the facts, and then make up their mind. Other people have deliberately placed bias for children to read - either it be the protocols of the learned elders of zion in Saudi Arabia or Hitlers textbooks downgrading the Jews to mere mathematical aliens. Do you realise you share a precedent with some of the most horrible regimes of the modern era? [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I would expect my children to read something with a bias, because a bias is unavoidable in many cases. But that doesn't prevent them reading the facts. You seem to think that facts and bias are mutually exclusive, but this is not necessarily so. In many cases it is impossible to present ''all'' the facts (they might even be infinite), and just the selection of which facts are presented is subject to bias. I have said before elsewhere that we have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. Do you think we should have that bias, or not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think you shouldn't. Take the homosexuality for starters. We need to decide what logic we use - the Scientific method or your pretty logic that allows you to discriminate when you feel like it - If its the former then you simply cannot, simply cannot even begin to comprehend how stupid it is to have homosexuality denounced on religious grounds.

I would rather my child read the facts about homosexuality - why people do it and what it is - rather than they read about the Bible's view. I don't care what the Bible's view and neither do the majority of the world. There are other examples, but the main reasons I decided to leave here:

*A constant unwarranted attack on the Democrats, which besides your name makes you out to be partisans.
*Che Guevara being termed as 'Liberal', I genuinly wonder if any of you know the differences between Liberalism and socialism.
*The poor quality of a lot of the articles, like [[Sparta]]
*The unbelievably humourous, yet worrying level of bias on this site, which infinitely outdo's any accidental bias wiki may or may not engage in. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 09:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:You don't agree that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness? Where do you think our bias should be then? To inaccuracy and unfairness?
:Okay, let's take homosexuality. Logic is logic; there's not such thing as "scientific logic" and "petty logic". And I don't discriminate "when I feel like it". And I don't denounce homosexuality on religious grounds. I denounce it on the grounds that the Creator of us designed us to be heterosexual. I consider that to be a fact. Do you have hard, factual, evidence that I'm wrong? I'd like to see it, rather than you simply dismiss it by labelling it as "religious".
:I would also rather my children read the facts about homosexuality, but what makes you think that what the Bible says is not factual? The fact that you don't ''care'' what the Bible says is you showing your bias, not an argument from logic or science.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

That makes no sense! You can believe that some giant cookie monster created the world in seven days, just don't enforce that crap on us! There is two different kinds of reasoning - there is no evidence to support your creation theory, so I will not teach my children that. The Bible was written by ancient Kings and propagandists - I would teach them that to widen their minds and inform them of the background, rather than teach them your 'literal' truths.

You DONT HAVE A BIAS TOWARDS ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS! You clearly don't! YOUR NAME IS CONSERVAPEDIA!

This is the kinda crap I'm talking about. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 04:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:What makes no sense? And I don't believe in a "giant cookie monster" (actually, I don't believe in ''cookies''; we have ''biscuits'' here in Oz :-) ). And I'm not forcing anything on you, am I? I'm expressing my view, ''just as you are''. And just because you don't know of any evidence to support creation does not mean that there is none. I know of plenty. What evidence do you have that the Bible was written by ancient kings (apart from some some of the poetic books)? Is your belief on those things 'literal' truth?
:I asked if you agreed that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. You claimed that we don't have that, but that doesn't actually answer the question. Please answer the question. And while you're at it, stop shouting, it's not nice.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? ==

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against [[Democrats]] but not against [[Republicans]], then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by [[Wikipedia]]??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:: And if the correction does not reflect bias? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>5 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>8 has been corrected. Twice.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>34 is no longer true. That said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act&diff=120080583&oldid=120073659 a version from March 3] I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>38 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>42 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>43 is no longer true; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism that article] is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>47 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>49 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>52 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>60 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of [[deceit]]. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones '''if there is a real change''' there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.

: Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense [[liberal]] bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across ''many'' articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote:
'''"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."'''-- Sir [[Winston Churchill]]
--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I take it from the use of that quote that you don't have a deletion policy. And I take it from your other statement that sysops can delete at will any article that they feel is inappropriate. Fair enough. However, I don't think this policy (or lack thereof) is sustainable. As you clearly have [[Monty Python|some articles on pop culture]] and [[Transformers|not others]] it seems only a matter of time before there is serious disagreement among sysops as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Eventually something will have to be hammered out that addresses these subjective descrepencies. While ten thousand regulations might be too much, I feel you will need more than 8. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections ''are'' made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this discussion is getting tiresome. I've been clear already, and we don't waste our time here on frivolous chatter. Look again at our Point 1. Enforce Wikipedia's own rule against guilt-by-association and clean it up there. If you can't even do that, then please don't waste our time here. If you can do that, then do it and let's then efficiently clean up and remove the remainder. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not acknowledge its [[liberal bias]]. It is so concerned with achieving "consensus" on policy, that it forgets that it is not possible to have a consensus on [[fact]]s. Originally, Larry and Jimbo agreed that Wikipedia would remain neutral when there is a dispute over what the facts are about anything. That eventually and gradually turned into allowing groups of users to create a "consensus version" of an article with a point of view which '''cannot be overturned'''.

:The new policy is that even if an article has a POV, no one is allowed to create another article with a different POV - even if the sole reason the extra article is created is to fix the bias in the first article. The alternate POV can be "legally" suppressed: one can neither create an alternate article to ''describe'' another POV, nor can one wedge the alternate POV into the first article. This is how they perpetuate the bias in key articles such as theory of evolution (in favor), intelligent design (they're against it), and global warming (they insist there's a [[scientific consensus]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like [[John C. Frémont]], [[George Wood Wingate]], [[Nelson W. Aldrich]], and [[Thomas Edmund Dewey]] would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)

It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).

Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ah yes, that's the ticket. Excuse us, this article is still a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed, I'm not on any crusade to whitewash commentary on Wikipedia; I just want to use that commentary to is utmost. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

ManInBlack, take a look at Point 1. If you can't or won't fix it on Wikipedia, then don't waste our time here.

You're like an apologize for a lynch mob who says something good about the mob. It's still a lynch mob hanging people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think I could make the case that associating someone with the John Birch Society is smearing them, I'm sorry. It's taken as assumed here that such association is a smear, with no real stated reasoning behind it. (I guess it's self-evident if you're familiar with the politics in that area?)

:It's not as though I haven't looked at this list for things to fix; I fixed some of the Henry Liddell stuff, removed a bunch of ridiculous unsourced allegations from an article on TBN, and (while I didn't get the idea from here) I was the one who closed the final AFD that got rid of the disgraceful Brandt article.

:I am broadly sympathetic to criticism of Wikipedia, and I try to act on it when I can. The organization of this list, with open and closed cases mixed freely, and different - often contradictory - problems scattered all over, does not lend itself to use.

:It comes down to your goal. If your goal is to make Wikipedia look bad, mission accomplished. That a big, impressive-looking list and its nature lends itself to nothing on the list getting resolved ever because nobody can make heads nor tails of it. If your goal is to enact change on Wikipedia, then some organization would make it significantly more useful. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, here's some criticism you can fix: the link to the ''New American'' at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet] has been broken for two years and nobody's fixed it. I'd fix it, but they'd only add another year to my ban. And personally, I think they deliberately want the link broken. Here's why: It links to an article entitled ''Propagandizing the Police'' [http://www.jbs.org/node/735] which says this,
:::" Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)..."

::Now considering [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=yip this site] says Yippies are a [[terrorist]] subsidiary of the National Lawyers Guild, of which Berlet was VP, it's not surprising he'd write for their journal. And what would happen to Berlet's status as the inhouse resident expert on politcal affairs, if it was discovered he was published in an extreme and terrorist publication?

::So, beware if you dare fix that link, you will be a marked user, stalked and harassed, if your contributions do not tow the party line. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So, um, what's the problem and why? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The text of the Berlet entry uses the John Birch Society's ''New American'' allegedly to give balance & criticism. The quoted text even puts Berlet at odds with the Anti-Defamation League. But when you click on the link to read the source document, the link is broken. The source document, ''Propagandizing the Police'', cites Berlet as having written for extremist publications. I was banned likewise for using a different source that cited Berlet writting for another extremist publication (See [[Guardian]], here in CP). If Berlet writes for extremist publications, he cannot be used as a source for anything other than his own organization, Politcal Research Associates. Yet Berlet literally authored the entire Dominionism series (look at the Template under "critics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dominionism] or you can check the contribs any page in the series).

::::IOW, Berlet cannot be cited for anything in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's attribution policies, written by SlimVirgin, which state, "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of'''." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

::::Oddly, SlimVirgin is Berlet's staunchest defender.

::::Oh, as to the smear in the Brandt entry, the neologism "conspiracist" has been documented to be Berlet's own invention. Berlet created Wikipedia's "Conspiracist" entry, and cited himself. Berlet called Brandt a conspiracist, so using his own neologism is another policy violation in the Brandt case (all this I called attention to ArbCom, Jimbo, and Foundation two years ago). The John Birch Society in WP is slandered with Berlet's neologism as "conspiracist." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Okay, short version. What link is broken, and where should it link? I'm not diving into all of this for your sake, but if there's a broken link, I'll fix that. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Footnote 15 here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet] should link to this [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Good luck. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Right now, the link links to a New American article, so I don't see the problem. I'm not really comfortable digging deeper, as I know nothing about the subject matter. (This is part of why the list could stand to be better organized; I'm patient enough to dig through it for stuff I can fix; others may not be.) [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:32, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Yah but the link is broken, a 404 dead end page comes up. I provided the link to the cited article above. You're not telling me you're afraid of a bunch of [[Stalinist]]s, are you? Stalin's dead, the KGB is defunct (moreless) and these people are just a bunch of bullies and wannabe's. So what if the ArbCom Chairman & Berlet go back 37 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030|] to that KGB front organization, the [[National Lawyers Guild]], it's not like the old days where they'd arrange an accident for you or ship you off to the [[Gulag]]. All they can do is ban you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't make a practice of intervening in situations where I don't feel I can practically explain my actions. There's a difference between taking a risk of getting in a big fight because I honestly believe in the cause and doing the same on the frankly confusing say-so of someone else. I'm sorry. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Face facts. You're afraid of SlimVirgin.

::::::::::What more evidence do we need, of WP high level Admins in the Cabal bullying people, promoting disinformation, and getting clones and cronies to coverup thier dirty work than your appearance here on this talk page? You've been presented the facts, and the evidence, yet refuse to do a simple maintance chore of fixing a simple broken link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

== Number 1 ==

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the [[John Birch Society]] being a Bad Thing. [[Liberal|Some]] people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as [[Eagle Forum|some]] other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, ''The New American'' considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the ''New American'' in the criticism section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism] has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

As I pointed out above, if "guilt" by association is such a problem at Wikipedia (still not sure what exactly the "guilt" is in this case), then it should be removed here. The [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page links John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them. ''Exactly'' the sort Wikipedia is criticized for. I'd change it but the page is locked. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:PortlyMort, the National Humane Society reference is *not* in the entry about John Kerry. Wikipedia does smear conservatives with guilt-by-association in their own entries. And [[liberals]] insist on keeping those smears there, despite its own rules against it. Bottom line: no credibility for Wikipedia anymore. No intelligent contributor is going to be part of a guilt-by-association smear machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::So guilt by association is okay here as long as it's only in certain articles? So it's not in the Kerry article, but it's still in Conservapedia. I wouldn't care myself (it's certainly arguable if mentioning a politician's score from a special interest group is a smear or simply reporting statistics; saying "Senator Fancypants has a 85% rating from the Seirra Club" or "Congressman Popcorn has a 90% rating from the NRA" doesn't seem terribly unfair, though context would be a fator), but this site seems to think it's some sort of cardinal sin. And if it is then you should remove the Kerry reference. So it's not on Kerry's page, It's on the [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (ironic, as it seems to illustrate some hypocricy here). [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, you miss the point. Guilt-by-association is a smear when it appears in the entry for the target of the smear. This is what [[Wikipedia]] does, and intelligent contributors will continue to leave [[Wikipedia]] as long as it continues that practice. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::It seems I do miss the point. Why is ''only'' a smear when it appears in the entry for the target, but not on any other page? This is making up the rules as you go along. A smear is a smear, regardless of what page it appears on. If it were in the debate or conservapedia or talk space you'd certainly have a point, but it's right there in an article. Are you saying if "Senator Noodle closely associates with Nazis" appears on the Senator Noodle page it's a smear, but if on the Nazi page it says "Nazis have been known to associate with Senator Noodle" it's not? I really do not follow that logic at all. And I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 13:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

===the facts===
User:SlimVirgin wrote:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF]

: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I was the author of''' back in March. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:
: "these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told ''The New American'', which is published by the [[John Birch Society]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9210097&oldid=9210042 diff]

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication ''The New American'' are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Number 65==

*''<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.''
:This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.

:The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which [[Jimbo Wales]] himself was aware of, stood for ''at least'' 18 months. Extracted:

::''"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including [[Chip Berlet]], resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, [[L. Fletcher Prouty]], was '''openly working with and defending [[Liberty Lobby]] and the Holocaust denial group the [[Institute for Historical Review]]''', which republished Prouty's book ''Secret Team''. '''According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing [[conspiracy theory|conspiracist]] groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist'''. <ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html]</ref>

:Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for '''citing ''Washington Post'' criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors.''' And my citation of the ''Washington Post'' criticism was adjudicated as '''a personal attack''' against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff,]which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
:#personal attack against another user
:#citing self
:#violation of BLP
:#violation of Reliable Sources
:#using a self publishing source
:#using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
:#Wikipedia is a not a battleground
:#Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
:#experts do not occupy a position of privilge
:Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=138512310 lately]? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken against blatant violations of policy CP exposed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff]? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then ''all'' his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.

::The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::My hunch was exactly correct: Bias #1 states, "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples include:
:::*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[2]

:::This guilt-by-association was written & inserted by none other than Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, 13:27, 1 April 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Birch_Society&diff=11776105&oldid=11760190]

To answer the question, "What action has been taken against blatant violations of policy[...]in [such and such diff]", the article is now long-gone, and Wikipedia has enacted a strict policy to try and deal with articles about living people.

The entire Brandt article debacle was a disgrace to Wikipedia by any standards. I misunderstood the somewhat vaguely-written and -attributed listing in #65, taking it to mean that it was a separate, additional issue with the PIR article. As far as I can tell, the list still hasn't changed, and misattributes the mess to the PIR article, without making the context clear. It's certainly a fair criticism and belongs on any list of Wikipedia's failings (although I'm not entirely sure how it establishes some sort of bias), but the current version of this list doesn't make it clear what actually happened to someone who doesn't already know. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Berlet has a long stream of slander victims, ArbCom knows he does this, so does the Board of Trustees, and so does Jimbo. And SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Will Beback all work as a tag team with him. Fred Bauder, ArbCom Chairman. is a fellow former National Lawyers Guild member and has known Berlet for almost 40 years. When Berlet's malicious conduct is brought before ArbCom, the accusers are banned, And Berlet feels even more justified & reinvigorated.

:Who else are known vicitms? Dr. Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Payul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye for starters. Last winter I was in correspondence with User:Baby Dweezil, whom Berlet was trying to get banned. Every indication is is that Baby Dweezil is most probably Dr. Lenora Fullani, not only the first black, or the first black woman, but the first and only women who achieved ballot status in all 50 states for the office of President of the United States. This woman is a living historical figure, yet Berlet has been viciously slandering her for 20 years. When she tried to mitigate the slanders in WP, the old lynch mob led by Berlet & SlimVirgin got rid of her. And then Berlet has the audacity to claim he's for minority and women's rights. It's outrageous the way Wikipedia embraces this fraud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Article talks only of American statistics==
There are conservatives outside the US. All the statistics here say things like "n% of people in are not athiests" as some kind of claim for bias, however the statistics for other countries are different, particularly in Europe. {{unsigned|Mrescher}}

== 65 Findings of Bias ==

With nearly two million entries on Wikipedia finding 65 that are claimed (claim leaves room for disagreement on whether these are actual cases of bias) to be biased is really remarkable. That leaves a bias rate of .0000325 percent. A truly remarkable rate given the free wheeling nature of what they do and provide. I beleive that such a rate doesn't prove that Wikipedia is biased but rather proves what a great job they do to maintain an open, factual online reference. I would challenge Conservapedia to meet such a high standard while maintaining an open and free environment for all voices.

