Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession

2008-02-17T21:51:19Z

LutherBifteck:

'''Liberal celebrity obsession''' is the phenomenon of obessions over the lives of celebrities which is demonstrated mainly by individuals with [[liberal]] political leanings.

== Media ==
Liberal celebrity obsession can be observed on most [[mainstream media]] outlets. Often the media will prioritize trivial [[celebrity]] activities over events with legitimate importance.

'''Some examples include''':
*Excessive coverage of [[Paris Hilton]]'s jail sentence.
*Excessive coverage of [[Anna Nicole Smith]] and the liberal media's attempt at making her the next [[Marilyn Monroe]].
*Excessive coverage of [[Britney Spears]]' personal life.

Liberals will often listen to the testimony of a celebrity such as [[Sheryl Crow]]<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101385_pf.html Saving the Earth: The Biodiesel Bus Blog]</ref> or [[Leonardo DiCaprio]]<ref>[http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/dicaprio.htm Leonardo DiCaprio to Produce Documentary on Global Warming]</ref> when discussing matters such as [[Global Warming]].

== Entertainment ==

Publications such as [[tabloid]]s and [[Entertainment Tonight]] garner most of their audience from the liberal population.{{fact}} With this support, these enterprises are allowed to exist because they cater to the liberal appetite.

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

[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Media]]

Talk:Liberal hate speech

2008-01-26T18:14:51Z

LutherBifteck: nvm

== Examples ==
How is Limbaugh a person with disabilities? And how is hating Ann Coulter the same as hating women? I hate many men, but I don't hate men as a concept. Seems [[deceit|deceitful]] overgeneralization to me.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 18:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
#deaf
#drug addicted (per ADA); incidentally, Limbuagh did not become drug addicted by use of street drugs, the physicians over-perscribed medication; this is a serious question some people have about modern medical ethics.
#back surgery which led to the drug addiction
#persistent weight problem. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:00, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not defending the liberals attacks on Coulter, mind you, but it seems to me that it's not hate speech. I read over your homosexuality articles, and you seem to agree with me that people have an overbroad definition of what constitutes a hate crime, and hate speech. However, this article is guilty of the same overgeneralization! In your own words, speaking out against a gay man isn't hate speech; just so, speaking out against a woman isn't hate speech against women. Would you like me to correct this article accordingly?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:For the time being, for the most part we have examples of hate speech directed against individual persons, and not necessarily against broad groups. But it's still hate speech. And I will produce enough evidence to fit the broader defintition. Likewise, we will not let go unexamined the regular 'class hate' liberals & communists employ. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:00, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, most of what has been directed towards Coulter is indeed hate speech. They seek to apply false motives to her words, then repeat forever those falsification until people cannot tell what is false and what isn't, like the "Faggot" and "Jersey Girls" incidents. It is an organized leftist plan to marginalize and discredit her.

Definitions of Hate speech on the Web:

* type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.
www.historycentral.com/Civics/H.html

* Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:49, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

TK, I fixed your erroneous tabbing. But you miss the critical point: such speech must be ''because of'' race, ethnicity, etc., not just incidentally related to such traits. By your definition, saying "homosexuality is a sin" would be hate speech. That's a result that neither of us want.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't a Court of Law, Baruch. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:13, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Nor is it, apparently, a court of reason. I'm fighting a losing battle, so I'll go back to contributing. I'm here for the class, anyways, but maybe you guys should take some time to look over your reasoning.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 17:28, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*That won't be necessary. Godspeed, Baruch, Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:49, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Hate Against Women ==

How can you justify this entry:

In August 2007, Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards viciously attacked social commentator Ann Coulter, calling the petite embodiment of women's aspirations for equality in the marketplace of ideas a "she-devil"

When Ann has been quoted as saying:

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
[[User:PastafarianBeliver|PastafarianBeliver]] 12:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== This is all the Liberal Hate Speech they could find? ==

When you consider the stuff that comes out of Conservative Mouths every day about every minority in existence (Including the ones listed on this site), it really makes you wonder why they even bothered making this page. {{unsigned|Sirreality}}

Talk:Liberal hate speech

2008-01-26T18:11:46Z

LutherBifteck:

Talk:Liberal hate speech

2008-01-26T18:10:39Z

LutherBifteck: Liberal Race Baiting

In God We Trust

2008-01-21T00:19:26Z

LutherBifteck:

'''"In God We Trust"''' is the slogan found on all American currency.

The phrase was first authorized for American coins in 1864, and first imprinted on them in 1866.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml|work=U.S. Treasury|title=Fact Sheet on the History of 'In God We Trust'|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref>

For nearly 150 years [[United States dollar coins]] included this motto on one flat side of the coin, but in 2007 the new [[United States dollar coins|George Washington dollar coin]] includes this motto only in small print on the ''edge'' of the coin.

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:United States]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-11-09T00:46:33Z

LutherBifteck:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::'''"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"'''
:: Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced [[politically correct]] speech and nothing more. I ''never'' heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a [[pagan]] writer openly hostile to the [[Christian]] basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a [[neologism]]. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of [[multiculturalism]] and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:" 'C.E.' is a [[neologism]]." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

::This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, [[Gay]] should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to [[happiness]] and [[homosexuality]] as well as things like [[Enola Gay]]. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to [[strange]] and [[homosexuality]], again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a [[politically correct]] "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in '''the second sentence''' and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
:::Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: ''"and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual"'' ?!? No, men who have sex with men is the very definition of homosexuality. I think what you mean here is it includes men who don't wrap themselves in the dominant "gay culture", to wit: rainbow flags, gay pride parades, drag shows, calling each other 'honey', feminine mannerisms and lispy speech, over the top campy attitude, obsession with divas, preference for Abba and the Pet Shop Boys over, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hank Williams Jr., strong propensity toward mocking Christianity and treating it as something ridiculous, and obsessive identity politics and political correctness. Doesn't matter. If a man is having sex with another man he is, ''by definition'', a homosexual. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 07:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before [[The Lord]]! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by [[Wikipedia]] politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't [[homosexual]]". This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.

A "[[homosexual act]]" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born [[kleptomaniac]]", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...

:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:

:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Please note that I did not mean ''should be locked up'' to be taken literally. Someday, when I'm running for Senate, this quote will be used against me. *sigh* I should have said ''bears the guilt'' instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Glad to hear you say that. Remember, locking up homosexuals has been tried before. I can think of one notorious example.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no

:This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_Christian_Edition&oldid=162397757 here]. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to [[GLAAD]] the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alkivar#MY_ADMITTED_BIASES user page], he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::: You are saying that he gave money to further the [[homosexual agenda]] and he is somehow conservative? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even '''one''' issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox [[conservative]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
*I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-11-09T00:46:10Z

LutherBifteck: #2 (Prodigal Son)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-24T04:59:53Z

LutherBifteck: /* #26 - (lack of) math proofs */

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

==The center of the world==

Sorry to tell you this, but USA are NOT the center of the world.

"About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." " ...

What a joke. Wikipedia is not to be read or written only by americans.
[[User:Proutgirl|Proutgirl]] 09:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

: Thanks for proving my point. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

Aren't all of the groups on Wikipedia self-selected samples? Doesn't that mean that any statistics you use when referring to Wikipedians things to be taken with a grain of salt, if not entirely irrelevant? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 15:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ratio (again) ==

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.

source:
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070313_pollresults.pdf

Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

::So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
:::*The PLO was considered "the richest of all [[terrorist organizations]]" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "[[donation]]s, [[extortion]], payoffs, illegal [[Arms industry|arms dealing]], [[drug trafficking]], [[money laundering]], [[fraud]], etc.", according to a 1993 [[National Criminal Intelligence Service]] report. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.<ref>Rachel Ehrenfeld, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_54/ai_88990523 And a Thief, Too: Yasser Arafat takes what he likes], ''National Review'', [[July 29]], [[2002]]. Accessed online 5 December 2006.</ref>

::::Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 1:50 (AEST)

: I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_People Turkish people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people Greek people], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People Finnish people], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_people Norwegian people]. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Palestinian_Children_in_Hebron.jpg these], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Palestinian_children_in_Jenin.jpg three], [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Palestinian_family_in_Yanoon.jpg images].? [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."

: But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The term 'Terrorist' is a subjective one. The persons we may consider Terrorists are considered Freedom Fighters by others. This distinction is due to a different point of view. Citing Al Quaeda attacks on civilian targets should be enough to implicate them as a terrorist organization, without explicitly stating it. This is not just the safe route, it's the route that best respects the viewpoints of others. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:45, 21 March 2007 (CST)
we don't care about respecting the viewpoints of others here. That is what wikipedia is for. This my freind is a glorified blog in wiki clothing. Consider this the safe haven for the radical right. I only wish they owners of this site would stop pretending to be conservative. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias ==

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither [[Liberal]] nor [[Conservative]]. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

''One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.''

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

''A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.''

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

''Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).''

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

''It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.''

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

''I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.''

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.''

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

''Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.''

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

''One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.''

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

''There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.''

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

''There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.''

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

''Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...''

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

''Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.''

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

''If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.''

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

''Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.''

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

''It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.''

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

''You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.''

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

''If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.''

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

''Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.''

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

''You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.''

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

''What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.''

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

''There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.''