--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 14:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't be ridiculous. You know that nobody has read every single article on Wikipedia. 65 reflects the number found out of the representative number reviewed. This is the method that sysop (and former WP bureaucrat) Ed Poor used to compare CP and WP: picking a certain number of random articles from each. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're not trying to say that those 65 examples were all found using a random article search, are you? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:21, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The vast majority of Wikipedia is either (1) copied directly from an out-of-date public domain encyclopedia, (2) complete junk about rock music, Hollywood figures, or obscure towns, or (3) pornography. Wikipedia welcomes this stuff to try to drive up its internet traffic for the for-profit search engine that its leaders are building. Our examples of bias here do not draw upon this vast majority (and useless) portion of Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Actually, very few articles are copied from public sources: it was about 8% several years ago, and as Wikipedia has more than doubled in size since then. Included in that figure (in fact, the ''vast'' majority) of that 8% are articles on "obscure towns", mostly pulled directly from the 2000 census. Since Wikipedia has grown, and the number of small towns has not, that figure is probably closer 3%. Rock music and Hollywood figures are certainly well-covered, but nowhere near the "majority". Going through 30-some random articles just now I found maybe 5 that fit the bill (a pretty large number, but nowhere near the majority). As for porn, well, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly Wikipedia covers all sorts of sexual stuff that Conservapedia does not, and it has articles on many porn stars (too many, certainly), but combined they are a miniscule amount of the nearly 2,000,000 total entries on the site. Even this stuff would not meet most people's definitions of "pornography". In any case, my question wasn't answered as to whether Dan was implying that the random article generator was used to make the list, because it clearly was not. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You're clueless about what drives traffic to Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Hmmmm, let's see, what drives traffic to Wikipedia? Well, google for one. Also people who want to look up stuff on all sorts of topics but don't want to pay the fees commercial encyclopedias charge, or want to find stuff on the "fluff" that the othres don't cover at all (yes, I'm sure looking up Pokemon, Harry Potter, rock bands, and the like does bring a lot of traffic to Wikipedia, but not all of it by any means). And anyone who wants to look for porn will be ''very'' disappointed with Wikipedia. There are so many places to find porn on the internet; searching an encyclopedia would be silly (unless someone gets their jollies out of reading prose text giving colorless definitions of sexual acts, but most people are looking for photos and video of hardcore bonking). So what does drive traffic to Wikipedia? You seem to be an expert on it. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:00, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on [[homosexuality]], [[Molly Ringwald]], [[Rush]] and [[Hebden Bridge]]. Would this be an example of [[deceit]]? [[User:Noemi|Noemi]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's one other source, this [http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/Right_Chrono_Bib.html this stuff], the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.
::::: Now, I do the same on Conservapedia. We have four articles on science (one each of genetics, physics, chemistry and medicine), three on geography or foreign nations (including Islam and the Middle East), three articles on religion, two articles on history, and two on law or law enforcement. We also have one conservative think tank, a neoconservative writer, a Shakespearean play, an animal, a rock band, and one other.
::::: From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Interesting, although what your study does not take into account is that Wikipedia also has entries (probably much more complete ones) on the subjects you found in Conservapedia. At least, I'd wager they do; I can't be sure without knowing specifically what they are. Wikipedia has nearly 2 million entries (I say "entries", not "articles") compared to Conservapedia's 15,000 entries. Your study shows that Wikipedia has much mroe fluff. Of course it does; no one denies that. The implication that therefore Conservapedia has more serious topics, because more come up in a random search, is erroneous. If even 2/3 of Wikipedia's articles were fluff or substantially problematical (and that is by no means true), it would still have more than 600,000 more articles on encyclopedic topics than Conservapedia, most of them containing ''much'' more information (I certainly agree that Wikipedia could really use some more conciseness, but many articles here are grossly inadequate). And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse. Most people go to encyclopedias to look up a specific topic, not to hit the random article button. If someone looks for and finds a decent article on the [[Battle of the Nile]], fine. That it may share hard drive space with thousands of articles on albums doesn't really matter. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I have to come to the defense of [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. If the question is which encyclopedia has the higher fraction of serious topics, the approach is actually a good start. If you however want to measure the relative quality, you might want to do the following: First get a random sample in Conservapedia, and then lookup the corresponding article in Wikipedia, and compare those. And then get a random sample in Wikipedia, and compare those article with the corresponding ones in Conservapedia. But I still think that getting random samples is a good start. Maybe we should in the future agree on an experiment before we conduct it. [[User:Order]]
::::::::I did this before. The result was that Wikipedia's articles tended to be much longer and more comprehensive. However, Wikipedia's had a sizeable head start, it's been argued and a longer entry isn't necessarily better. Some of the Wikipedia articles are more verbose than strictly necessary. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:51, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25

"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse." Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-07-31T15:27:51Z

JonathanDrain: /* It's more than bias */

Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

2007-07-31T14:33:02Z

JonathanDrain: /* It saved lives! */

==It saved lives!==
Operation Downfall was the allied plan to invade the Imperial Japanese mainland. Operation Olympic on November 1, 1945 and then Operation Coronet on March 1, 1946. Allied bombing raids would've continued into 1946 and by the end of hostilities there would've been massive civilian casualties. The Second World War would have ended with a much greater toll in human lives then it did. Droping two atomic bombs on two cities that would've been destroyed by conventional means expedited an end to that conflict. Waiting any longer would have resulted in implementing Operation Downfall. Waiting would have meant continued warfare and loss of lives.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey its either 200000 of them or 2 million marines? i chose them. not because i am american, but because 2 million lives is a whole lot!!! i may sound savage but i think it was nessecary. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 20:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Amen. It wasn't ethical or moral to drop the bombs, but it was most certainly the lesser of two evils. And honestly, it was war; you're supposed to use your advantageous weapons.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

also all is fair in love and war. if we could end it then its our duty to end it. And if ending it saved 1,800,000 then go for it. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 20:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Estimated US casualties for Operation OLYMPIC & CORONET were 250,000 along with 1,000,000 Japanese civilian casualties. [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_arguments_for_and_against_the_atomic_bombings_of_Japan_being_justified] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Sadly, I disagree with the earlier statements. Sure, it would have killed 2 million marines had we invaded them but uh... we didn't have to invade them. By 1945 Japan's navy and airforce were destroyed, they had no other means of attacking us. Remember everyone, a single death is a trajedy, a million deaths is a statistic. If we had to used a bomb we could have dropped one on the less-populated countrysides to show japan our power instead of killing hundreds of thousands of inocent lives. In love and war, inocent lives should not be involved. --[[User:FDRismyhero.]] 11:07 June 29

In historical retrospect, it was perhaps the lesser of three evils. There's no guarantee that the generals and the people would have surrendered, in the short and long runs - consider the belief of the people of Nazi Germany that they had only lost the first World War because their government betrayed them by surrendering. The atomic bombings made sure Japan went down, and stayed down. A land invasion in Japan may have cost more civilian lives as well as costing the Allies a great deal in manpower. The "third" evil I mentioned was that at one point, I believe they had planned on destroying as many as five major cities, but mercifully decided that only two were necessary. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:33, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== It was to keep the Soviet Union out of Japan ==

The allies had agreed to a partitioning of Germany after the victory over Hitler. The United States, however, had conducted the Pacific War practically alone and we did not intend to share the fruits of victory with the Soviet Union after a protracted sea-land invasion of the home islands by both countries. Therefore, Harry Truman undertook to force Japan to capitulate before the USSR could mobilize by knocking out two Japanese cities with the nuclear bombs. The detonations also had a dampening effect on further Soviet aggression until 1949 when they obtained their own atomic devices. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 20:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?

2007-07-31T14:19:08Z

JonathanDrain:

Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?

2007-07-31T14:15:37Z

JonathanDrain:

{{debate}}

Consider the following:

Most (if not all) monotheistic religions are based on faith. Their god (or gods if taken collectively) requires followers to believe without direct evidence. The story of 'doubting' Thomas in the new Testament is typical of such requirements to believe and have faith, often in the face of adversity. In addition, these supreme being have omniscience.

However, Intelligent Design requires that there is an omniscient creator who has used his or her intelligence to underpin the creation of living things, and has left the evidence around for all to see. There is clearly a contradiction here.

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.

There are only two ways out of this:

(i) By invoking an intelligent designer mark 2. This process can be seen to be impossible, as it clearly leads to infinite regress. There is no get out here, as at no point, can you claim that any of these intelligent designers IS God, because the requirement of 'faith' denies you the luxury of proof, which is precisely what you would be claiming to have.

or

(ii) By invoking a naturalistic process (such as evolution). However, we now have the contradiction that the assumption of the validity of Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that a 'naturalistic' process created everythiong after all. This is clearly a contradiction.

At best, therefore, it seems that any claim for Intelligent Design cannot be used as evidence of the existence of an omniscient God; at worst, by claiming that Intelligent Design is true you would be asserting the non-existence of an omniscient God, because by possessing proof of the validity of ID, you are denying faith, and therefore undermining God's requirement to believe.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world. Therefore it does not provide evidence of a creator. This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Discuss:'''

'''Warning:''' Religion and logic - strange bedfellows.

It seems to me that what you say is correct up to a point. The logical way out for the [[Intelligent Designist]] must be to accept that God does not require belief without evidence. However, adopting that position has the potential to become embarrassing when, at some point in the future, science demonstrates that ID is wrong. At that point the IDist would be left utterly empty-handed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Warning''' Don't believe in God because Science is our true master.

Only humans (the clay) tells God (The Potter) you can't do anything for me.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
: I am obviously completely dense. That remark makes no sense to me at all. Please explain. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Jpatt|jp]] is assuming the existence of the IDer (the Potter, notice it's capitalized), in order to utterly demolish your argument. That is, "since the universe ''was'' Intelligently Designed, you are wrong". I find your thesis to be fascinating, although I think there might be loopholes - for instance, YHWH giving some evidence for benevolent creation, but not enough on it's own to justify belief in full without faith. I don't actually think that undermines your point, though. I'm going to have to sleep on this one and come back here later. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument sounds like Douglas Adams' "Logical proof of the non-existence of God", which caused Him to 'vanish in a puff of logic'. After all, to the folks who saw Moses, Jesus, or Elijah at work doing miracles, "faith" was no more necessary than you or I need to have 'faith' in gravity. We only need it now because big, flashy, obvious miracles are so few and far between. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 22:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

From listening to what the Pope has to say, it seems as if he believes intelligent design is to narrow an explanation. When science can't explain, intelligent design is substituded. When everything is the origin of God, not just the unexplained. I may be misinterpreting the Pope, but I believe that is the crux of the answer to intelligent design he conveys to faithful.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Notice that the Hebrews, even ''with'' the miracles and everything, in both Moses and Jesus' time the ''majority'' of people still did not believe. Faith was still an important factor, even wit all the miracles. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

This is a silly question. Intelligent Design says that someone or something created everything, Biblical Creationism merely extends this by saying that God is that someone, and explaining in what order He did it. I don't see that there's any doubt that nothing in "Intelligent Design" contradicts the existence of God - it merely leaves the "name" field blank. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-31T12:07:48Z

JonathanDrain: /* 65 Findings of Bias */

{{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]]

==Johnny Appleseed==
Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. [[User:ChairmanMeow|ChairmanMeow]] 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. [[User:Amahony|Amahony]] 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

== #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. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==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)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the critical point that is missing here is that Wikipedia is '''not''' an American institution. It is a '''global''' one. Thousands of the English articles are not written by Americans. Why else would there be such comprehensive information about cricket? It has no need to represent America, nor should it. Any argument that Wikipedia should reflect America is evidence of severe tunnel vision and likely xenophobia. [[User:RWest]] 15:34, 24 July 2007.

Wikipedia is not 6 times more liberal than Conservapedia. The actual number is exactly 2Pi or about 6.28. I thought it might be 6.66, but that would be too much to hope. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers definitely have a liberal bias. I remember The New York Times stating once that a certain celebrity (who shall remain nameless) was pregn*nt. I would have much preferred a picture of the celebrity with a stork superimposed. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:06, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.
::Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans ''is more important'' than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that ''really'' the Conservative perspective?
:::In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ''...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."'' with the full list ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works''? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

==Chip Berlet==
I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cberlet contribs]). [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism]). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism New Anti-semitism] he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the [http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm Communist Party of India] (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
::I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Globalize?==
May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.[[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whinny Article ==

Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.{{Unsigned|MrDubya|MrDubya }}

*Ahhh, shut up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:41, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Notice how cranky Karajou and TK made it a quiet evening, Philip? 6 hours of quiet. If you are still around in another couple of hours, the user might need another time out, I am thinking..... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

: TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. [[User:Humunculous|Humunculous]] 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 18, 21, 22, 37 ==

Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer Wikipedia content disclaimer] which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.

number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#_note-3] to show that some people have doubted his existence.

number 22 seems to be outdated, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803 the current revision when I checked] says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to <nowiki>[Christianity]</nowiki>"

number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.

I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. [[User:Aristotle|Aristotle]] 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:

:: Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.

:: Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.

:: Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.

:: Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.

: Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: But Johnson credited [[Christ]]. The [[liberals]] controlling [[Wikipedia]] apparently don't want to admit that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== D. James Kennedy ==

Recently added to his Wiki article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy here]) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:

:1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State [http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special],
:2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" [http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=4],
:3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
:4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments [http://www.coralridgehour.com/coralridgehour.asp?page=topicmessage&id=777], and
:5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of ''four'' items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=intelligent+design] - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=creation].
That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).

And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.)
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

: I'll add this to the next update the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The [[liberals]] at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Midge Potts ==

A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midge_Potts#Status_of_Potts.27_gender_alteration_and_pronouns here] with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.

For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the [[Armenian Genocide]] or [[Premillennialism]], and the [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.

Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)[[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you misstate how Wikipedia works. Admins with special authority at Wikipedia review every edit and revert vandalism quickly. The instances cited here were approved by the Wikipedia authorities.

: None of the instances cited here are mere oversights, or random vandalism. They are examples of the bias in Wikipedia editors and admins in presenting factual claims to the public. Just look at how long the cited bias existed before someone heard about Conservapedia's criticism and then made a change in response to criticism here.

: Wikipedia allows and even encourages gossip, which we prohibit here. Wikipedia's use of gossip on Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, as numerous examples in this list illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, to assume that every single edit is immediately checked over (sit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges here] and watch how quickly they go by) is unrealistic. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, none of the examples in this list are vandalism. I don't think Wikipedia blocked any editor for these edits and typically multiple admins and editors saw and allowed these edits over an extended period of time. In the first example (Human Life International), the edit was by an IP address (unregistered user) to a controversial entry. That edit sticks out like a sore thumb even among a list of hundreds of recent edits. Yet it was allowed and I don't think the IP address has even been blocked for it.

::: If a Wikipedia admin speaking for Wikipedia says that one of these examples was vandalism and corrective action was taken (e.g., blocking the person responsible, posting an alert of some kind, locking the page, etc.), then I'll note that accordingly here. But that hasn't happened. More examples will be posted today. Lord willing, Wikipedia will do something to stop the injustice eventually.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Costello ==

I have to take issue with the statement about Jerry Costello. The ''exact quote'' from Wikipedia, as of July 8: "He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from the American Conservative Union and the John Birch Society." They are merely stating the facts, no? Did they say he was a ''member'' of the JBS? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: It may also be a fact that the American Communist Party endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Should that be in Kerry's entry? Of course not. Inserting that into his entry would only be designed to smear him. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. There's really no reason for Wikipedia to mention it, especially in a very short article. It could only be designed to make him look bad. Also, did the communists endorse John Kerry? Just wondering. [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 16:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: For the curious, the answer to your question could be provided in the entry on the American Communist Party, not the entry on John Kerry. But I doubt Wikipedia would smear Kerry like that anyway. The injustice is the campaign at Wikipedia to smear conservatives, and vulnerable people. Wikipedia is a bully, an unrestrained mob. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Call me dense, but I just read the CP article on the [[John Birch Society]], and I don't see how it's a smear to associate someone with them (whether warrented or not). Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-UN, pro-Constitution, pro Founding Fathers... it might be a little libertarian for some CP users, but not a smear. So could someone elighten this poor soul? :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: I won't call you dense, but the point is not whether a highly informed and fair-minded reader would be affected by this smear, but whether an uninformed reader might be. Obviously the intent behind Wikipedia's guilt-by-association is to smear the victims in the eyes of the general public. Obviously the Wikipedia's false claims of association with JBS are designed to smear the victims with guilt-by-association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's just it though; I ''am'' in uninformed, and I don't get how this is a smear. If Costello didn't actually get their support then sure, it's an untruth. I just don't understand how calling a conservative a libertarian is a smear, unless there's some sinister side to this organization which both CP ''and'' WP left out. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the Wikipedia entry about the John Birch Society? It says that the "Society had been marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s." Read on, as the Wikipedia entry gets much worse. And then Wikipedia smears Costello, who has absolutely no connection with the organization, with the appearance of being connected with it. Wikipedia's insertion of JBS into Costello's entry is obviously designed to smear Costello. If you want to continue to deny it, then go ahead, but you would only lose credibility by doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm definitely not saying that the statement is appropriate, but it is not a [[lie]]. However irrelevant it may be, it is still factual. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that Wikipedia's smear of Costello is not a lie. But it is still an unjustified smear. Ditto for Wikipedia's smear of Fred Schwarz. The objection to the use of guilt-by-association is not that it is a lie, but that it is an unjustified smear.

::::: The Wikipedia smears of Dave Dravecky and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are baseless and also out-of-date. Repetition of defamation is no better than the original defamation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Math Error ==

I know this is pointless, because it's just gonna be burried.... but simple math will tell you that 99.84% of 50000 would be 49,200 People, leaving room for 800 dissenters.... Therefore, the 700 that support still leaves another 100... Now, it's probably true that more than 100 scientists beleive in evolution, but you can't claim bias off of guesswork [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow your argument here. Obviously when several hundred people sign a paper, that does not imply that millions who didn't sign it somehow disagree and are on the other side. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, it doesn't, but it doesn't imply that they are for it either. It simply states that they either have no opinion (doubtful) for that they choose not to enter debate. When using statistics as reasoning for an argument, you can't assume a positive or negative from data that isn't there. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, failure to sign a petition does NOT imply a lack of opinion. It simply means the person did not sign the petition. The reason could be anything from too busy to "agree but don't want my name on a petition." Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's exactly what I said... either no opinion (doubtful) or choose not to enter the debate... However, as I said, statistics are effective in debate only when they're used exactly as reported. Therefore, according to the available data, Wikipedia is correct. Obviously, common sense tells that there are more scientists who support creationism, but only the available data can be used to make a logical point [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:For the record, 98.4% of 50,000 is 49,200. 99.84% of 50,000 is 49,920 leaving just 80 dissenters. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Golf ==

Again, this will be ignored, but I looked at the Zach Johnson page, and found that it only contains one quote from him (about his getting better). However, if you look at TIger Wood's page, which is about 2 or 3 times as long, it doesn't contain any full quotes and only one "half quote" about the desert golf course. Furthermore, none of the master's pages have any quotes from winners or other placers [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: What's your point? Zach Johnson won the upset of the year, if not the decade, which he expressly attributed it to his faith in Christ. Of course that should not be censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::My point is that no censorship exists.... None of the golfers have personal quotes on the masters pages, and most golfers don't even have quotes on their own pages.... On top of that, I see no past version of the page where his religious quotes were included but removed.... If you think there's a problem with the page, at least try editing it before coming over here and screaming bias... Just put the quotes in and get a reason for the deletion (if it occurs) Then you have a legit case for censorship.... As it stands, I see none [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sections for criticisms/controversies more often in articles for right-wing organizations than in left-wing ==

One can pick any of the well-known conservative groups from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_organizations_in_the_United_States this Wiki category list] and more often than not, you will find sections for criticism and controversies. Do the same for well-known liberal groups, such as "gay rights" groups on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_rights_organizations this list] (since Wiki doesn't have a "Liberal organizations of the United States" cat), and you'll find it difficult to find any sections for criticisms and controversies. Additionally, if you do find these sections on articles for liberal groups, they are much, much smaller than what you typically find for conservative groups. More examples of this bias can be found using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States this mixed category list] of political organizations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly right! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Take a step back==

I'm not trying to hide anything here: I'm from Wikipedia, and I don't like what you guys do here. If this is largely ignored, I won't be suprised or offended, but I have a question...

If Wikipedia is so biased, why run away from it, leaving it the way it is, to create your own version? Wouldn't it be infinitely more productive to help in the pursuit of a free encyclopedia by fixing the problems you see instead of seceding and forming your own faction?

Essentially, you see Wikipedia as full of liberals and have two choices:
 1. Fix the bias you see;
 2. Leave Wikipedia flawed and create your own flawed encyclopedia.

I mean, pages on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time with offensive, pointless, or unwanted material, and when people like me see it, we remove it and move on. We don't hole up elsewhere and complain about it. Reading some of these accusations of bias, I think to myself: why not fix it? I'm sorry liberal politicians have so little criticism; go find some! I'm sorry we ignored Johnny Appleseed's Christian whatever, add it!

It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boss1000 here]. - [[User:Boss1000|Boss1000]] 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.

:In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. ''As the histories will show'', Boss Man, if you care to look.

:And in ''other'' point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about ''that'', mate.

:So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!

:And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Very well put, TerryH. I might add that many Wikipedia defenders will hide behind "vandalism" to explain its [[liberal]] bias. But the 50+ examples of bias are not vandalism.

Wikipedia is a smear factory, a high-tech lynch mob. In addition to destroying people with smears and lies, Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. Wikipedia boosts its traffic for its for-profit search engine by promoting gossip and obscenity. It is worse than the National Enquirer. No thanks, I don't want anything to do with it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Adding my own two bob's worth, when Wikipedia's {{wp|Intelligent_design}} article was proposed for Featured Article status (or something like that), I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet ''many'' people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned. I even had another Wikipedian, a scientist, e-mail me and say that he disagreed with pretty well everything I stood for (regarding religion, evolution, etc.), yet he agreed with me that the article was biased, but that he had given up trying to fight the bloc of anti-ID people protecting the article. That's just one example of several that I could quote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

--

Adding to Aschflays useless comments which are unsubstantiated, why do you feel you need to change everything by creating a new deeply flawed with hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes? {{unsigned|Denzo}}
:I invite you to rewrite your comment in a less abusive manner and without the spelling and syntax mistakes of that sentence, let alone the unsubstantiated charges. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

My apologies, but what did I do wrong exactly? I'm dyslexic and to be honest I think a very good job of reaching a good level of grammer despite my limitations.

Also, speaking of 'Liberal bias' I am after seeing the Che Guevara article that he is a Liberal activist! There is such a thing of 'factual bias' trying to make something to suit your argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise Che wasn't a Liberal. He was a socialist with close ties with the Chinese regime. This is but one example of the complete hypocrysy of this site and the entire ideology you represent. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 06:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Taking your last point first, admittedly I don't have half a brain (mine is complete), but I wouldn't recognise that he wasn't a liberal, simply because I know next to nothing about him.
:But on to (slightly) more substantial points, the errors in your previous message are as follow (I've listed them all, but normally wouldn't mention most of these if they were the only error). I also accept that dyslexia may account for at least some of these:
:* "Aschflays" (a user name) is correctly spelt "ASchlafly" (I admit that I still have to look that one up most of the time).
:* "grammer" is correctly spelt "gramm'''a'''r".
:* "Aschflays useless comments" is being abusive; you could have written that more politely.
:* "...creating a deeply flawed with hundreds..." A deeply-flawed what? You've forgotten the noun that the adjectival phrase is supposed to be modifying.
:* What does "everything" refer to in "change everything"? I might ask about the evidence for the "hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes", but I guess first I'd like to know what it is that you omitted that is supposed to have all these mistakes.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, its a bit rich when I go on about grammar mistakes. That taken into account, my original point still stands, pedantary aside. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 07:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:You still haven't explained what is "deeply flawed". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fine:

<blockquote>
Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children
</blockquote>

Having spent a lot of time on wiki, and having looked up the reproductive articles, there is no pornography. Unless you consider educational diagrams pornography.

Oh right, you guys probably want to change science class because it refers to reproductive organs! I forgot! [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Denzo|Denzo]], answer me this: Since when do articles explaining in detail, ''with'' photographs, how ostensible adults (and, perhaps, teen-agers) can play "adult" kidnap games, qualify as "educational diagrams," or a fit subject for "science class"? Not to mention that the articles in question are lifted straight out of another Wiki that is ''devoted'' to that sort of sick, perverted game, and to teaching its readers how to play it!

:We weren't talking about the reproductive articles--but we ''do'' observe that the very subject of human reproductive science has of late been the subject of vandalism, with a view to the introduction of pornography. We ''also'' observe that education in that area is subject to frightful abuse, and therefore deem it best handled in the home, from parent to child.

:If you have a problem with that, then I suggest that you find another wiki--or establish one, since after all the MediaWiki software is [[free software]] and as such available free of charge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to mind it when they teach about plants reproductive organs. Not human ones though, its better to be ignorant than informed after all. Either we agree with educating children or we don't.
[[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:23, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Denzo, you still didn't explain ''what'' is "deeply flawed". Are you referring to Conservapedia itself? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. You cannot cancel a wrong and hope to make a right when you yourself go about it a wrong way. The aim is to make this place somewhere with a conservative bias. Would you prefer your children read something with any bias? I know I'd want my children to read the facts, and then make up their mind. Other people have deliberately placed bias for children to read - either it be the protocols of the learned elders of zion in Saudi Arabia or Hitlers textbooks downgrading the Jews to mere mathematical aliens. Do you realise you share a precedent with some of the most horrible regimes of the modern era? [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I would expect my children to read something with a bias, because a bias is unavoidable in many cases. But that doesn't prevent them reading the facts. You seem to think that facts and bias are mutually exclusive, but this is not necessarily so. In many cases it is impossible to present ''all'' the facts (they might even be infinite), and just the selection of which facts are presented is subject to bias. I have said before elsewhere that we have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. Do you think we should have that bias, or not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think you shouldn't. Take the homosexuality for starters. We need to decide what logic we use - the Scientific method or your pretty logic that allows you to discriminate when you feel like it - If its the former then you simply cannot, simply cannot even begin to comprehend how stupid it is to have homosexuality denounced on religious grounds.

I would rather my child read the facts about homosexuality - why people do it and what it is - rather than they read about the Bible's view. I don't care what the Bible's view and neither do the majority of the world. There are other examples, but the main reasons I decided to leave here:

*A constant unwarranted attack on the Democrats, which besides your name makes you out to be partisans.
*Che Guevara being termed as 'Liberal', I genuinly wonder if any of you know the differences between Liberalism and socialism.
*The poor quality of a lot of the articles, like [[Sparta]]
*The unbelievably humourous, yet worrying level of bias on this site, which infinitely outdo's any accidental bias wiki may or may not engage in. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 09:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:You don't agree that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness? Where do you think our bias should be then? To inaccuracy and unfairness?
:Okay, let's take homosexuality. Logic is logic; there's not such thing as "scientific logic" and "petty logic". And I don't discriminate "when I feel like it". And I don't denounce homosexuality on religious grounds. I denounce it on the grounds that the Creator of us designed us to be heterosexual. I consider that to be a fact. Do you have hard, factual, evidence that I'm wrong? I'd like to see it, rather than you simply dismiss it by labelling it as "religious".
:I would also rather my children read the facts about homosexuality, but what makes you think that what the Bible says is not factual? The fact that you don't ''care'' what the Bible says is you showing your bias, not an argument from logic or science.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

That makes no sense! You can believe that some giant cookie monster created the world in seven days, just don't enforce that crap on us! There is two different kinds of reasoning - there is no evidence to support your creation theory, so I will not teach my children that. The Bible was written by ancient Kings and propagandists - I would teach them that to widen their minds and inform them of the background, rather than teach them your 'literal' truths.

You DONT HAVE A BIAS TOWARDS ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS! You clearly don't! YOUR NAME IS CONSERVAPEDIA!

This is the kinda crap I'm talking about. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 04:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:What makes no sense? And I don't believe in a "giant cookie monster" (actually, I don't believe in ''cookies''; we have ''biscuits'' here in Oz :-) ). And I'm not forcing anything on you, am I? I'm expressing my view, ''just as you are''. And just because you don't know of any evidence to support creation does not mean that there is none. I know of plenty. What evidence do you have that the Bible was written by ancient kings (apart from some some of the poetic books)? Is your belief on those things 'literal' truth?
:I asked if you agreed that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. You claimed that we don't have that, but that doesn't actually answer the question. Please answer the question. And while you're at it, stop shouting, it's not nice.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? ==

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against [[Democrats]] but not against [[Republicans]], then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by [[Wikipedia]]??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:: And if the correction does not reflect bias? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>5 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>8 has been corrected. Twice.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>34 is no longer true. That said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act&diff=120080583&oldid=120073659 a version from March 3] I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>38 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>42 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>43 is no longer true; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism that article] is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>47 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>49 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>52 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>60 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of [[deceit]]. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones '''if there is a real change''' there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.

: Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense [[liberal]] bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across ''many'' articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote:
'''"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."'''-- Sir [[Winston Churchill]]
--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I take it from the use of that quote that you don't have a deletion policy. And I take it from your other statement that sysops can delete at will any article that they feel is inappropriate. Fair enough. However, I don't think this policy (or lack thereof) is sustainable. As you clearly have [[Monty Python|some articles on pop culture]] and [[Transformers|not others]] it seems only a matter of time before there is serious disagreement among sysops as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Eventually something will have to be hammered out that addresses these subjective descrepencies. While ten thousand regulations might be too much, I feel you will need more than 8. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections ''are'' made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this discussion is getting tiresome. I've been clear already, and we don't waste our time here on frivolous chatter. Look again at our Point 1. Enforce Wikipedia's own rule against guilt-by-association and clean it up there. If you can't even do that, then please don't waste our time here. If you can do that, then do it and let's then efficiently clean up and remove the remainder. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not acknowledge its [[liberal bias]]. It is so concerned with achieving "consensus" on policy, that it forgets that it is not possible to have a consensus on [[fact]]s. Originally, Larry and Jimbo agreed that Wikipedia would remain neutral when there is a dispute over what the facts are about anything. That eventually and gradually turned into allowing groups of users to create a "consensus version" of an article with a point of view which '''cannot be overturned'''.

:The new policy is that even if an article has a POV, no one is allowed to create another article with a different POV - even if the sole reason the extra article is created is to fix the bias in the first article. The alternate POV can be "legally" suppressed: one can neither create an alternate article to ''describe'' another POV, nor can one wedge the alternate POV into the first article. This is how they perpetuate the bias in key articles such as theory of evolution (in favor), intelligent design (they're against it), and global warming (they insist there's a [[scientific consensus]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like [[John C. Frémont]], [[George Wood Wingate]], [[Nelson W. Aldrich]], and [[Thomas Edmund Dewey]] would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)

It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).

Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ah yes, that's the ticket. Excuse us, this article is still a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed, I'm not on any crusade to whitewash commentary on Wikipedia; I just want to use that commentary to is utmost. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

ManInBlack, take a look at Point 1. If you can't or won't fix it on Wikipedia, then don't waste our time here.

You're like an apologize for a lynch mob who says something good about the mob. It's still a lynch mob hanging people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think I could make the case that associating someone with the John Birch Society is smearing them, I'm sorry. It's taken as assumed here that such association is a smear, with no real stated reasoning behind it. (I guess it's self-evident if you're familiar with the politics in that area?)

:It's not as though I haven't looked at this list for things to fix; I fixed some of the Henry Liddell stuff, removed a bunch of ridiculous unsourced allegations from an article on TBN, and (while I didn't get the idea from here) I was the one who closed the final AFD that got rid of the disgraceful Brandt article.

:I am broadly sympathetic to criticism of Wikipedia, and I try to act on it when I can. The organization of this list, with open and closed cases mixed freely, and different - often contradictory - problems scattered all over, does not lend itself to use.

:It comes down to your goal. If your goal is to make Wikipedia look bad, mission accomplished. That a big, impressive-looking list and its nature lends itself to nothing on the list getting resolved ever because nobody can make heads nor tails of it. If your goal is to enact change on Wikipedia, then some organization would make it significantly more useful. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, here's some criticism you can fix: the link to the ''New American'' at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet] has been broken for two years and nobody's fixed it. I'd fix it, but they'd only add another year to my ban. And personally, I think they deliberately want the link broken. Here's why: It links to an article entitled ''Propagandizing the Police'' [http://www.jbs.org/node/735] which says this,
:::" Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)..."

::Now considering [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=yip this site] says Yippies are a [[terrorist]] subsidiary of the National Lawyers Guild, of which Berlet was VP, it's not surprising he'd write for their journal. And what would happen to Berlet's status as the inhouse resident expert on politcal affairs, if it was discovered he was published in an extreme and terrorist publication?

::So, beware if you dare fix that link, you will be a marked user, stalked and harassed, if your contributions do not tow the party line. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So, um, what's the problem and why? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The text of the Berlet entry uses the John Birch Society's ''New American'' allegedly to give balance & criticism. The quoted text even puts Berlet at odds with the Anti-Defamation League. But when you click on the link to read the source document, the link is broken. The source document, ''Propagandizing the Police'', cites Berlet as having written for extremist publications. I was banned likewise for using a different source that cited Berlet writting for another extremist publication (See [[Guardian]], here in CP). If Berlet writes for extremist publications, he cannot be used as a source for anything other than his own organization, Politcal Research Associates. Yet Berlet literally authored the entire Dominionism series (look at the Template under "critics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dominionism] or you can check the contribs any page in the series).

::::IOW, Berlet cannot be cited for anything in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's attribution policies, written by SlimVirgin, which state, "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of'''." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

::::Oddly, SlimVirgin is Berlet's staunchest defender.

::::Oh, as to the smear in the Brandt entry, the neologism "conspiracist" has been documented to be Berlet's own invention. Berlet created Wikipedia's "Conspiracist" entry, and cited himself. Berlet called Brandt a conspiracist, so using his own neologism is another policy violation in the Brandt case (all this I called attention to ArbCom, Jimbo, and Foundation two years ago). The John Birch Society in WP is slandered with Berlet's neologism as "conspiracist." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Okay, short version. What link is broken, and where should it link? I'm not diving into all of this for your sake, but if there's a broken link, I'll fix that. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Footnote 15 here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet] should link to this [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Good luck. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Right now, the link links to a New American article, so I don't see the problem. I'm not really comfortable digging deeper, as I know nothing about the subject matter. (This is part of why the list could stand to be better organized; I'm patient enough to dig through it for stuff I can fix; others may not be.) [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:32, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Yah but the link is broken, a 404 dead end page comes up. I provided the link to the cited article above. You're not telling me you're afraid of a bunch of [[Stalinist]]s, are you? Stalin's dead, the KGB is defunct (moreless) and these people are just a bunch of bullies and wannabe's. So what if the ArbCom Chairman & Berlet go back 37 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030|] to that KGB front organization, the [[National Lawyers Guild]], it's not like the old days where they'd arrange an accident for you or ship you off to the [[Gulag]]. All they can do is ban you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't make a practice of intervening in situations where I don't feel I can practically explain my actions. There's a difference between taking a risk of getting in a big fight because I honestly believe in the cause and doing the same on the frankly confusing say-so of someone else. I'm sorry. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Face facts. You're afraid of SlimVirgin.

::::::::::What more evidence do we need, of WP high level Admins in the Cabal bullying people, promoting disinformation, and getting clones and cronies to coverup thier dirty work than your appearance here on this talk page? You've been presented the facts, and the evidence, yet refuse to do a simple maintance chore of fixing a simple broken link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

== Number 1 ==

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the [[John Birch Society]] being a Bad Thing. [[Liberal|Some]] people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as [[Eagle Forum|some]] other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, ''The New American'' considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the ''New American'' in the criticism section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism] has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

As I pointed out above, if "guilt" by association is such a problem at Wikipedia (still not sure what exactly the "guilt" is in this case), then it should be removed here. The [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page links John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them. ''Exactly'' the sort Wikipedia is criticized for. I'd change it but the page is locked. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:PortlyMort, the National Humane Society reference is *not* in the entry about John Kerry. Wikipedia does smear conservatives with guilt-by-association in their own entries. And [[liberals]] insist on keeping those smears there, despite its own rules against it. Bottom line: no credibility for Wikipedia anymore. No intelligent contributor is going to be part of a guilt-by-association smear machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::So guilt by association is okay here as long as it's only in certain articles? So it's not in the Kerry article, but it's still in Conservapedia. I wouldn't care myself (it's certainly arguable if mentioning a politician's score from a special interest group is a smear or simply reporting statistics; saying "Senator Fancypants has a 85% rating from the Seirra Club" or "Congressman Popcorn has a 90% rating from the NRA" doesn't seem terribly unfair, though context would be a fator), but this site seems to think it's some sort of cardinal sin. And if it is then you should remove the Kerry reference. So it's not on Kerry's page, It's on the [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (ironic, as it seems to illustrate some hypocricy here). [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, you miss the point. Guilt-by-association is a smear when it appears in the entry for the target of the smear. This is what [[Wikipedia]] does, and intelligent contributors will continue to leave [[Wikipedia]] as long as it continues that practice. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::It seems I do miss the point. Why is ''only'' a smear when it appears in the entry for the target, but not on any other page? This is making up the rules as you go along. A smear is a smear, regardless of what page it appears on. If it were in the debate or conservapedia or talk space you'd certainly have a point, but it's right there in an article. Are you saying if "Senator Noodle closely associates with Nazis" appears on the Senator Noodle page it's a smear, but if on the Nazi page it says "Nazis have been known to associate with Senator Noodle" it's not? I really do not follow that logic at all. And I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 13:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

===the facts===
User:SlimVirgin wrote:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF]

: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I was the author of''' back in March. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:
: "these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told ''The New American'', which is published by the [[John Birch Society]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9210097&oldid=9210042 diff]

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication ''The New American'' are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Number 65==

*''<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.''
:This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.

:The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which [[Jimbo Wales]] himself was aware of, stood for ''at least'' 18 months. Extracted:

::''"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including [[Chip Berlet]], resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, [[L. Fletcher Prouty]], was '''openly working with and defending [[Liberty Lobby]] and the Holocaust denial group the [[Institute for Historical Review]]''', which republished Prouty's book ''Secret Team''. '''According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing [[conspiracy theory|conspiracist]] groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist'''. <ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html]</ref>

:Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for '''citing ''Washington Post'' criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors.''' And my citation of the ''Washington Post'' criticism was adjudicated as '''a personal attack''' against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff,]which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
:#personal attack against another user
:#citing self
:#violation of BLP
:#violation of Reliable Sources
:#using a self publishing source
:#using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
:#Wikipedia is a not a battleground
:#Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
:#experts do not occupy a position of privilge
:Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=138512310 lately]? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken against blatant violations of policy CP exposed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff]? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then ''all'' his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.

::The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::My hunch was exactly correct: Bias #1 states, "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples include:
:::*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[2]

:::This guilt-by-association was written & inserted by none other than Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, 13:27, 1 April 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Birch_Society&diff=11776105&oldid=11760190]

To answer the question, "What action has been taken against blatant violations of policy[...]in [such and such diff]", the article is now long-gone, and Wikipedia has enacted a strict policy to try and deal with articles about living people.

The entire Brandt article debacle was a disgrace to Wikipedia by any standards. I misunderstood the somewhat vaguely-written and -attributed listing in #65, taking it to mean that it was a separate, additional issue with the PIR article. As far as I can tell, the list still hasn't changed, and misattributes the mess to the PIR article, without making the context clear. It's certainly a fair criticism and belongs on any list of Wikipedia's failings (although I'm not entirely sure how it establishes some sort of bias), but the current version of this list doesn't make it clear what actually happened to someone who doesn't already know. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Berlet has a long stream of slander victims, ArbCom knows he does this, so does the Board of Trustees, and so does Jimbo. And SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Will Beback all work as a tag team with him. Fred Bauder, ArbCom Chairman. is a fellow former National Lawyers Guild member and has known Berlet for almost 40 years. When Berlet's malicious conduct is brought before ArbCom, the accusers are banned, And Berlet feels even more justified & reinvigorated.

:Who else are known vicitms? Dr. Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Payul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye for starters. Last winter I was in correspondence with User:Baby Dweezil, whom Berlet was trying to get banned. Every indication is is that Baby Dweezil is most probably Dr. Lenora Fullani, not only the first black, or the first black woman, but the first and only women who achieved ballot status in all 50 states for the office of President of the United States. This woman is a living historical figure, yet Berlet has been viciously slandering her for 20 years. When she tried to mitigate the slanders in WP, the old lynch mob led by Berlet & SlimVirgin got rid of her. And then Berlet has the audacity to claim he's for minority and women's rights. It's outrageous the way Wikipedia embraces this fraud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Article talks only of American statistics==
There are conservatives outside the US. All the statistics here say things like "n% of people in are not athiests" as some kind of claim for bias, however the statistics for other countries are different, particularly in Europe. {{unsigned|Mrescher}}

== 65 Findings of Bias ==

With nearly two million entries on Wikipedia finding 65 that are claimed (claim leaves room for disagreement on whether these are actual cases of bias) to be biased is really remarkable. That leaves a bias rate of .0000325 percent. A truly remarkable rate given the free wheeling nature of what they do and provide. I beleive that such a rate doesn't prove that Wikipedia is biased but rather proves what a great job they do to maintain an open, factual online reference. I would challenge Conservapedia to meet such a high standard while maintaining an open and free environment for all voices.

--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 14:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't be ridiculous. You know that nobody has read every single article on Wikipedia. 65 reflects the number found out of the representative number reviewed. This is the method that sysop (and former WP bureaucrat) Ed Poor used to compare CP and WP: picking a certain number of random articles from each. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're not trying to say that those 65 examples were all found using a random article search, are you? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:21, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The vast majority of Wikipedia is either (1) copied directly from an out-of-date public domain encyclopedia, (2) complete junk about rock music, Hollywood figures, or obscure towns, or (3) pornography. Wikipedia welcomes this stuff to try to drive up its internet traffic for the for-profit search engine that its leaders are building. Our examples of bias here do not draw upon this vast majority (and useless) portion of Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Actually, very few articles are copied from public sources: it was about 8% several years ago, and as Wikipedia has more than doubled in size since then. Included in that figure (in fact, the ''vast'' majority) of that 8% are articles on "obscure towns", mostly pulled directly from the 2000 census. Since Wikipedia has grown, and the number of small towns has not, that figure is probably closer 3%. Rock music and Hollywood figures are certainly well-covered, but nowhere near the "majority". Going through 30-some random articles just now I found maybe 5 that fit the bill (a pretty large number, but nowhere near the majority). As for porn, well, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly Wikipedia covers all sorts of sexual stuff that Conservapedia does not, and it has articles on many porn stars (too many, certainly), but combined they are a miniscule amount of the nearly 2,000,000 total entries on the site. Even this stuff would not meet most people's definitions of "pornography". In any case, my question wasn't answered as to whether Dan was implying that the random article generator was used to make the list, because it clearly was not. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You're clueless about what drives traffic to Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Hmmmm, let's see, what drives traffic to Wikipedia? Well, google for one. Also people who want to look up stuff on all sorts of topics but don't want to pay the fees commercial encyclopedias charge, or want to find stuff on the "fluff" that the othres don't cover at all (yes, I'm sure looking up Pokemon, Harry Potter, rock bands, and the like does bring a lot of traffic to Wikipedia, but not all of it by any means). And anyone who wants to look for porn will be ''very'' disappointed with Wikipedia. There are so many places to find porn on the internet; searching an encyclopedia would be silly (unless someone gets their jollies out of reading prose text giving colorless definitions of sexual acts, but most people are looking for photos and video of hardcore bonking). So what does drive traffic to Wikipedia? You seem to be an expert on it. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:00, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on [[homosexuality]], [[Molly Ringwald]], [[Rush]] and [[Hebden Bridge]]. Would this be an example of [[deceit]]? [[User:Noemi|Noemi]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.
::::: Now, I do the same on Conservapedia. We have four articles on science (one each of genetics, physics, chemistry and medicine), three on geography or foreign nations (including Islam and the Middle East), three articles on religion, two articles on history, and two on law or law enforcement. We also have one conservative think tank, a neoconservative writer, a Shakespearean play, an animal, a rock band, and one other.
::::: From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's one other source, this [http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/Right_Chrono_Bib.html this stuff], the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-07-30T19:28:35Z

JonathanDrain: /* Censorship of prayer in classrooms? */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Andy... falsehoods? ==

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:''opposition to a strong American foreign policy''
:where in that ''WORK IN PROGRESS'' [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a ''strong'' American foreign policy? Many ''Liberals'' may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a ''strong'' American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals'' so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''liberals'' believe and are not an encyclopedic description of ''liberal'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It is time someone unlocks this article. [[User:Order]] 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

: First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. [[User:Order]] 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.[[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives ''precisely'' because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neoclassical liberalism==
I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Silly" Definition? ==

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

=="American Liberal?"==

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous.
eg.
-taxpayer-funded abortion
-censorship of prayer in classrooms
-a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:Which of the above three examples of [[liberal]] beliefs do you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...
:::I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

''This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).''
:Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

== Template ==

Could an admin add <nowiki>{{Political ideologies}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page? thnx, [[User:MfD|MfD]] 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

[[User:TK|TK]], why did you revert the last comment by [[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. [[User:Order]] May 21 11:40 (AEST)

*Order, I have an old saying: ''"Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!"'' The last comment there, FYI, was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting here, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25

*Not necessairly here, Order, especially if one is busy, old, and it slips their mind. So I guess we see the same situation differently. No harm, no foul in that. Sorry is I was tarter than usual...trying times around here, and elsewhere. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship of prayer in classrooms?==

Since I can't edit the main page, I'll comment here. This is a caricature--teachers may not lead prayer, but students can pray in public schools if they want. Now, if they are talking out loud, they might be dealt with the same as a student talking out loud about everything else. But that "ban" is not content-based. Students can pray in school, read the Bible, talk to their fellow students about God and theology, and, for that matter, can read the Koran and pray toward Mecca (again, provided they aren't disrupting class.) So, I have to ask you ... why does this article have such a cartoon-like description of liberals' stances on "prayer in classrooms?" --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know the old saying: "As long as there are geometry tests, there will be prayer in school." --[[User:Catfish|Catfish]] 20:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wennberg, you're in [[liberal]] denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:: School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Right, but unless the teacher leads the prayer, there's not going to be any out-loud prayer going on in class. Either the school authorizes it and everyone does it, or it doesn't and nobody does it. That's not a false dichotomy - a school which does not authorize teachers to lead prayer is one where the students themselves face an uphill struggle for the right to pray aloud in schools, which is enough to dissuade all but the most motivated students. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:28, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

==edit suggest==

one suggestion that globalism be bracketed so it links to the article [[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 16:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Emotive distinction ==

The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. unsigned comment by [[User:TraitortotheCause ]]15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==Slight syntax change==

I propose that this sentence: ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals' ''be changed to read '''The following views are often associated with those who consider themselves 'liberals'.''' The way it reads now suggests that all liberals hold all of these views, when this is not the case. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:06, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Strong" foreign policy ==

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years?
If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? [[user:Tanktunker]]

*I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous [[Liberal]] said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
**He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. {{Unsigned|User:Tanktunker}}

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110419&oldid=104466]. We could always bring back "''opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy" <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

with the references, of course. <references/>

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
:Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of [[deceit]] as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Someone explain to me... ==

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

:One of the [[liberal]] views is [[environmentalism]]. Certainly [[Greenpeace]] engages in ''environmentalism'' and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Definition? ==

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal ''is''. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The do all believe in one thing, I find: [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice [[deceit]]." - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. [[User:Order]] 24 July

::We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. [[User:Order]] 24 July, 11:50
::How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for [[al-Qaeda]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::: If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:00
::::Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:45
::::I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.

::: I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&oldid=93410]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 15:15

::::I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further [[al Qaeda]]'s stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.

::::For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.

::::This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.

::::So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.

:::But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. [[User:Order]] 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)
<--
OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:
*A $500 per child tax increase.
* A 55% death tax.
* A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
* A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
* A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/CA_072307_walbergtaxhikes.pdf] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.

:What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say

:: '' Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term '' "conservative." ''The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, ''liberal'' Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for'' "liberal."

:This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.

:How some something like:
:: ''Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.''

Feel free to start with your own definition. [[User:Order]] 25 July 11:50

:::If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.

:::I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Liberal

2007-07-30T17:16:52Z

JonathanDrain:

'''Liberalism''' is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the U.S. are frequently accused by conservatives of [[liberal bias]].

==Liberalism in the US today==
Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many Liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy Liberals in the US failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.

Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':

* removal of gender differences, such as treating men and women identically in the [[military]]
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* support of [[political correctness]]
* reinstate the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms
* compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
* government-controlled medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==

The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:

*Freedom of speech
*Freedom of religion
*The right to form political parties and vote
*Freedom to invest in and use private property
*Freedom to work as one chooses
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts
*Free trade and freedom of migration
*Sexual freedom
*Equal rights independent of race or sex

This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>.

A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British newsmagazine [[The Economist]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[DNC|DNC - Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[NEA|NEA - National Education Association]]
*[[NOW|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]] 
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Liberal

2007-07-30T16:56:36Z

JonathanDrain: /* See Also */

==Liberalism in the US today==
Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many Liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy Liberals in the US failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.

Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':

* removal of gender differences, such as treating men and women identically in the [[military]]
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* support of [[political correctness]]
* reinstate the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms
* compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
* government-controlled medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==

The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:

*Freedom of speech
*Freedom of religion
*The right to form political parties and vote
*Freedom to invest in and use private property
*Freedom to work as one chooses
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts
*Free trade and freedom of migration
*Sexual freedom
*Equal rights independent of race or sex

This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>.

A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British newsmagazine [[The Economist]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[DNC|DNC - Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[NEA|NEA - National Education Association]]
*[[NOW|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]] 
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T23:47:16Z

JonathanDrain: /* What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? */

{{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]]

==Johnny Appleseed==
Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. [[User:ChairmanMeow|ChairmanMeow]] 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. [[User:Amahony|Amahony]] 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

== #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. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==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)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the critical point that is missing here is that Wikipedia is '''not''' an American institution. It is a '''global''' one. Thousands of the English articles are not written by Americans. Why else would there be such comprehensive information about cricket? It has no need to represent America, nor should it. Any argument that Wikipedia should reflect America is evidence of severe tunnel vision and likely xenophobia. [[User:RWest]] 15:34, 24 July 2007.

Wikipedia is not 6 times more liberal than Conservapedia. The actual number is exactly 2Pi or about 6.28. I thought it might be 6.66, but that would be too much to hope. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers definitely have a liberal bias. I remember The New York Times stating once that a certain celebrity (who shall remain nameless) was pregn*nt. I would have much preferred a picture of the celebrity with a stork superimposed. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:06, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.
::Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans ''is more important'' than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that ''really'' the Conservative perspective?
:::In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ''...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."'' with the full list ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works''? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

==Chip Berlet==
I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cberlet contribs]). [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism]). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism New Anti-semitism] he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the [http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm Communist Party of India] (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
::I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Globalize?==
May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.[[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whinny Article ==

Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.{{Unsigned|MrDubya|MrDubya }}

*Ahhh, shut up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:41, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Notice how cranky Karajou and TK made it a quiet evening, Philip? 6 hours of quiet. If you are still around in another couple of hours, the user might need another time out, I am thinking..... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

: TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. [[User:Humunculous|Humunculous]] 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 18, 21, 22, 37 ==

Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer Wikipedia content disclaimer] which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.

number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#_note-3] to show that some people have doubted his existence.

number 22 seems to be outdated, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803 the current revision when I checked] says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to <nowiki>[Christianity]</nowiki>"

number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.

I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. [[User:Aristotle|Aristotle]] 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:

:: Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.

:: Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.

:: Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.

:: Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.

: Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: But Johnson credited [[Christ]]. The [[liberals]] controlling [[Wikipedia]] apparently don't want to admit that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== D. James Kennedy ==

Recently added to his Wiki article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy here]) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:

:1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State [http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special],
:2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" [http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=4],
:3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
:4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments [http://www.coralridgehour.com/coralridgehour.asp?page=topicmessage&id=777], and
:5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of ''four'' items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=intelligent+design] - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=creation].
That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).

And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.)
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

: I'll add this to the next update the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The [[liberals]] at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Midge Potts ==

A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midge_Potts#Status_of_Potts.27_gender_alteration_and_pronouns here] with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.

For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the [[Armenian Genocide]] or [[Premillennialism]], and the [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.

Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)[[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you misstate how Wikipedia works. Admins with special authority at Wikipedia review every edit and revert vandalism quickly. The instances cited here were approved by the Wikipedia authorities.

: None of the instances cited here are mere oversights, or random vandalism. They are examples of the bias in Wikipedia editors and admins in presenting factual claims to the public. Just look at how long the cited bias existed before someone heard about Conservapedia's criticism and then made a change in response to criticism here.

: Wikipedia allows and even encourages gossip, which we prohibit here. Wikipedia's use of gossip on Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, as numerous examples in this list illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, to assume that every single edit is immediately checked over (sit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges here] and watch how quickly they go by) is unrealistic. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, none of the examples in this list are vandalism. I don't think Wikipedia blocked any editor for these edits and typically multiple admins and editors saw and allowed these edits over an extended period of time. In the first example (Human Life International), the edit was by an IP address (unregistered user) to a controversial entry. That edit sticks out like a sore thumb even among a list of hundreds of recent edits. Yet it was allowed and I don't think the IP address has even been blocked for it.

::: If a Wikipedia admin speaking for Wikipedia says that one of these examples was vandalism and corrective action was taken (e.g., blocking the person responsible, posting an alert of some kind, locking the page, etc.), then I'll note that accordingly here. But that hasn't happened. More examples will be posted today. Lord willing, Wikipedia will do something to stop the injustice eventually.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Costello ==

I have to take issue with the statement about Jerry Costello. The ''exact quote'' from Wikipedia, as of July 8: "He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from the American Conservative Union and the John Birch Society." They are merely stating the facts, no? Did they say he was a ''member'' of the JBS? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: It may also be a fact that the American Communist Party endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Should that be in Kerry's entry? Of course not. Inserting that into his entry would only be designed to smear him. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. There's really no reason for Wikipedia to mention it, especially in a very short article. It could only be designed to make him look bad. Also, did the communists endorse John Kerry? Just wondering. [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 16:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: For the curious, the answer to your question could be provided in the entry on the American Communist Party, not the entry on John Kerry. But I doubt Wikipedia would smear Kerry like that anyway. The injustice is the campaign at Wikipedia to smear conservatives, and vulnerable people. Wikipedia is a bully, an unrestrained mob. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Call me dense, but I just read the CP article on the [[John Birch Society]], and I don't see how it's a smear to associate someone with them (whether warrented or not). Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-UN, pro-Constitution, pro Founding Fathers... it might be a little libertarian for some CP users, but not a smear. So could someone elighten this poor soul? :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: I won't call you dense, but the point is not whether a highly informed and fair-minded reader would be affected by this smear, but whether an uninformed reader might be. Obviously the intent behind Wikipedia's guilt-by-association is to smear the victims in the eyes of the general public. Obviously the Wikipedia's false claims of association with JBS are designed to smear the victims with guilt-by-association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's just it though; I ''am'' in uninformed, and I don't get how this is a smear. If Costello didn't actually get their support then sure, it's an untruth. I just don't understand how calling a conservative a libertarian is a smear, unless there's some sinister side to this organization which both CP ''and'' WP left out. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the Wikipedia entry about the John Birch Society? It says that the "Society had been marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s." Read on, as the Wikipedia entry gets much worse. And then Wikipedia smears Costello, who has absolutely no connection with the organization, with the appearance of being connected with it. Wikipedia's insertion of JBS into Costello's entry is obviously designed to smear Costello. If you want to continue to deny it, then go ahead, but you would only lose credibility by doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm definitely not saying that the statement is appropriate, but it is not a [[lie]]. However irrelevant it may be, it is still factual. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that Wikipedia's smear of Costello is not a lie. But it is still an unjustified smear. Ditto for Wikipedia's smear of Fred Schwarz. The objection to the use of guilt-by-association is not that it is a lie, but that it is an unjustified smear.

::::: The Wikipedia smears of Dave Dravecky and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are baseless and also out-of-date. Repetition of defamation is no better than the original defamation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Math Error ==

I know this is pointless, because it's just gonna be burried.... but simple math will tell you that 99.84% of 50000 would be 49,200 People, leaving room for 800 dissenters.... Therefore, the 700 that support still leaves another 100... Now, it's probably true that more than 100 scientists beleive in evolution, but you can't claim bias off of guesswork [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow your argument here. Obviously when several hundred people sign a paper, that does not imply that millions who didn't sign it somehow disagree and are on the other side. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, it doesn't, but it doesn't imply that they are for it either. It simply states that they either have no opinion (doubtful) for that they choose not to enter debate. When using statistics as reasoning for an argument, you can't assume a positive or negative from data that isn't there. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, failure to sign a petition does NOT imply a lack of opinion. It simply means the person did not sign the petition. The reason could be anything from too busy to "agree but don't want my name on a petition." Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's exactly what I said... either no opinion (doubtful) or choose not to enter the debate... However, as I said, statistics are effective in debate only when they're used exactly as reported. Therefore, according to the available data, Wikipedia is correct. Obviously, common sense tells that there are more scientists who support creationism, but only the available data can be used to make a logical point [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:For the record, 98.4% of 50,000 is 49,200. 99.84% of 50,000 is 49,920 leaving just 80 dissenters. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Golf ==

Again, this will be ignored, but I looked at the Zach Johnson page, and found that it only contains one quote from him (about his getting better). However, if you look at TIger Wood's page, which is about 2 or 3 times as long, it doesn't contain any full quotes and only one "half quote" about the desert golf course. Furthermore, none of the master's pages have any quotes from winners or other placers [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: What's your point? Zach Johnson won the upset of the year, if not the decade, which he expressly attributed it to his faith in Christ. Of course that should not be censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::My point is that no censorship exists.... None of the golfers have personal quotes on the masters pages, and most golfers don't even have quotes on their own pages.... On top of that, I see no past version of the page where his religious quotes were included but removed.... If you think there's a problem with the page, at least try editing it before coming over here and screaming bias... Just put the quotes in and get a reason for the deletion (if it occurs) Then you have a legit case for censorship.... As it stands, I see none [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sections for criticisms/controversies more often in articles for right-wing organizations than in left-wing ==

One can pick any of the well-known conservative groups from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_organizations_in_the_United_States this Wiki category list] and more often than not, you will find sections for criticism and controversies. Do the same for well-known liberal groups, such as "gay rights" groups on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_rights_organizations this list] (since Wiki doesn't have a "Liberal organizations of the United States" cat), and you'll find it difficult to find any sections for criticisms and controversies. Additionally, if you do find these sections on articles for liberal groups, they are much, much smaller than what you typically find for conservative groups. More examples of this bias can be found using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States this mixed category list] of political organizations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly right! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Take a step back==

I'm not trying to hide anything here: I'm from Wikipedia, and I don't like what you guys do here. If this is largely ignored, I won't be suprised or offended, but I have a question...

If Wikipedia is so biased, why run away from it, leaving it the way it is, to create your own version? Wouldn't it be infinitely more productive to help in the pursuit of a free encyclopedia by fixing the problems you see instead of seceding and forming your own faction?

Essentially, you see Wikipedia as full of liberals and have two choices:
 1. Fix the bias you see;
 2. Leave Wikipedia flawed and create your own flawed encyclopedia.

I mean, pages on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time with offensive, pointless, or unwanted material, and when people like me see it, we remove it and move on. We don't hole up elsewhere and complain about it. Reading some of these accusations of bias, I think to myself: why not fix it? I'm sorry liberal politicians have so little criticism; go find some! I'm sorry we ignored Johnny Appleseed's Christian whatever, add it!

It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boss1000 here]. - [[User:Boss1000|Boss1000]] 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.

:In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. ''As the histories will show'', Boss Man, if you care to look.

:And in ''other'' point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about ''that'', mate.

:So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!

:And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Very well put, TerryH. I might add that many Wikipedia defenders will hide behind "vandalism" to explain its [[liberal]] bias. But the 50+ examples of bias are not vandalism.

Wikipedia is a smear factory, a high-tech lynch mob. In addition to destroying people with smears and lies, Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. Wikipedia boosts its traffic for its for-profit search engine by promoting gossip and obscenity. It is worse than the National Enquirer. No thanks, I don't want anything to do with it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Adding my own two bob's worth, when Wikipedia's {{wp|Intelligent_design}} article was proposed for Featured Article status (or something like that), I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet ''many'' people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned. I even had another Wikipedian, a scientist, e-mail me and say that he disagreed with pretty well everything I stood for (regarding religion, evolution, etc.), yet he agreed with me that the article was biased, but that he had given up trying to fight the bloc of anti-ID people protecting the article. That's just one example of several that I could quote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

--

Adding to Aschflays useless comments which are unsubstantiated, why do you feel you need to change everything by creating a new deeply flawed with hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes? {{unsigned|Denzo}}
:I invite you to rewrite your comment in a less abusive manner and without the spelling and syntax mistakes of that sentence, let alone the unsubstantiated charges. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

My apologies, but what did I do wrong exactly? I'm dyslexic and to be honest I think a very good job of reaching a good level of grammer despite my limitations.

Also, speaking of 'Liberal bias' I am after seeing the Che Guevara article that he is a Liberal activist! There is such a thing of 'factual bias' trying to make something to suit your argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise Che wasn't a Liberal. He was a socialist with close ties with the Chinese regime. This is but one example of the complete hypocrysy of this site and the entire ideology you represent. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 06:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Taking your last point first, admittedly I don't have half a brain (mine is complete), but I wouldn't recognise that he wasn't a liberal, simply because I know next to nothing about him.
:But on to (slightly) more substantial points, the errors in your previous message are as follow (I've listed them all, but normally wouldn't mention most of these if they were the only error). I also accept that dyslexia may account for at least some of these:
:* "Aschflays" (a user name) is correctly spelt "ASchlafly" (I admit that I still have to look that one up most of the time).
:* "grammer" is correctly spelt "gramm'''a'''r".
:* "Aschflays useless comments" is being abusive; you could have written that more politely.
:* "...creating a deeply flawed with hundreds..." A deeply-flawed what? You've forgotten the noun that the adjectival phrase is supposed to be modifying.
:* What does "everything" refer to in "change everything"? I might ask about the evidence for the "hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes", but I guess first I'd like to know what it is that you omitted that is supposed to have all these mistakes.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, its a bit rich when I go on about grammar mistakes. That taken into account, my original point still stands, pedantary aside. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 07:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:You still haven't explained what is "deeply flawed". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fine:

<blockquote>
Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children
</blockquote>

Having spent a lot of time on wiki, and having looked up the reproductive articles, there is no pornography. Unless you consider educational diagrams pornography.

Oh right, you guys probably want to change science class because it refers to reproductive organs! I forgot! [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Denzo|Denzo]], answer me this: Since when do articles explaining in detail, ''with'' photographs, how ostensible adults (and, perhaps, teen-agers) can play "adult" kidnap games, qualify as "educational diagrams," or a fit subject for "science class"? Not to mention that the articles in question are lifted straight out of another Wiki that is ''devoted'' to that sort of sick, perverted game, and to teaching its readers how to play it!

:We weren't talking about the reproductive articles--but we ''do'' observe that the very subject of human reproductive science has of late been the subject of vandalism, with a view to the introduction of pornography. We ''also'' observe that education in that area is subject to frightful abuse, and therefore deem it best handled in the home, from parent to child.

:If you have a problem with that, then I suggest that you find another wiki--or establish one, since after all the MediaWiki software is [[free software]] and as such available free of charge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to mind it when they teach about plants reproductive organs. Not human ones though, its better to be ignorant than informed after all. Either we agree with educating children or we don't.
[[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:23, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Denzo, you still didn't explain ''what'' is "deeply flawed". Are you referring to Conservapedia itself? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. You cannot cancel a wrong and hope to make a right when you yourself go about it a wrong way. The aim is to make this place somewhere with a conservative bias. Would you prefer your children read something with any bias? I know I'd want my children to read the facts, and then make up their mind. Other people have deliberately placed bias for children to read - either it be the protocols of the learned elders of zion in Saudi Arabia or Hitlers textbooks downgrading the Jews to mere mathematical aliens. Do you realise you share a precedent with some of the most horrible regimes of the modern era? [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I would expect my children to read something with a bias, because a bias is unavoidable in many cases. But that doesn't prevent them reading the facts. You seem to think that facts and bias are mutually exclusive, but this is not necessarily so. In many cases it is impossible to present ''all'' the facts (they might even be infinite), and just the selection of which facts are presented is subject to bias. I have said before elsewhere that we have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. Do you think we should have that bias, or not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think you shouldn't. Take the homosexuality for starters. We need to decide what logic we use - the Scientific method or your pretty logic that allows you to discriminate when you feel like it - If its the former then you simply cannot, simply cannot even begin to comprehend how stupid it is to have homosexuality denounced on religious grounds.

I would rather my child read the facts about homosexuality - why people do it and what it is - rather than they read about the Bible's view. I don't care what the Bible's view and neither do the majority of the world. There are other examples, but the main reasons I decided to leave here:

*A constant unwarranted attack on the Democrats, which besides your name makes you out to be partisans.
*Che Guevara being termed as 'Liberal', I genuinly wonder if any of you know the differences between Liberalism and socialism.
*The poor quality of a lot of the articles, like [[Sparta]]
*The unbelievably humourous, yet worrying level of bias on this site, which infinitely outdo's any accidental bias wiki may or may not engage in. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 09:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:You don't agree that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness? Where do you think our bias should be then? To inaccuracy and unfairness?
:Okay, let's take homosexuality. Logic is logic; there's not such thing as "scientific logic" and "petty logic". And I don't discriminate "when I feel like it". And I don't denounce homosexuality on religious grounds. I denounce it on the grounds that the Creator of us designed us to be heterosexual. I consider that to be a fact. Do you have hard, factual, evidence that I'm wrong? I'd like to see it, rather than you simply dismiss it by labelling it as "religious".
:I would also rather my children read the facts about homosexuality, but what makes you think that what the Bible says is not factual? The fact that you don't ''care'' what the Bible says is you showing your bias, not an argument from logic or science.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? ==

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against [[Democrats]] but not against [[Republicans]], then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by [[Wikipedia]]??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:: And if the correction does not reflect bias? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>5 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>8 has been corrected. Twice.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>34 is no longer true. That said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act&diff=120080583&oldid=120073659 a version from March 3] I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>38 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>42 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>43 is no longer true; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism that article] is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>47 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>49 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>52 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>60 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of [[deceit]]. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones '''if there is a real change''' there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.

: Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense [[liberal]] bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across ''many'' articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote:
'''"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."'''-- Sir [[Winston Churchill]]
--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections ''are'' made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Number 1 ==

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the [[John Birch Society]] being a Bad Thing. [[Liberal|Some]] people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as [[Eagle Forum|some]] other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, ''The New American'' considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the ''New American'' in the criticism section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism] has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

===the facts===
User:SlimVirgin wrote:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF]

: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I was the author of''' back in March. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:
: "these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told ''The New American'', which is published by the [[John Birch Society]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9210097&oldid=9210042 diff]

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication ''The New American'' are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Number 65==

*''<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.''
:This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.

:The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which [[Jimbo Wales]] himself was aware of, stood for ''at least'' 18 months. Extracted:

::''"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including [[Chip Berlet]], resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, [[L. Fletcher Prouty]], was '''openly working with and defending [[Liberty Lobby]] and the Holocaust denial group the [[Institute for Historical Review]]''', which republished Prouty's book ''Secret Team''. '''According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing [[conspiracy theory|conspiracist]] groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist'''. <ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html]</ref>

:Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for '''citing ''Washington Post'' criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors.''' And my citation of the ''Washington Post'' criticism was adjudicated as '''a personal attack''' against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff,]which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
:#personal attack against another user
:#citing self
:#violation of BLP
:#violation of Reliable Sources
:#using a self publishing source
:#using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
:#Wikipedia is a not a battleground
:#Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
:#experts do not occupy a position of privilge
:Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=138512310 lately]? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken blatant violations of policy CP exposed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff]? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then ''all'' his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.

::The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T21:13:46Z

JonathanDrain: /* What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T19:19:53Z

JonathanDrain: /* What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? */

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-07-25T18:55:06Z

JonathanDrain: /* "arcane British royalty" */

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. [[Sodomy]] is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T15:54:21Z

JonathanDrain: /* What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T14:08:55Z

JonathanDrain: /* What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? */ moving my comment back up

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T08:28:10Z

JonathanDrain: /* What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-24T22:57:49Z

JonathanDrain: /* What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-24T22:57:08Z

JonathanDrain: /* What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? */

Talk:Liberal quotient

2007-07-24T22:48:47Z

JonathanDrain: Are these figures out of date?

What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=conservapedia.com&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=1m&size=Medium&url=conservapedia.com why no one is using this site?]

Fantastic!!
This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.

A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?

Shurely Shome mishtake?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== 80%? ==
A source for that might do nicely. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: There is a poll under journalism students suggesting that 80% have liberal opinions. I will look it up when I have time. I saw another research suggesting that journalists are socially liberal, but economically more conservative. Few oppose NAFTA, for example. So its a well-off kind of liberalism. [[User:Order]] 7 April 00:45 (AEST)

==Liberal quotient of Conservapedia==

Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(Inserted comment) I'm opposed to most [[condescension]] and nearly all [[insult]]s. Please help me develop guidelines for a standard of [[Conservapedia:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Technically, and I don't expect some people on here to understand this, I think you would have to say everyone on here is moderately liberal. We allow for the addition of material that might question our beliefs, could contribute to free and open debate. Those are classicly liberal ideas. Don't like that--go to Saudi Arabia where they aren't so liberal. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that liberals 'decorate' our project rather nicely when they aren't making sly digs. As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to stay and particapate '''as equals'''. I think some of the syosops are liberals, not that I want to [[out]] anyone.

:::But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey.

:::Any liberals who want to preserve their franchise would do well to couch their suggestions in polite terms. Any idea can be brought up, if done in (1) the right way (2) in the right venue (3) at the right time. (My talk page is always open. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Quotient will always be a subjective factor, of course. If one assigned an LQ based purely on party association, and started digging into American history a little bit, one would find Democrats who went around lynching blacks, and Republicans who went around trust busting. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: 'But if they are here to disrupt and play tricks, like the Seattle WTO protesters who provoked the police into "excessive force" just so that they could accuse 'the establishment' of 'not listening to them' then they aren't helping anyone. Serious thinkers see right throught that kind of malarkey. ' But the police still used excessive force. That is a legal fact. You keep bringing up this accusation, Ed Poor; scared?

Oh, and I've made [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_liberal_quotient_of_Conservapedia%3B_what_is_it%3F_Does_it_matter%3F this]. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Fox News ==

Quoting from article: ''Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged''

Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing as it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors?

==Formula==

I'd rather define it so that 100 percent is all Liberal, 50 percent is half and half, and 0 percent is no Liberals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Order's changes helped the article:

::The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group. <s>It is infinity if there are no [[conservative]]s.</s> A quotient of 100% corresponds a group that has as many liberals as conservatives, while a quotient below 100% means that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. The same number of conservatives and liberals will always result in the same liberal quotient, regardless of the size of other groups, such as moderates or independents. [I marked up the part I didn't like with <s>strikeout</s> formatting. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: You may not like it, but that's how it's defined in the article. If the quotient is ''ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group'', then the liberal quotient is infinity if there are no conservatives. And liberal quotient of 1 amongst news anchors means that there were equal numbers of liberals and conservatives [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 13:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't my changes help. I just tried to clarify the definition. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:00 (AEST)

:You changed the definition. I think 100% Liberal is all liberals, no conservatives; and 0% liberal is no liberals and all conservatives. Using [[infinity]] would make the quotient too cumbersome to use. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree w/ Ed. But I also think that we should present 0% as ideal. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with the fact that I changed the definition. But for the moment we can keep it like it is. [[User:Order]] 7 April, 1:10 (AEST)

:::I put this in two places, oops. Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage.

::::I just edited the article to reflect this. I hope no one minds. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mathematics ==

There are, obviously, so many flaws in this whole idea that it is hard to know where to begin. First with definitions of Lib and Cons. I suspect than many of us are not simply one or the other.
Also, if LQ=L/C then the LQ of, for instance, the Democratic Party is LQ=1000/0=undefinable.

My 2 cents, just dont make me divide them by zero.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:One thing to begin with would be to use the definition in the article itself, rather than the alternative that it tries to replace. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 21:25 (AEST)

::What do you mean? The definition in the article is liberals/conservatives, which gives an undefinable answer when there are no conservatives. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, dividing by zero is a minor problem. It has a few other problems, such as that 997 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative have the same liberal quotient, as 1 moderate, 666 liberals and 333 conservatives. To avoid dividing by zero, we can agree that the value is then infinity.
: What bothers me most is it that of all the Liberal quotients mentioned in the article none of them was computed according to the definition. And this is the article defining the liberal quotient. And if you look an this talk page, you see that few people do actually understand the definition. Most think its the fraction of liberals or something similar. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 22:45 (AEST)
::I have to agree with [[User:Order]]'s assessment. I mean, are people just making these up? That doesn't sound very useful, and it certainly undermines Conservapedia's usefulness as a source! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Why can't we have people self-identify? I know Richard tried this at one point and got into some hot water (which I won't expand on)but the underlying principle was valid--if this wiki is supposed to contain only conservative content how can we not ask people to tell us the truth about where their allegiance lies? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Self-identifying won't work, especially not on this site. Andy and his crew are so conservative that almost everyone is a liberal to them (if you don't believe me, look at Andy's posts and how everyone who disagrees with him is labeled a liberal). In most circles I'd be considered a conservative, but here I'm nothing but a dirty liberal hippie (and that's a good thing as I'd rather not be grouped with some of the wingnuts here). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Here is the "correct and useful" formula: Liberal Quotient = L/(L+C), that is, the number of identified Liberals divided by the sum of identified Liberals and Conservatives. Likewise, the CQ = C/(L+C). This results in a number from zero to one in either case, which can be expressed, as in the original definition, as a percentage. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::You changed the definition. It is now no longer consistent with the long discussion on bias in Wikipadia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Six_times.3F_Not_even_close.][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Liberal_Wikipedians_as_compared_to_conservative_Wikipedians][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#We_need_to_decide_what_this_list_is][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive5#...and_about_the_math...][[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:52 (AEST)
:::Why do you ask people to self-identify in this context? The problem is that Aschalfy first defines the liberal quotient as Liberals/Conservatives and then doesn't use it when he computes e.g. the LQ of news anchors. This is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it is a matter of math. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:25 (AEST)

== A new term coined by Conservapedia? ==

A new term coined by Conservapedia? I find that hard to believe and suspect it was infact [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] who coined the term.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The term definitely existed before. Simple google search proves that. However, I assume that the term has its own, special meaning on this site. Not sure, but it's possible. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy got a lot of comments on the way he arrived at his measure of [[Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive3#Ratio_.28again.29|Liberal bias of Wikipedia]]; one main point was that using liberal/conservatives to measure bias is confusing. Research uses typically other measures. So, Andy decided to declare his alternative way to compute bias an 'innovation'. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 8:35 (AEST)

:Is it actually possible to classify individuals as being ''absolutely'' Conservative or Liberal? With the exception of a few especially pure characters (and I salute your dedication, guys) most people are hopelessly flawed and (at best) somewhat intermediate. So to calculate the LQ of a group accurately, a method is first needed of assessing the '''Liberality''' of all individuals included in the party. Otherwise a further level of inaccuracy is necessarily introduced into the calculation.

:(As an example, although George W Bush is considered Conservative by most people, any good Conservative can see right through him to his pernicious Liberal tendencies - to call him a true Conservative is clearly erroneous, when in fact he is probably only 70-75% Conservative (Just a wild guess here on my part...).)

:If the LQ is to be a useful measure, it needs to be calculated with rigor; a roomful of right-leaning people clearly shouldn't have the same LQ as a roomful of ''true'' Conservatives, which seems to be the situation at present. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 21:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why does formula not matter?==

[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] just deleted the section on calculating the LQ and said "(formula is not the point)" in his comment. I don't see why not, especially when numbers are quoted in the last paragraph. Please justify this removal. To call something a "quotient" by definition means that some numbers are being divided. If there is a good reason to leave it out, fine. If not, I will replace it, and, if I can find good examples, add a few references. [[User:human]] 21:15, 9 April 2007 (sig added aroound 02:15, 10 Apr.)

:If you can come up with a formula as precise as [[IQ]], fine. Otherwise, please let's all stop teasing Andy about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy came up with a definition. And Human too. They were both very precise. Or do you claim otherwise? You cannot ''hide'' the defintion, just because few understand it, and few use it correctly. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 12:22 (AEST)

This article gets better and better. Now it states that the definition is not clear (which is fair enough) yet still has figures for the liberal quotient of journalists and news anchors. I guess that at least makes it clear that these numbers were more or less plucked out of thin air. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Responding to [[User:Ed Poor]] above, I have a couple of questions.

::First, and simplest, is what does any of this have to do with "teasing Andy"? I'm really lost on that one.

::Second, do you know how IQ numbers are determined? You give a large group of developmentally "equal" people (like a given grade in school, or age) a standardized test, that is set up so all of them will get some of it right, but none of them can get it all correct. Then you take the raw scores and create a transfer function to map them to a Gaussian distribution curve (bell curve). The peak of the curve is marked as "100", and the score scale is created by picking a numerical increment to be equal to each standard deviation (sigma). This is typically 15-16 points = one sigma, making it so five sigmas each way yields IQs of 20-25 and 175-180 - very rare figures indeed, since five sigmas corresponds to less than 0.0001% of the population (I forget the exact number, it's actually even smaller).

::I do think that the formula presented (which "explains" the numbers in the last paragraph exactly) is simpler. Using it, for example, on the number of self identified liberals and conservatives on wikipedia (212 vs 75 today), the LQ = 212/(212+75) = 212/287 = 73.9% or 0.739. The CQ is 75/287 = 26.1% or 0.261. The network news example starts off pre-Fox at 3 liberal and no conservatives, LQ = 3/(3+0) = 1 or 100%. You can apply this formula to any group where you have a number for each preference (i.e., registered Republicans and Democrats out of all registered voters).

::I really don't care whether or not this article makes "sense", but since it is so easy to have it make sense, why not do it? The original text just wasn't thought all the way through, as numerous mathematically astute editors have mentioned above, in an attempt to make this a better article. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Black protestants==

I'm glad to see that sterotyping is allowed here (see [[Federal Reserve]]) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:That black protestants are overwhelimingly "liberal" is actually true as this PEW report shows.[http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=174] [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 9:50 (AEST)

== Dumbest file imaginable. ==

Until there is a metric for determining the "liberal quotient" (which is not hard to come up with), it is really embarrassing (to conscientious contributors to this site, ''and'' its "owner") and stupid to offer numbers that supposedly represent the LQ of certain groups. Check my previous comments, and deleted edit of 4/9/07 AD ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_quotient&diff=96551&oldid=95997]) to see what I mean. I mean, come on. I have no problem with the ''concept'', as a bit of a geek I kind of think it's cool. But as that same geek, I think the formula should be presented. Along with more examples. [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]], I ask you, you made an accident of language in your first formulation, feathers to chickens*, we all make mistakes, it was obvious what you meant. I (and other contributors) just wanted to get it right. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Every disarming epithet I thought of to use here (heck, darn, drat, doggone) I realized were "nice" ways of using profanity, so I made up my own. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:04, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== LQ = zero ==

I know some people's palms sweat when they imagine the concept. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Innumeracy ==

As I have said, it doesn't matter to me one way or another what this article (or ''anything'' on this blog) says, '''but''', I would I would expect those publicly associated with it to strive for relatively sensible versions of their, um, version of reality. (There are precisely <s>57</s> ''six'' times as many liberals on Wp as in America!)

: No one said "precisely."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

1. The metric of "six times" depends on an incredibly small number of self-identified Wpdians.

: Not that small. Several hundred at least. Probably a higher percentage than most polls of the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Sampling error isn't significantly affected by the percentage of the population included in the sample -- a representative sample of 1000 is as reliable in the USA as it is in Monaco. The problem in this case is that it's difficult to justify the assumption that those who self identify as liberal or conservative are representative of the community of Wikipedia editors. It may well be true that there are six times as many liberal Wikipedians than conservative, but it's not statistically reasonable to conclude that from a self-selected sample such as this.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The last time I looked at Wikipedia, the same size was 274 (for conservatives + liberals). This is not a large sample. The total percent sample size is about half that for a Harris poll (that it admits that it has errors that gives that it cannot give a good confidence[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=548]), however the sample for wikipedia is self selected meaning that you cannot use it to make statistically responsible statements.[http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/2006/samp_err_stmt.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

2. In the absence of its inverse, the conservative quotient, defining the Lq is silly knee-jerk reactionism.
: It's baffling, and a bit amusing, how liberals just won't admit they are liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:: It is baffling that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] won't admit that he did bad math. He prefers to call people liberals instead, proving that he ran out of proper arguments. --[[User:Order]] 10 May.
3. Judging by what Ashfly calls "liberal" on this site, the US is about 60% or so liberal and 30% or so conservative. Leaving 10% "sheep".
: This is false and doesn't make any sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

4. An appropriate acale for a measure like this would create a middle point of "1" or "0", with a clear reflection about that point in each direction. So it should run form infinity to minus infinity, or 10 to -10, or 1 to -1. or, gee, 0 to 1.

: No, the sensible "middle point" is unity, or 1. Do you have your same objection to the scientific (Kelvin) scale for temperature?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

5. This is a really dumb article
: You didn't help your cause with that conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss amongst yourselves. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ah, the [[Parthian Shot]]. Fine, I hope you honor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I presume that means I relinquished the right to quibble with your responses. I'll honor that. if there is anything, however, that you want further comment on, feel free to ask me here or on my user talk page. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==X/X+Y==

Andy, I appreciate that you are discussing the formulation in the article. I think it adds a real measure of accountability and honesty. I have one quick comment though - X+Y is ''not'' the whole population, it is only the "self identified" portion, so it does ''not'' dilute the results with moderates. Multiplied by 100, it makes a percentage. Remembering older edits, the major networks would be at 1 (100%), (3/3+0), then came Fox - making it 75% (3/3+1).

It is a perfectly useful metric, and does not bias anything one way or another. Anything over 50% is "suspect" of liberal bias, and anything under is imbued with conservative trustworthiness (see, I didn't even get mean and say "trusworthiness" - remember who was first to point out the typo to get the logo fixed!).

Please, I ask you, run some numbers from various groups to see how it works (the formula). I think you will see that it works very nicely, and is also very clear and understandable.

Oh, and one last thing, us math geeks would tend to use L and C as the variables, for simple clarity (LQ=(L/L+C)). Using lambda and gamma would hurt our keyboards, but believe me, if it was easy, we'd use the Greek! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Who's "Liberal", anyway? ==

Are Libertarians the equivalent of the square-root of negative one in this formula? How about LaRouchites? Log Cabin Republicans? Natural Law Party activists? Tories? Bull Moosers? Anti-Masonic Revivalists? Pat Buchanan?

In a world of rainbow colors, it can be hard to decide with are "black" and which are "white". <SARCASM>Strangely, it's been my experience that no more than about 5% of Democrats actually have Mark-of-the-Beast tattoos and smell like brimstone, and only about 2% of Republicans actually have wings and a halo.</SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 03:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Gulik2 is absolutely right. See Perry (1970) 'Forms of Intellectual Development in the College Year: A scheme'. Perry says that intellectual development occurs as follows:
# 'Dualism' - a simple interpretation of the world as black/white, us/them , good/bad etc.
# 'Multiplicity'; -= an acceptance that there are different points of view and they cannot be simply labelled good/bad etc.
# 'Relativism' - requires that the different points of view are contextualiised, and that knowledge/behaviour in one context may be perfectly acceptable and correct, may not be appropriate in another.

for a source see: http://www.csub.edu/TLC/options/resources/handouts/scholarship_teaching/perrystheory.html

What occurs to me is all that if Perry is correct, with the obsession with Liberals/Conservative points of view, many contributors on this site do not seem to have developed intellectually much further than their freshman year. Hm. Think I'll write an article about this...--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Perry Theory]] for the article --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Where did "12" come from?? ==

Ed, where did your "12" come from?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:It would be informative if somebody with access to the appropriate data could calculate the LQ for Conservapedia, for purposes of comparison? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== An X for a Y, for an L, for a C ==

This article has a few problems.

#X is defined as number of liberals, and Y is defined as number of conservatives. X/(X+Y) is '''the same''' as L/(L+C). The article argues that they are different, proving that the author doesn't know how to work with variables. And it proves that the author doesn't read his own definitions.
#The criticism that a measure is between 0 and 1, shows that the critic doesn't know that such a measure is equivalent to a measure that ranges between 0 and infinity. Take for example the negative logarithm of the first measure. It just show that the author has not the faintest idea about functions over an infinite domain.
#The remark that an increase from 90% to 99% is ''just'' a 10% increase, shows that the author doesn't know how to interpreter percentages. People who do work with percentages know that the difference between 90% and 99% is an order of magnitude.
#The comparison with other metrics is flawed, because the author didn't compare it with any metric that is actually used in literature. Earlier versions of this article pointed to alternative definitions of liberal bias. None of them is mentioned.
#Finally, this article repeats the old misinformation that the ratio liberal in the wikipedia is 3:1, while it is 1:2 in the American public. It doesn't mention the sources, nor that, if you look at the sources, this comparison is based on nothing but quick sand. It just shows that the author has no idea about statistics.

As a summary, this article proves nicely that in conservapedia conservative bias is more important than facts. Even basic mathematics, which is neither liberal or conservative, is canned to make a poor argument. [[User:Order]] 10 May

I saw that Aschlafly fixed some optinionated part of the article, without actually fixing any of the fundamental flaws. I would suggest to fix the fundamental flaws first. It, for example, still argues that X/(X+Y), where X are Liberals, and Y Conservatives, is different from L/(L+C), where L stands for Liberals, and C for Conservatives. If you want to fix something, fix that first. [[User:Order]] 11 May.

== Update ==

I extended and updated the article on ''liberal quotient''. If you find typos or factual errors, please feel free to fix it. [[User:Order]] May 13.

== How conservative is the US? ==
The article says "According to a Harris Poll from 2005 [1], 40% of all Americans identify as moderates, 35% as conservatives, and 18% as liberals. This gives a liberal quotient of about 1:2. These numbers have been fairly constant during the last decades.", but according to Aschlafly, Jack Abramoff wasn't a conservative<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=158024&oldid=158009</ref>, despite his ties to Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Oliver North; his membership on G. W. Bush's transition team, etc. Rudy Giuliani made a statement held up as a "liberal falsehood of the day"<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&diff=154374&oldid=153131</ref>, so is presumably not a conservative either. Given this, it certainly doesn't appear to me that merely self-identifying as such is enough to be considered a 'conservative' for this site, and the Harris Poll shouldn't be used to determine how conservative the country is. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:You make a good point, that will go ignored here. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:17, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

this may be picky, but wouldnt' this liberal quotient be more accurately called a liberal conservative ratio? Something about this jangles the statistics part of my brain.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: That's redundant. It would be like requiring everyone to say how hot versus cold it is outside, rather than simply "how hot is it?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Not really: temperature is the correct term.
And while heat is real, cold is just the absent of heat (absence of energy).

While Conservatism and Liberalism are both real political movements: there is no reason why this couldn't be called the conservative quotient, or the liberal/conservative ratio.

Anyone ever considered that wikipedia might be more liberal than the American public, because it has a lot of non-American editors?
And despite the gossip on wikipedia, a large part of its edits are scientific/mathematical in nature, and highly educated people simply tend to be more liberal than average Joe...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: This why the liberal quotient is considered so useful. If wikipedia would have for 99.6% articles that are NPOV, for 0.3% with a liberal POV, and 0.1% articles with a conservative POV, its liberal quotient would still be 3:1. It doesn't matter how neutral Wikipedia is, as long as the biased fraction is biased towards liberals. You might argue that if Wikipedia's articles would be for 99.6% NPOV, Conservapedia would have no reason to complain, but Conservapedia thinks differently. And it should indeed be called liberal/conservative quotient, to be precise. [[User:Order]] May 16, 9:50 am (AEST)
:: If that was to be the measure, then conservapedia would have an infinite conservative quotient which means that it is also infinitely more conservative than the American populace because there are no articles that have a liberal bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Is the denominator the total number of individuals in a population or the number of non-liberals? ==

I see people don't agree on the definition of this term. When I hear the term for the first time, I imagine the denominator is the total number of individuals, which is the sum of the number of non-liberals and the number of liberals. Otherwise I'd see it as a confusing term. --[[User:Pepsi-Cola|Pepsi-Cola]] 22:44, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: The moderates add nothing to the mix. Including the moderates in the denominator results in the loss of information, as 1 liberal and 99 moderates is very different from 1 liberal and 99 conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:: Hence moderates do add to the mix. You say it yourself, it matters if there are 99 conservatives, or 99 moderates. [[User:Order]] July 3

== Are these figures out of date? ==

I followed the links in the article, and it seems there are now 81 Liberal Wikipedians and 71 Conservative Wikipedians, with 26 moderates. This reduces Wikipedia's liberal quotient from 3:1 to a mere 1.15:1. If these statistics are so prone to change, can they really be trusted? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-24T21:57:29Z

JonathanDrain: What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias?

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-07-24T19:38:13Z

JonathanDrain: /* Pathetic... */

{{unprotected|15:34, 25 March 2007|Ed Poor}}

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. [[Sodomy]] is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-07-24T19:18:10Z

JonathanDrain: /* "Like conservipedia" */

Talk:Osama Bin Laden

2007-07-24T18:58:34Z

JonathanDrain: /* Bush */

:Osama Bin Laden actually appears (uncredited) as a tribal leader in the American blockbuster ''Rambo III'' [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095956/]. This is a well-known statement, based on the presence of Rambo III filming in Afghanistan, Bin Laden's then friendliness with US interests, and the presence of a lot of extras. I think this should be included. [http://www.plp.org/misc/oblncia.html]

==Bush==

Erm - how can an article about OBL not mention George Bush?! Utter madness from the home schooled loonies [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

How is Bin Laden responsible for the 9/11/01 attack if he is not wanted for it?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=24550#wantedfor

Bin Laden has not been found guilty for the 9/11/01 attack, although he has been found guilty for other crimes. How about mentioning those (at least first) before mentioning something of which he hasn't even been convicted?
* Because [[Saddam Hussein|Saddam]] and [[the Axis of Evil]] were responsible for it. Try to keep up. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-07-02T21:06:44Z

JonathanDrain: /* Controversy and Criticism */

[[Image:WotC Dungeons Dragons.jpg|thumb|right|The 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons logo.]]
'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a role-playing game which takes place in [[magic]]al [[fantasy]] world of [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elves]], [[dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragons]]. Players undertake a series of heroic adventures or quests, following a plot controlled by one player called
the ''dungeon master'' (DM).

The game was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Most DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons and Dragons.]]
Players fight by throwing [[dice]] having 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. These dice are properly called polyhedral dice. This is important to distinguish these dice from standard six sided dice.
Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Relationship with Christianity ==

Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. Some Christians believe that such fictional depictions of practices forbidden by Scripture and mythological deities do not conflict with the player's faith provided that he does not truly believe that these things are part of real life or that their real-world equivalents should be condoned. These Christians compare the game to reading or writing a work of fiction containing these elements, such as reading about Greek mythology or writing stories involving devils as C.S. Lewis wrote [[The Screwtape Letters]]. However, other Christians disagree with this viewpoint, citing references in Scripture which prohibit witchcraft (Lev. 20:27) or the worship of false gods (Deut. 5:7).

Since the primary action of the game involves the slaying of monsters and the accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24).

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, who claims that D&D players whose characters reach a high enough level can learn to cast real magic spells.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon.

The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. However, the game rules discourage the dungeon master from allowing his players to choose evil characters, and in the current edition of the game the player is penalized experience points if he summons a demon or devil.

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons and Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus). When the drawings switched to color many years ago, topless pictures were removed.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons and Dragons DragonLance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players acted the roles of undead blood-suckers.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-07-02T18:31:23Z

JonathanDrain: /* References */

[[Image:WotC Dungeons Dragons.jpg|thumb|right|The 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons logo.]]
'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a role-playing game which takes place in [[magic]]al [[fantasy]] world of [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elves]], [[dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragons]]. Players undertake a series of heroic adventures or quests, following a plot controlled by one player called
the ''dungeon master'' (DM).

The game was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Most DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons and Dragons.]]
Players fight by throwing [[dice]] having 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. These dice are properly called polyhedral dice. This is important to distinguish these dice from standard six sided dice.
Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Relationship with Christianity ==

Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ.

Former [[United Methodist]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. Some Christians believe that such fictional depictions of practices forbidden by Scripture and mythological deities do not conflict with the player's faith provided that he does not truly believe that these things are part of real life or that their real-world equivalents should be condoned. These Christians compare the game to reading or writing a work of fiction containing these elements, such as reading about Greek mythology or writing stories involving devils as C.S. Lewis wrote [[The Screwtape Letters]]. However, other Christians disagree with this viewpoint, citing references in Scripture which prohibit witchcraft (Lev. 20:27) or the worship of false gods (Deut. 5:7).

Since the primary action of the game involves the slaying of monsters and the accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). This conflicts with the neoconservative movement, which believes in conquest by force in order to improve a nation's economy.

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, who claims that D&D players whose characters reach a high enough level can learn to cast real magic spells.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon.

Player characters are sometimes rewarded with treasure and occult powers for summoning and worshiping demons and devils (but this depends upon the dungeon master and alignment of the character - in other words it never has to occur).

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons and Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus). When the drawings switched to color many years ago, topless pictures were removed.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons and Dragons DragonLance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players acted the roles of undead blood-suckers.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-07-02T18:29:54Z

JonathanDrain: /* Relationship with Christianity */

[[Image:WotC Dungeons Dragons.jpg|thumb|right|The 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons logo.]]
'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a role-playing game which takes place in [[magic]]al [[fantasy]] world of [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elves]], [[dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragons]]. Players undertake a series of heroic adventures or quests, following a plot controlled by one player called
the ''dungeon master'' (DM).

The game was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Most DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons and Dragons.]]
Players fight by throwing [[dice]] having 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. These dice are properly called polyhedral dice. This is important to distinguish these dice from standard six sided dice.
Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Relationship with Christianity ==

Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ.

Former [[United Methodist]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. Some Christians believe that such fictional depictions of practices forbidden by Scripture and mythological deities do not conflict with the player's faith provided that he does not truly believe that these things are part of real life or that their real-world equivalents should be condoned. These Christians compare the game to reading or writing a work of fiction containing these elements, such as reading about Greek mythology or writing stories involving devils as C.S. Lewis wrote [[The Screwtape Letters]]. However, other Christians disagree with this viewpoint, citing references in Scripture which prohibit witchcraft (Lev. 20:27) or the worship of false gods (Deut. 5:7).

Since the primary action of the game involves the slaying of monsters and the accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). This conflicts with the neoconservative movement, which believes in conquest by force in order to improve a nation's economy.

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, who claims that D&D players whose characters reach a high enough level can learn to cast real magic spells.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon.

Player characters are sometimes rewarded with treasure and occult powers for summoning and worshiping demons and devils (but this depends upon the dungeon master and alignment of the character - in other words it never has to occur).

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons and Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus). When the drawings switched to color many years ago, topless pictures were removed.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons and Dragons DragonLance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players acted the roles of undead blood-suckers.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-07-02T17:52:12Z

JonathanDrain: /* The Combat System */

[[Image:WotC Dungeons Dragons.jpg|thumb|right|The 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons logo.]]
'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a role-playing game which takes place in [[magic]]al [[fantasy]] world of [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elves]], [[dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragons]]. Players undertake a series of heroic adventures or quests, following a plot controlled by one player called
the ''dungeon master'' (DM).

The game was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Most DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons and Dragons.]]
Players fight by throwing [[dice]] having 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. These dice are properly called polyhedral dice. This is important to distinguish these dice from standard six sided dice.
Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Relationship with Christianity ==

Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ.

Former [[United Methodist]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice.

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, who claims that D&D players whose characters reach a high enough level can learn to cast real magic spells.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon.

Player characters are sometimes rewarded with treasure and occult powers for summoning and worshiping demons and devils (but this depends upon the dungeon master and alignment of the character - in other words it never has to occur).

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons and Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus). When the drawings switched to color many years ago, topless pictures were removed.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons and Dragons DragonLance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players acted the roles of undead blood-suckers.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2007-07-02T17:38:22Z

JonathanDrain: /* Game play */

[[Image:WotC Dungeons Dragons.jpg|thumb|right|The 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons logo.]]
'''Dungeons and Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a role-playing game which takes place in [[magic]]al [[fantasy]] world of [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elves]], [[dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragons]]. Players undertake a series of heroic adventures or quests, following a plot controlled by one player called
the ''dungeon master'' (DM).

The game was originally published in 1974 by [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] and is now published by [[Wizards of the Coast]].<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

==Game play==

Dice of various types are used to determine outcomes. As players' characters accomplish more, they gain experience points (XP) which allow their characters to gain levels, which in turn make them more powerful and have more abilities. The DM may use a commercially-produced adventure, or may create one of his own.

The game allows players to play characters who follow one of nine different alignments; lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. The character's alignment gives a guideline for how he or she would react in some situations. Paladins, for example, are required to be of the lawful good alignment. Most DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game.

The game may include [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s which the characters may fight, use or aid as they see fit. Although the game is open-ended and allows players the freedom to choose their own actions, players are typically more likely to fight creatures they encounter than ally with them, especially if these are evil creatures.

The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) also expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. That being said, there is nothing to stop a DM from coming up with a monotheistic world in which to run his adventures. In fact, there is an unofficial published setting, ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'', that is about roleplaying in the Biblical Era. Most characters in the game worship fictional deities both as lay persons and as "clerics", a profession than any character may choose to undertake assuming their alignment matches or is close to a match with their chosen god. Clerics of these deities are granted magical powers by their chosen deity by means of which they can defeat their enemies, or heal their party members.

The game has been steadily modified and expanded since the original first edition and is now in edition 3.5.

There is now a Dungeons and Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting.

== The Magic System ==

The magic system used in Dungeons and Dragons was adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref>

== The Combat System ==
[[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons and Dragons.]]
Players fight by throwing [[dice]] having 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 sides. These dice are properly called polyhedral dice. This is important to distinguish these dice from standard six sided dice.
Rolling two 10-sided dice creates a two-digit random number for percentages, which the rules will sometimes refer to as rolling a 100-sided die.

In combat there are three different ways that a character can damage another character: melee, ranged, or magical. Attacking another Player Character (PC) is often an evil act that will get you tossed out that group, but PC-vs-PC combat is sometimes entered by mutual agreement of the players as part of a plot.

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some conservative Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. Its dangers were summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, who claims that D&D players whose characters reach a high enough level can learn to cast real magic spells.

One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon.

Player characters are sometimes rewarded with treasure and occult powers for summoning and worshiping demons and devils (but this depends upon the dungeon master and alignment of the character - in other words it never has to occur).

Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for Dungeons and Dragons often contain images of immodestly dressed women, and, in fact, in the first edition Monster Manual a number of pencil drawings were topless (such as harpy and succubus). When the drawings switched to color many years ago, topless pictures were removed.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons and Dragons DragonLance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players acted the roles of undead blood-suckers.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Games]]

2007-07-02T17:25:26Z

JonathanDrain: /* Controversy */

'''Pokémon''' is a highly successful Japanese franchise created by Satoshi Tajiri, that was introduced by [[Nintendo]] in the 1990s. The name is a [[portmanteau]] of the "Pocket Monsters", which serves as the Japanese title of the series. It spread to several other countries in a short time.

The video game was the basis for the popular children's television show, Pokémon and helped to spawn a large amount of merchandise and a successful trading card game.
To those unfamiliar with the video games, the world is explored from an aerial view, in a way similar to "[[The Legend of Zelda]]" games (also by [[Nintendo]]). The player captures wild animals called "Pokemon," using a device called a "Pokéball." Pokémon often have cutesy species names such as "Rattata", "Pidgey", "Pikachu" & "Nidoran." Pokémon are also collected in the same way some people collect [[Baseball]] cards or "[[Garbage Pail Kids]]" stickers, and catalogued in a "Pokédex." Once captured, you can battle Pokémon against wild Pokemon to either scare them away or weaken them enough to capture them with a Pokeball. Each species of Pokémon has one or two elemental "types," and during turn-based battles, certain types trump others, in a [[Rock-Paper-Scissors]] manner. The most commonly-known of these are probably the starter Pokémons' types from each version: Fire trumps Grass; Grass trumps Water; Water trumps Fire.

==Gameplay==
In every mainstream version of the handheld Pokemon games, there are eight gym leaders, as well as a group called the Elite Four that one must beat, in order to win the game. Also, every different version gives each character a rival that constantly attempts to best you in your progress throughout the game.
As you move along, stronger Pokemon and harder trainers become increasingly present, forcing the main character to quickly adapt and become stronger.

==Games==
So far, there have been fourteen mainstream Pokémon games: Red and Green first appeared in Japan, but when the franchise came to the United States, Green was replaced by Blue, due to several bugs in Green. This was known as Generation I of Pokemon. Generation I was capped off by Yellow Version, a special Pikachu edition, in which the main character recieves a Pikachu as his first Pokemon. Generation II introduced many new Pokémon in Gold and Silver, which was followed up by Crystal Version. Generation III, which also introduced new Pokémon, included Ruby and Sapphire, which was capped off by Emerald, however remakes of Red and Green, called Fire Red and Leaf Green were also released during Generation III. Pokémon is currently in Generation IV, where Diamond and Pearl are the only games that have been released yet, along with a whole string of cute, collectible beasts.

There are also many spinoff games, such as Pokemon Colosseum for the [[Nintendo 64]], in which players could put their Pokémon cartridges into special adapters and battle Pokémon in 3D. Also for the Nintendo 64 is Pokemon Snap, in which the player is a Pokémon photographer, and travels around through Pokemon's habitats and snaps photos of them. Pokemon Pinball also came out for Game Boy Color, which was a pinball game in which Pokémon could also be caught in order to fill a Pokédex.

==Controversy==
In the past, some Christian groups believed Pokemon to be Satanic. In 2000, the Vatican released an offical statement.

:''The Vatican has announced that the trading-card and computer-game versions of Pokémon are “full of inventive imagination,” have no “harmful moral side effects” and celebrate “ties of intense friendship.” Whether that extends to the TV show, His Holiness didn’t say. The New York Post, quoting a Thursday story in The Times of London, says The Vatican made its announcement on its satellite TV station, Sat2000, run by the Italian Bishops’ Conference.'' - from the New York Times

Arguments made against the game by some conservative Christians included that it used the word "evolution", that some creatures in the game could be considered to look like un-Christian creatures (snakes, dragons), that any fictional creatures not within the scope God's real-world creation must have been created by the Devil, that supernatural abilities used by creatures in the game amount to witchcraft, and that the game's Japanese origins preclude a strong Christian influence. After an episode of the Pokemon cartoon where bright flashing colours caused epileptic seizures in a number of viewers, some fundamenalist Christians blamed the seizures on evil spirits (Luke 13:11).

[[Category:Games]]
[[Category:Broadcasting]]

2007-07-02T17:18:00Z

JonathanDrain: /* Controversy */

Neo-Paganism

2007-07-02T15:40:38Z

JonathanDrain:

'''Neo-Paganism''' is a collective term for [[religion]]s such as [[Druidry]] and [[Asatru]] which attempt to recreate the pre-Christian religions of [[Europe]]. It can also refer to [[Wicca]]<ref>[http://altreligion.about.com/od/neopaga1/NeoPaganism_Druidry_and_Pagan_Recons.htm]</ref> Neo-paganism is prohibited by the Bible. It is not related to [[neoconservative|neo-conservativism]].

==References==

<div class="references-small"><references/></div>

==External links==
*[http://www.carm.org/wicca.htm] Christian site about Wicca

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Al Qaeda

2007-07-02T15:24:20Z

JonathanDrain: /* Some comments */

That State Department citation is misleading in it's title, because in reading it, it clealry answers the queastion as "no". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:The passage is "According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States" (which answers NO), and the state department citation answers NO. The title is an ambiguously worded question, and does not infer yes or no. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Can we agree that A). The USA provided funding/training to indigenous Afghan ''mujaheddin'', and that B). Bin Laden and his cronies were ''not'' indigenous ''mujaheddin'', but foreign fighters. Can this be agreed upon? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:05, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:::A) yes but this may not be the place to do it. B) Definitely. I propose we use the 9/11 Report cited as this basis for this page. That document is more/less the definitve open source account up to that time. It is very interesting reading, and ambiguos in points. We should not accept ''all'' of it as doctrinaire, but serious students could learn much from a reading of that document about government secrecy, classifications, how to read reports of this nature, and when to investigate further. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== 9-11 Report ==

Rob - if the part of the report that says that "cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khartoum as early as 1995" is citable, why is the part on page 66 saying that " . . . to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" something that has no place in this encyclopedia? It's from the exact same document, after all. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Read what your cite says; while the early cite reports on a known fact, the later does not deny facts, it only refers to an unknown--they have seen no evidence. Hence, it is inconclusive. Obviously al-Qaede operates under secrecy, and it is '''very well known''' of America's intelligence incompetence, and failures. To include that reference from the 9/11 Report, implying a conclusion of no relationship, is false and misleading. In the immortal words on Don Rumsfeld, "There are things that we know, there are things that we don't know, and there are things that we don't know that we don't know". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

==Some comments==

Ok, some comments. This is the al-Qeade entry, it is not the [[9/11]] entry, nor the [[Incompetence of US Intelligence Community]] entry, nor the [[Criticism of the Bush administration and neo-con agenda]] entry. The value of the 9/11 Report gives us what studied movements and contacts of al-Qeada are known to US intelligence agencies, and the citations that are either (a) accessible through [[FOIA]], or (b) remain classified. Also, the compilers of the Report were required by law to maintain operational integrity of on-going intelligence operations, i.e. the identity of sources. (Also, we must assume or allow for the plausibility that some sources and/or documents were withheld from the 9/11 Report). So, the value of the Report as it pertains to this article simply gives us a very thorough picture of al-Qaeda operations and movements ''that were known'' to (a) US Intelligence, and (b) made public through this report. PERIOD.

It is not possible to make any claims of "conclusions", etc. because of the gapping holes that the Report itself admits exists. Therefore, when the Report uses phrasing such as, "there is no evidence", this DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING in the way of expunging or excusing or rehabilitating or denying or ANYTHING. It is simply an area where either (a) information does not exist because an event never occurred, or (b) we are waiting for the discovery of information, or (c) the event occurred but will never be known.

So, to attempt to make this article into some sort of criticism of policy will not happen. This is an article about al-Qeade, and what is known of its history. PERIOD. It is not a disguised vehicle for criticism of policymakers & intelligence failures. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

* To settle the controversy and prevent another edit war, I'd like to determine the veracity of the statement made by the previous editor: ''"Although friendly contacts between Iraqis and Bin Laden continued, the Report determined that there was no evidence of any operational cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11."'' Is this statement true, or false? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:*The report did not make a determination. If you feel the report is being misread, please cite the page and passage where a "determination" was made. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::* So the word "determination" appears to be the sticking point. Is it thus the case that the Report merely found no evidence of operational cooperation, a statement which does not preclude the existence of operational cooperation having taken place in secret? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:22, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*I think you have the idea; to simply say "the official report found no evidence..." is misleading for possibly two reasons, (a) incompetence of the report investigators; and (b) withheld information. Either way, the report ''does not'' preclude complicity, as is often how its misquoted. So we need a simple, straight forward narration of facts, which the Report gives, yet is still not detminative in certain areas. While it is perhaps the best guide we can use, on the hand, we can not give what still may be accomplices a clean bill of health, based upon the Report. The Report does not do so, it only says, 'we don't know'. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::::*Interesting. Are there other instances where the 9/11 commission is widely considered by experts to have been written by incompetents, or it is considered likely that information has been withheld, perhaps due to it being classified? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Wait what ==

This article says at the top, "This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!" However, the page is currently locked! How are we supposed to expand the article if it's locked? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:It's unprotected now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Al Qaeda

2007-07-02T15:20:39Z

JonathanDrain: /* Wait what */

That State Department citation is misleading in it's title, because in reading it, it clealry answers the queastion as "no". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:The passage is "According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States" (which answers NO), and the state department citation answers NO. The title is an ambiguously worded question, and does not infer yes or no. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Can we agree that A). The USA provided funding/training to indigenous Afghan ''mujaheddin'', and that B). Bin Laden and his cronies were ''not'' indigenous ''mujaheddin'', but foreign fighters. Can this be agreed upon? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:05, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:::A) yes but this may not be the place to do it. B) Definitely. I propose we use the 9/11 Report cited as this basis for this page. That document is more/less the definitve open source account up to that time. It is very interesting reading, and ambiguos in points. We should not accept ''all'' of it as doctrinaire, but serious students could learn much from a reading of that document about government secrecy, classifications, how to read reports of this nature, and when to investigate further. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== 9-11 Report ==

Rob - if the part of the report that says that "cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khartoum as early as 1995" is citable, why is the part on page 66 saying that " . . . to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" something that has no place in this encyclopedia? It's from the exact same document, after all. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Read what your cite says; while the early cite reports on a known fact, the later does not deny facts, it only refers to an unknown--they have seen no evidence. Hence, it is inconclusive. Obviously al-Qaede operates under secrecy, and it is '''very well known''' of America's intelligence incompetence, and failures. To include that reference from the 9/11 Report, implying a conclusion of no relationship, is false and misleading. In the immortal words on Don Rumsfeld, "There are things that we know, there are things that we don't know, and there are things that we don't know that we don't know". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

==Some comments==

Ok, some comments. This is the al-Qeade entry, it is not the [[9/11]] entry, nor the [[Incompetence of US Intelligence Community]] entry, nor the [[Criticism of the Bush administration and neo-con agenda]] entry. The value of the 9/11 Report gives us what studied movements and contacts of al-Qeada are known to US intelligence agencies, and the citations that are either (a) accessible through [[FOIA]], or (b) remain classified. Also, the compilers of the Report were required by law to maintain operational integrity of on-going intelligence operations, i.e. the identity of sources. (Also, we must assume or allow for the plausibility that some sources and/or documents were withheld from the 9/11 Report). So, the value of the Report as it pertains to this article simply gives us a very thorough picture of al-Qaeda operations and movements ''that were known'' to (a) US Intelligence, and (b) made public through this report. PERIOD.

It is not possible to make any claims of "conclusions", etc. because of the gapping holes that the Report itself admits exists. Therefore, when the Report uses phrasing such as, "there is no evidence", this DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING in the way of expunging or excusing or rehabilitating or denying or ANYTHING. It is simply an area where either (a) information does not exist because an event never occurred, or (b) we are waiting for the discovery of information, or (c) the event occurred but will never be known.

So, to attempt to make this article into some sort of criticism of policy will not happen. This is an article about al-Qeade, and what is known of its history. PERIOD. It is not a disguised vehicle for criticism of policymakers & intelligence failures. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

* To settle the controversy and prevent another edit war, I'd like to determine the veracity of the statement made by the previous editor: ''"Although friendly contacts between Iraqis and Bin Laden continued, the Report determined that there was no evidence of any operational cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11."'' Is this statement true, or false? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:*The report did not make a determination. If you feel the report is being misread, please cite the page and passage where a "determination" was made. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::* So the word "determination" appears to be the sticking point. Is it thus the case that the Report merely found no evidence of operational cooperation, a statement which does not preclude the existence of operational cooperation having taken place in secret? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:22, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*I think you have the idea; to simply say "the official report found no evidence..." is misleading for possibly two reasons, (a) incompetence of the report investigators; and (b) withheld information. Either way, the report ''does not'' preclude complicity, as is often how its misquoted. So we need a simple, straight forward narration of facts, which the Report gives, yet is still not detminative in certain areas. While it is perhaps the best guide we can use, on the hand, we can not give what still may be accomplices a clean bill of health, based upon the Report. The Report does not do so, it only says, 'we don't know'. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Wait what ==

This article says at the top, "This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!" However, the page is currently locked! How are we supposed to expand the article if it's locked? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:It's unprotected now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

User:JonathanDrain

2007-07-02T00:10:24Z

JonathanDrain: New page: Nothing to see here. Move along.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-07-01T23:46:31Z

JonathanDrain: /* Censorship in Wikipedia */

{{unprotected|15:34, 25 March 2007|Ed Poor}}

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-07-01T22:50:57Z

JonathanDrain: /* This article is a travesty */

{{unprotected|15:34, 25 March 2007|Ed Poor}}

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-07-01T22:38:18Z

JonathanDrain: /* Neutrality */

{{unprotected|15:34, 25 March 2007|Ed Poor}}

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Al Qaeda

2007-07-01T22:23:00Z

JonathanDrain: /* Some comments */

That State Department citation is misleading in it's title, because in reading it, it clealry answers the queastion as "no". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:The passage is "According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States" (which answers NO), and the state department citation answers NO. The title is an ambiguously worded question, and does not infer yes or no. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Can we agree that A). The USA provided funding/training to indigenous Afghan ''mujaheddin'', and that B). Bin Laden and his cronies were ''not'' indigenous ''mujaheddin'', but foreign fighters. Can this be agreed upon? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:05, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:::A) yes but this may not be the place to do it. B) Definitely. I propose we use the 9/11 Report cited as this basis for this page. That document is more/less the definitve open source account up to that time. It is very interesting reading, and ambiguos in points. We should not accept ''all'' of it as doctrinaire, but serious students could learn much from a reading of that document about government secrecy, classifications, how to read reports of this nature, and when to investigate further. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== 9-11 Report ==

Rob - if the part of the report that says that "cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khartoum as early as 1995" is citable, why is the part on page 66 saying that " . . . to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" something that has no place in this encyclopedia? It's from the exact same document, after all. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Read what your cite says; while the early cite reports on a known fact, the later does not deny facts, it only refers to an unknown--they have seen no evidence. Hence, it is inconclusive. Obviously al-Qaede operates under secrecy, and it is '''very well known''' of America's intelligence incompetence, and failures. To include that reference from the 9/11 Report, implying a conclusion of no relationship, is false and misleading. In the immortal words on Don Rumsfeld, "There are things that we know, there are things that we don't know, and there are things that we don't know that we don't know". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

==Some comments==

Ok, some comments. This is the al-Qeade entry, it is not the [[9/11]] entry, nor the [[Incompetence of US Intelligence Community]] entry, nor the [[Criticism of the Bush administration and neo-con agenda]] entry. The value of the 9/11 Report gives us what studied movements and contacts of al-Qeada are known to US intelligence agencies, and the citations that are either (a) accessible through [[FOIA]], or (b) remain classified. Also, the compilers of the Report were required by law to maintain operational integrity of on-going intelligence operations, i.e. the identity of sources. (Also, we must assume or allow for the plausibility that some sources and/or documents were withheld from the 9/11 Report). So, the value of the Report as it pertains to this article simply gives us a very thorough picture of al-Qaeda operations and movements ''that were known'' to (a) US Intelligence, and (b) made public through this report. PERIOD.

It is not possible to make any claims of "conclusions", etc. because of the gapping holes that the Report itself admits exists. Therefore, when the Report uses phrasing such as, "there is no evidence", this DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING in the way of expunging or excusing or rehabilitating or denying or ANYTHING. It is simply an area where either (a) information does not exist because an event never occurred, or (b) we are waiting for the discovery of information, or (c) the event occurred but will never be known.

So, to attempt to make this article into some sort of criticism of policy will not happen. This is an article about al-Qeade, and what is known of its history. PERIOD. It is not a disguised vehicle for criticism of policymakers & intelligence failures. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

* To settle the controversy and prevent another edit war, I'd like to determine the veracity of the statement made by the previous editor: ''"Although friendly contacts between Iraqis and Bin Laden continued, the Report determined that there was no evidence of any operational cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11."'' Is this statement true, or false? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:*The report did not make a determination. If you feel the report is being misread, please cite the page and passage where a "determination" was made. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::* So the word "determination" appears to be the sticking point. Is it thus the case that the Report merely found no evidence of operational cooperation, a statement which does not preclude the existence of operational cooperation having taken place in secret? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:22, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== Wait what ==

This article says at the top, "This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!" However, the page is currently locked! How are we supposed to expand the article if it's locked? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:It's unprotected now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)