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add:
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]
from number 7
Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

==Downright Untruth==
Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

:: OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --[[User:Transfinite|Transfinite]] 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Talk:Uncensored:Stephen_Schwartz#Legal_threats] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.
:Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
::Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
{{QuoteBox|MediaWiki is a free software wiki package '''originally written for Wikipedia'''. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.}}
::Just pointing it out... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: "originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
::::*"In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia]
::::*"MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki]
::::*"Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction]
::::So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.

:::::MediaWIki is open source '''software,''' licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation ''encourages'' it, it's a big win-win.
:::::The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
:::::The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
:::::Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
:::::While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use '''content''' from Wikipedia (by the way:
::::::'''it is absolutely CHURLISH''' not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous '''gift''' in the form of the Mediawiki software.
:::::Fair is fair. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==CE is not an example of bias==
I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Mathematics==
Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Request==
1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. [[User:TheJesus|TheJesus]] 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative does not = Christian ==

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? '''Habsburg''', for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

:: it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Paged Locked ==

Can't fix this up, but [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia] should be replaced with [[Main Page|Conservapedia]]. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 09:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Israel News Agency==
Example #2 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

<nowiki>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html </nowiki>

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful.

<nowiki> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshiplibelslanderisrael880512.html </nowiki> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Just going to the top level domain, trying "search" with "Passover" yielded no results other than adverts. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== #26 - (lack of) math proofs ==

"Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[35] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia."

Browsing through [[Category:Mathematics]], I see a large number of advanced number theory topics that fail to have the elementary proofs with them. If this is to be a criticism of wikipedia, it would be best to start with the basics proofs here and work up to the more complex areas of group and set theory. Alternatively, this criticism could be removed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The criticism is clear: Wikipedia failed to recognize the important concept of the elementary proof, until Conservapedia highlighted this bias here. That's the criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bias against... elementary proofs, right?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 00:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The Right Brothers

2007-03-20T00:51:33Z

LutherBifteck:

Yknow, political views aside, a love song to Ann Coulter is just gross.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 20:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Seconded.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T02:24:01Z

LutherBifteck:

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

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

== Ratio (again) ==

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from is speculative at best. A non-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example. In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a selfselected data, with your approach to fractional math can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia|Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s| Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to difine liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to campare is percentage of liberals in America, vs the percentage if liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
::<blockquote>''"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."''</blockquote>
::Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, biased against who?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T02:23:52Z

LutherBifteck:

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T02:14:52Z

LutherBifteck:

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T02:14:42Z

LutherBifteck:

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

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

== Ratio (again) ==

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from is speculative at best. A non-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example. In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a selfselected data, with your approach to fractional math can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia|Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s| Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to difine liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to campare is percentage of liberals in America, vs the percentage if liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T02:06:56Z

LutherBifteck:

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

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

== Ratio (again) ==

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from is speculative at best. A non-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example. In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a selfselected data, with your approach to fractional math can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia|Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s| Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to difine liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to campare is percentage of liberals in America, vs the percentage if liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone.

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T02:04:01Z

LutherBifteck:

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

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

== Ratio (again) ==

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from is speculative at best. A non-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example. In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a selfselected data, with your approach to fractional math can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia|Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s| Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to difine liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to campare is percentage of liberals in America, vs the percentage if liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Face of Terror: Basque ETA? ==

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist#Perpetrators terrorism.] Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include [[Al-Qaeda]], Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical [[Muslims]]. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: ''Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA.'' How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T01:26:54Z

LutherBifteck:

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T01:23:38Z

LutherBifteck:

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

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

== Ratio (again) ==

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from is speculative at best. A non-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example. In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a selfselected data, with your approach to fractional math can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia|Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s| Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to difine liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to campare is percentage of liberals in America, vs the percentage if liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. (Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users...) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T01:23:17Z

LutherBifteck:

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

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

:::There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

== Ratio (again) ==

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::* First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from is speculative at best. A non-no in statistics 101.
::::* What raw data can do shows this example. In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
::::* You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
::::* You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament '''six time more liberal than American public''' compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
::::* What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
::::What raw data from a selfselected data, with your approach to fractional math can do was demonstarted in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#New_Jersey_bias_in_Wikipedia|Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive2#Wikipedia_biased_towards_Erd.C5.91s| Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians]. Talking about fun statistics. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to difine liberal bias.

* You say '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.'''.
* This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
* The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
* What you need to campare is percentage of liberals in America, vs the percentage if liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --[[User:Order|Order] 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)

== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
{{QuoteBox|Hebrew (Genesis) Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.}}
:And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. (Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users...) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? Dictionary.com defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.

:What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who ''don't'' believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."

== Palestinian people on Wikipedia ==

The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people Palestinian people] screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] list. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T00:33:31Z

LutherBifteck: Expanding.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-18T00:25:07Z

LutherBifteck: Re: #6 (Great Flood)

United States of America

2007-03-18T00:13:58Z

LutherBifteck:

The '''United States of America''' (commonly referred to as The United States) was founded in on July 4, 1776 with the signing of the [[Declaration of Independence]]. It is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations in the world. [[George Washington]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], and other [[Founding Fathers]] formally established the United States by the ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788 A.D. Since the presidency of [[John Quincy Adams]] the United States has been governed by one of two [[political parties]] in a [[republic]] increasingly tending towards [[democracy]] as the [[franchise]] has expanded. The younger of the two existing major parties, the [[Republican Party]], was created in 1854. Between independence in 1776 and ratification of the [[Constitution]] in 1788, the United States' governing documents included the [[Articles of Confederation]] and the [[Declaration of Independence]] itself.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs are notoriously unclear. Some Christians argue that most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution, and therefore prayer in school is unconstitutional. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States. At that time, the most significant minorities were probably the [[Mormons]], the [[Roman Catholics]], and the [[Jews]].

==Geography==

In 1783, when the [[Peace of Paris]] concluded hostilities against [[Great Britain]], the former [[colonial power]], the United States' population totaled some three million [[citizens]] and [[slaves]] living on slightly less than one million square miles of land. An unknown number of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the western part of the United States, which was then bordered on the west by the [[Mississippi River]], on the north by [[Lake Superior]], [[Lake Huron]], [[Lake Erie]] and [[Lake Ontario]], on the east by the [[Atlantic Ocean]], and on the south by [[Florida]], then controlled by [[Spain]]. The land border with [[Canada]] was not clarified until the [[Rush-Bagot Agreement]] of 1816.

The majority of the taxable population lived in the thirteen original [[states]]. In alphabetical order they are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital from 1800 on. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]]. Two additional states were added during the first fifty years by [[secession]] from existing states: [[Vermont]] from New York, and [[Maine]] from Massachusetts. After that, the legality of [[secession]] became an issue.

In 1803, [[French]] emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper.

[[Florida]] and [[Texas]] joined the United States as a result of [[revolutions]] by settlers from the United States against their central governments. Florida's was fought in 1810, while the much better remembered [[Texas Revolution]] was fought in 1836. While Spain was willing to cut its losses in Florida and relinquished any claims on the state in the [[Adams-Oniz Agreement]] of 1819, one of the successors to its empire in the Americas, [[Mexico]], was considerably more attached to Texas and fought the [[Mexican War]] between 1846 and 1848 to reverse its annexation by the United States. Losing badly, Mexico was forced to cede the sparsely populated northern portion of itself under the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]]. This territory eventually became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. At approximately the same time, [[President]] [[James K. Polk]] had agreed with the British that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and Canada from [[Lake of the Woods]] (partially in Minnesota) to the [[Pacific Ocean]]. This territory was later organized as the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].

In 1867, [[Secretary of State]] [[William Seward]] pulled off the only major success of the [[Andrew Johnson]] administration by purchasing [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. Alaska is the westernmost extremity of [[North America]] bounded on the east by Canada, on the south by the Pacific Ocean, on the west by the [[Bering Strait]] and on the north by the [[Arctic Ocean]]. At $7,000,000, Alaska cost the United States considerably less per acre than the [[Mexican Cession]] and slightly less than the Louisiana Territory. Of course, [[inflation]] was less of a factor at this time due to the world [[economy]] still being principally [[agrarian]]. Alaska would not be admitted as a state until 1959.

The 50th and so far final state, [[Hawaii]], was admitted in 1960, 67 years after other American settlers deposed the last [[queen]] of the archipelago and 62 years after annexation had become politically feasible as a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], in which the United States also annexed [[Puerto Rico]], [[Guam]] and [[Wake Island]]. The last three islands are not states, although [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held non-binding [[referenda]] to express its desired status within the United States.

The United States has occasionally relinquished territory. The most significant example of this was certainly the granting of independence in 1946 to the [[Phillipines]] as part of the general [[decolonization]] of [[Asia]] and [[Africa]] following [[World War II]]. Under both [[autocratic]] and [[democratic]] governments, the Phillipines have subsequently remained a strong American ally, and today contribute more troops to the U. S. [[military]] than some states. Other Pacific territories such as the [[Federated States of Micronesia]] and [[Palau]] have also become independent in the postwar era with little objection from opinion leaders on the mainland. More controversial was the 1977 agreement between President [[Jimmy Carter]] and [[General]] [[Omar Torrijos]] to return the [[Panama Canal Zone]], which had been part of the United States since 1914, to [[Panama]] in the year 2000. Ultimately the United States lived up to this agreement despite the worst fears of both [[liberals]] (who decried [[Operation Just Cause]], the 1989 invasion of Panama) and [[conservatives]] (who feared the management of the [[Panama Canal]] by [[Chinese]] interests).

[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-17T20:28:56Z

LutherBifteck:

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-17T20:28:49Z

LutherBifteck: