Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ten Commandments

2007-11-28T15:34:45Z

Monotreme:

{{Christianity}}
[[Image:Bdytey.jpg|right|thumb|[[Moses]] with the Ten Commandments by Rembrandt (1659)]]
The '''Ten Commandments,''' or the ''Decalogue,'' are a set of laws which were given to [[Moses]] by [[God]].

There are [[Alleged Bible contradictions|two versions]], generally similar but somewhat different in wording: [[Exodus]] 20:3-17 and [[Deuteronomy]] 5:6-21. The version in Deuteronomy adds the detail of Moses saying that [[Yahweh|God]] "delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God." (KJV)

The Bible itself refers to there being "''ten'' commandments" in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, but it is not clear how to parcel out the fifteen or sixteen verses into ten commandments, and different religious groups have done this in different ways. For example, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" (KJV - see below) are sometimes considered to be two different commandments and sometimes as two parts of the same commandment.

[[Protestant]]s assign the Fifth Commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother," but in [[Catholic]] texts this is the Fourth Commandment.<ref>An atheistic website provides a comparison among faiths with respect to the Ten Commandments, and many sources: http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm</ref> The Jewish tradition is to call that requirement the Fifth Commandment.

However, as Jewish people would also recognize, the ''[[Torah]]'', or [[Law]] (the first five books of the Old Testament) actually contains not ten, but 613 positive and negative commandments. Thus, when [[Jesus]] is asked (at [[Matthew]] 22:34-36) which is the greatest commandment in the Law, he picks two of the other 603: 'You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength' (Deuteronomy 6:5) and 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' ([[Leviticus]] 19:18).

== King James Version (KJV) ==

#I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
#Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
#Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
#Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
#Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
#Thou shalt not kill. (Hebrew ''ratsach'', to kill, slay or murder)
#Thou shalt not commit [[adultery]].
#Thou shalt not steal.
#Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
#Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

==The Ten Commandments in US law==

In several controversies over the legality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, and especially outside courthouses, the influence of the Ten Commandments on US law becomes relevant as proponents of the displays argue that these commandments form part of the foundation of the US legal system.

1. Some official U.S. documents accept the existence of God, although there is no specifics in U.S. law as to who this God is, and the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution is interpreted as opposing any attempt to impose the belief or non-belief in God.

2. Similarly, the First Amendment forbids any legal means of enforcing the commandment about not worshipping idols.

3. Nothing in current state or federal law specifically prohibits the taking in vain of God's name in general, but it may be in violation of broadcast decency laws if shown on television or radio.

4. Past state laws have enforced the [[sabbath]] by forbidding various activities, such as the sale of specific goods, on Sundays. These, however, are all almost now repealed or struck down. Closure of shops on Sundays is by convention, but not legally enforced. However, some states still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays. The seven-day week, however, is accepted world-wide, and most people observe at least one day free from work.

5. No law enforces the commandment about honoring parents, and it is doubtful that it could be enforced.

6. The commandment against murder is enforced by U.S. law.

7. Adultery is not a criminal offense, but it will influence civil divorce proceedings and affect the distribution of assets. Jesus clarified the definition of adultery, for instance in Matthew 8:27-32, to include remarriage after divorce in most cases. Until recently, most states other than Nevada outlawed divorce for this reason. Today most states and many Christian denominations define adultery in a narrow way to allow remarriage after divorce, contrary to Jesus' law. Many Christians believe that this commandment, which forbids adultery,<ref>"voluntary sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife or by a married woman with another than her husband"—Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1934</ref> also forbids fornication.<ref>"illicit sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person; the act of such illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman as does not by law amount to adultery" [op. cit.]</ref>

8. The commandment against stealing is enforced by U.S. law.

9. When used during litigation, or otherwise spoken under oath (see [[perjury]]), the commandment against bearing false witness is enforced by U.S. law. For someone to bear false witness against a neighbor in a less formal setting (e.g. lying to a third party about a neighbor in the course of private conversation) could, in some circumstances, be a [[tort]], but rarely a crime.

10. As a prohibition on a form of thought, the commandment against coveting what belongs to another cannot be enforced by legal means.

==The movie==
''The Ten Commandments'' is also the title of a famous 1956 motion picture, produced and directed by [[Cecil B. DeMille]] and starring [[Charlton Heston]] as Moses. It tells the story of Moses essentially as told in the Book of Exodus, with a few changes.

As publicity for the film, and in conjunction with a project of the [[Fraternal Order of Eagles]], Paramount helped finance the placement of hundreds of stone tablets engraved with the Ten Commandments. These were placed at courthouse squares, at city halls and in public parks, and became a controversy, particularly in recent years, as to whether they violate the separation of Church and State<ref>''Ten Commandments Monoliths'', from the March 2002 issue of ''Eagle Magazine''[http://www.foe.com/tencommandments/]mar_2002_ten_commandments.html</ref> In recent years, liberal attorneys and judges have opposed the display of the Ten Commandments on public property by exploiting the judicial system.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Judaism]]

Quarantine

2007-11-28T15:28:27Z

Monotreme: Citing Mosaic Law.

A quarantine is the isolation of a person or animal who has a [[disease]] (or is suspected of having a disease) in order to prevent further spread of the disease.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#q</ref> It originates from the third codex of [[Mosaic Law]]. (Leviticus 13:54: ''"Then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more."'')

==See also==
*[[Quarantine (shipping)]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Diamond

2007-10-12T13:07:23Z

Monotreme: readding but with "can be"

{{Mineral
| name=Diamond
| image=Rough_diamond.jpg
| cdesc=Carbon
| formula=C
| birefringence=None
| colors=Colorless. Impurities may produce pink, yellow, brown
| chabit=Octahedral
| csystem=Cubic
| cleavage=Perfect in four directions
| dispersion=0.044
| fracture=Conchoidal - step like
| hardness=10
| luster=Adamantine
| luminescence=
| nameorigin=Ancient Greek ''adamas'' - "invincible".
| optics=Singly refractive
| pleochroism=None
| sgravity=3.52
| spectral=In pale yellow stones a 415.5 nm line is typical. Irradiated and annealed diamonds often show a line around 594 nm when cooled to low temperatures.
| streak=Colorless
|}
}}
'''Diamond''' is an [[allotrope]] of [[carbon]], and can be formed when carbon atoms are arranged in a tetrahedral fashion when put under immense amounts of heat and pressure. Diamonds can be created in the Earth's [[mantle]], due to forces and heat required for their creation, and are sometimes brought near the surface through volcanic eruption.

Diamonds are also noted for being the hardest natural material on the [[hardness|Moh's Scale]], and fairly rare (deposits are found in [[Kimberlite]] in [[South Africa]]). As such, natural diamonds are used for jewelry, and synthetic diamonds for drill bits.

==External Links==
[http://www.minelinks.com/alluvial/diamonds.html Minelinks.com - Diamonds]

The God Delusion

2007-10-12T13:03:28Z

Monotreme: /* Contents */

'''''The God Delusion''''' is a "surprisingly intolerant" <ref>For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. [http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004 (Publishers Weekly]
</ref> book by the famous [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]].

==Contents==

In his book, Dawkins' main objectives are to convince his readers that the existence of [[God]] or any other [[deity]] is highly unlikely, that the Bible is incoherent, that morality does not come from religion, and that if religion does effect morality, it only does so negatively.

Dawkins also intends to teach that atheists can live happy, intelligent, lives - perhaps even happier lives than religious people. It asserts that atheists do not do evil things in the name of [[atheism]], while [[religion|religious]] people have been known to commit atrocities in the name of their religion.

=== Deeply Religious Non-Believer===
Dawkins attempts to establish Einstein as nonreligious, and to prove that religion is unworthy of respect.

===The God Hypothesis===
Dawkins explains the different kinds of religion, including the divide between [[Monotheism]] and [[Polytheism]]. He also asserts that the founding fathers of the USA were nonreligious. He continues to explain Secularism, Agnosticism, and some basic assertions of the religious.

===Arguments for God's Existence===
Dawkins summarizes some common proofs for God and attempts to debunk them.

===Why There Almost Certainly is No God===
Dawkins gives his reasons for believing that God is about as likely as "fairies living under his garden".

===The Roots of Religion===
Dawkins gives and explains some thoughts about the origins of religion that have been proposed by atheists.

===The Roots of Morality: Why are We Good?===
Dawkins explains why he believes that morality "evolved".

===The 'Good' Book and the Changing [[Moral Zeitgeist]]===
Dawkins suggests that morality does not come from religion, but rather a changing moral ''zeitgeist''.

===What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?===
Dawkins shows why he believes that religion is evil and repressive.

===Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Relgion===
Dawkins explains why he believes that religion is "child abuse", and that the scars from the "indoctrination" last into adulthood and even the child's entire life.

===A Much Needed Gap?===
Dawkins concludes his book on a more positive level, giving inspiration to those whom he may have convinced to "de-convert" from their religion.

==Criticism==
''The God Delusion'' has been subject to a great deal of criticisms from the religious and the non-religious alike.

===Andrew Brown: Prospect Magazine===
<blockquote>
"It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works."<ref>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803</ref>
</blockquote>
Andrew Brown of Prospect Magazine was unimpressed by Dawkins' book. Brown calls atheism "unnatural" and points out that many atheists were violent in their belief (or lack thereof), citing Stalin killing members of the clergy.

Brown also attacks Dawkins' argument that suicide bombers are caused by religious schools. While Dawkins states that if these children were not taught what he calls "faith without question", suicide bombings would not be an issue. Brown, however, says that religion is not a necessity in suicide bombings. He points out that it is a tactic used by Marxists in Sri Lankav.

===Marilynne Robinson: Harper's Magazine===
<blockquote>
"There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: 'Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers.'"<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>
</blockquote>

Robinson's major complaints about ''The God Delusion'' lie in how sheerly false the book is in many aspects. Although Dawkins claims that "the majority of us believe in free speech", she points out that most countries do not, pointing out that [[China]] (population 1.3 billion<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm</ref>) does not. In her review, Robinson basically says that Dawkins purposefully ignored important parts of history in his attempt to convince his readers. "It's a shame," she says, "to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity."

===Terry Eagleton: London Review of Books===
<blockquote>
"Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins [...] are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding."
</blockquote>

===Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion?===
''The Dawkins Delusion?'' is a response to Dawkins' ''The God Delusion'' by [[Alister McGrath]].

== Quotes from ''The God Delusion'' ==
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Chapter 2

"I am one of an increasing number of biologists who see religion as a ''by-product'' of something else." Chapter 5

"By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, [[evolution]]) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence... Books about evolution are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence." Chapter 8

"... [Moral absolutism] rules the minds of a great number of people in the world today, most dangeriously so in the Muslim world and in the incipient American theocracy... Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith, and it constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world." Chapter 8

== Sources ==
<references/>

[http://www.richarddawkins.net www.richarddawkins.net]

''The God Delusion'', by [[Richard Dawkins]]

[[category:Books]]
[[category:Atheism]]

Brights Movement

2007-10-12T13:00:46Z

Monotreme:

[[Image:Richard_Dawkins.jpg‎|thumbnail|225px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] is listed as an "enthusiastic bright" by the Brights Movement website.]]
The '''Brights Movement''' was started in 2003 by [[Paul Geisert]] and [[Mynga Futrell]] in 2003 in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]].<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#1</ref> The Brights movement had a media campaign and was announced in [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] magazine (by evolutionary biologist [[Richard Dawkins]]), ''[[Free Inquiry]]'' (by Richard Dawkins), and on the ''[[New York Times]]'' op-ed page (by the philosopher and atheist [[Daniel Dennett]]).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref> However, according to a 2004 ''[[Skeptical Enquirer]]'' article the movement the "Brights label reinforced a longstanding stereotype. [[Atheism|Atheists]] already have a terrible rap for being coldhearted [[Rationalism|rationalists]] who attend [[Mensa]] gatherings and dismiss religious believers as simple-minded fools."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref> In October of 2003 in a article in the ''[[Guardian]]'' Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref>

Notable skeptics and atheists may still embrace the Brights Movement and are listed as "Enthusiastic Brights" at the Brights Movement website.<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref> Examples of individuals listed as Brights are notable skeptics/atheists such as [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Margaret Downy]], [[James Randi]], [[Mel Lipman]], [[Bobbie Kirkhart]], [[Herb Silverman]], [[Michael Shermer]], [[Matt Cherry]], and [[Babu Gogineni]].<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref>

==Criticism==
Chris Mooney wrote in his Skeptical Enquirer article the following:
{{cquote|..a recent attack on the Brights movement in The Wall Street Journal by the conservative thinker [[Dinesh D'Souza]] confirms my worst fears (D'Souza 2003). The article blithely ignores a key caveat that the Brights defenders have explicitly laid out-namely, that the label isn't meant to suggest that religious doubters are smarter than everyone else. But I actually think this misrepresentation ought to be blamed more on Dennett, Dawkins, and the original founders than on D'Souza--for reasons I will explain.

In his original New York Times op-ed announcing the Brights label, Dennett wrote, "Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: 'I'm a Bright' is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view." That's certainly nice in principle. But who did Dennett think he was kidding? How could anyone hear the label Bright and think anything but that atheists were claiming to be smarter than everyone else? As [[ABC News|ABC]] Richard Dawkins News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>}}

According to Mr. Mooney virtually all the feedback he has received regarding the Brights Movement from [[Philosphical skepticism|skeptics]] and atheists has been negative.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref>
Atheist author and columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref>

Michael Shermer may not be a "enthusiastic Bright" after all, as he stated in 2003 the following: "However, when it became apparent to me that the vast majority of people most likely to fall under the "bright" rubric would not use the label, I became, well, skeptical that it would succeed. For the time being I continue calling myself a skeptic."<ref>http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/12/31/73740/169</ref>
[[Image:GaryDeMar_main.jpg‎|thumbnail|175px|right|[[Gary DeMar]]]]
The Brights Movement has not been immune from religious [[conservative]]s' criticism. [[Gary Demar]] the President of [[American Vision]] wrote the following:
{{cquote|While the “official” site of “The Brights” espouses “a level civic/civil playing field for all worldviews [that] does not include demeaning the worldview of religious individuals,” Dawkins and Dennett are demeaning and anything but civil when it comes to contrary worldviews. Here are two examples:

Dennett: “ If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods—that the Earth is flat, that ‘Man’ is not a product of evolution by natural selection—then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being—the well-being of all of us on the planet—depends on the education of our descendants.”

Dawkins: “ It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

As one would expect, the co-directors of “The Brights” argued that the views of some Brights do not represent the views of all Brights. But Dawkins and Dennett are not just “some Brights.”<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-16-06.asp</ref>}}

Demar sees the Brights Movement as an attempt to soften the image of [[Secular Humanism|secular humanist]] post the banning of [[school prayer]] in 1962 in the [[United States]] and other subsequent initiatives and DeMar states the following:
{{cquote|In an effort to repackage themselves, some groups began softening their image. The secular humanists, for example, revised the [[Humanist Manifesto]], replacing its anti-God statements with anti-supernaturalism statements. This was done, interestingly, the same year the Brights movement was founded.<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-11-06.asp</ref>}}

Demar also offers the following criticism of the Brights Movement:
{{cquote|The Brights' Net is peppered with suggestions of second-class citizenship and charges of social discrimination against their ilk, reminiscent of the [[Civil Rights]] days. Yet, unlike Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] who successfully invoked God and God's law for moral authority, the Brights are without any standard higher than the whimsy of populism or the tyranny of [[authoritarianism]].<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-11-06.asp</ref>}}

According to a 2004 ''[[Psychology Today]]'' article the Brights’ Web site launched in 2003 and has subsequently signed on tens of thousands of Brights from more than 84 countries.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040209-000016.html</ref> The Psychology Today article quotes a founder of the Brights Movement Paul Geisert as stating, "It’s too soon to tell if the movement will really catch on. We just have to empirically wait and see what happens.”<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040209-000016.html</ref>
==External Links==
*[http://www.the-brights.net/ The Brights' Net - Home Page]
*[http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/dennett_nyt_article.html The Bright Stuff] by [[Daniel Dennett]] in the ''[[New York Times]]'', July 12 2003
*[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/view.html?pg=2 Religion Be Damned" - Wired Magazine, October 2003] by [[Richard Dawkins]]
*[http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html The Future Looks Bright] by [[Richard Dawkins]] in ''[[The Guardian]], June 21 2003

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

[[Category: Naturalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Social Movements]]

Brights Movement

2007-10-12T12:59:37Z

Monotreme:

[[Image:Richard_Dawkins.jpg‎|thumbnail|225px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] is listed as an "enthusiastic bright" by the Brights Movement website.]]
The '''Brights Movement''' was started in 2003 by [[Paul Geisert]] and [[Mynga Futrell]] in 2003 in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]].<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#1</ref> The Brights movement had a media campaign and was announced in [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] magazine (by evolutionary biologist [[Richard Dawkins]]), ''[[Free Inquiry]]'' (by Richard Dawkins), and on the ''[[New York Times]]'' op-ed page (by the philosopher and atheist [[Daniel Dennett]]).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref> However, according to a 2004 ''[[Skeptical Enquirer]]'' article the movement the "Brights label reinforced a longstanding stereotype. [[Atheism|Atheists]] already have a terrible rap for being coldhearted [[Rationalism|rationalists]] who attend [[Mensa]] gatherings and dismiss religious believers as simple-minded fools."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref> In October of 2003 in a article in the ''[[Guardian]]'' Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref>

==Criticism==
Chris Mooney wrote in his Skeptical Enquirer article the following:
{{cquote|..a recent attack on the Brights movement in The Wall Street Journal by the conservative thinker [[Dinesh D'Souza]] confirms my worst fears (D'Souza 2003). The article blithely ignores a key caveat that the Brights defenders have explicitly laid out-namely, that the label isn't meant to suggest that religious doubters are smarter than everyone else. But I actually think this misrepresentation ought to be blamed more on Dennett, Dawkins, and the original founders than on D'Souza--for reasons I will explain.

In his original New York Times op-ed announcing the Brights label, Dennett wrote, "Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: 'I'm a Bright' is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view." That's certainly nice in principle. But who did Dennett think he was kidding? How could anyone hear the label Bright and think anything but that atheists were claiming to be smarter than everyone else? As [[ABC News|ABC]] Richard Dawkins News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>}}

According to Mr. Mooney virtually all the feedback he has received regarding the Brights Movement from [[Philosphical skepticism|skeptics]] and atheists has been negative.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref>
Atheist author and columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> However, notable skeptics/atheists may still embrace the Brights Movement and are listed as "Enthusiastic Brights" at the Brights Movement website.<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref> Examples of individuals listed as Brights are notable skeptics/atheists such as [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Margaret Downy]], [[James Randi]], [[Mel Lipman]], [[Bobbie Kirkhart]], [[Herb Silverman]], [[Michael Shermer]], [[Matt Cherry]], and [[Babu Gogineni]].<ref>http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index.html</ref> However, Michael Shermer may not be a "enthusiastic Bright" as he stated in 2003 the following: "However, when it became apparent to me that the vast majority of people most likely to fall under the "bright" rubric would not use the label, I became, well, skeptical that it would succeed. For the time being I continue calling myself a skeptic."<ref>http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/12/31/73740/169</ref>
[[Image:GaryDeMar_main.jpg‎|thumbnail|175px|right|[[Gary DeMar]]]]
The Brights Movement has not been immune from religious [[conservative]]s' criticism. [[Gary Demar]] the President of [[American Vision]] wrote the following:
{{cquote|While the “official” site of “The Brights” espouses “a level civic/civil playing field for all worldviews [that] does not include demeaning the worldview of religious individuals,” Dawkins and Dennett are demeaning and anything but civil when it comes to contrary worldviews. Here are two examples:

Dennett: “ If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods—that the Earth is flat, that ‘Man’ is not a product of evolution by natural selection—then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being—the well-being of all of us on the planet—depends on the education of our descendants.”

Dawkins: “ It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

As one would expect, the co-directors of “The Brights” argued that the views of some Brights do not represent the views of all Brights. But Dawkins and Dennett are not just “some Brights.”<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-16-06.asp</ref>}}

Demar sees the Brights Movement as an attempt to soften the image of [[Secular Humanism|secular humanist]] post the banning of [[school prayer]] in 1962 in the [[United States]] and other subsequent initiatives and DeMar states the following:
{{cquote|In an effort to repackage themselves, some groups began softening their image. The secular humanists, for example, revised the [[Humanist Manifesto]], replacing its anti-God statements with anti-supernaturalism statements. This was done, interestingly, the same year the Brights movement was founded.<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-11-06.asp</ref>}}

Demar also offers the following criticism of the Brights Movement:
{{cquote|The Brights' Net is peppered with suggestions of second-class citizenship and charges of social discrimination against their ilk, reminiscent of the [[Civil Rights]] days. Yet, unlike Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] who successfully invoked God and God's law for moral authority, the Brights are without any standard higher than the whimsy of populism or the tyranny of [[authoritarianism]].<ref>http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-11-06.asp</ref>}}

According to a 2004 ''[[Psychology Today]]'' article the Brights’ Web site launched in 2003 and has subsequently signed on tens of thousands of Brights from more than 84 countries.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040209-000016.html</ref> The Psychology Today article quotes a founder of the Brights Movement Paul Geisert as stating, "It’s too soon to tell if the movement will really catch on. We just have to empirically wait and see what happens.”<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040209-000016.html</ref>
==External Links==
*[http://www.the-brights.net/ The Brights' Net - Home Page]
*[http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/dennett_nyt_article.html The Bright Stuff] by [[Daniel Dennett]] in the ''[[New York Times]]'', July 12 2003
*[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/view.html?pg=2 Religion Be Damned" - Wired Magazine, October 2003] by [[Richard Dawkins]]
*[http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html The Future Looks Bright] by [[Richard Dawkins]] in ''[[The Guardian]], June 21 2003

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

[[Category: Naturalism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Social Movements]]

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-09T13:46:28Z

Monotreme: /* Wait, what? */

'''It shouldn't.''' Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

'''It should.''' Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-09T13:44:19Z

Monotreme: /* We need to decide what this list is */

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

== Additional criticism just added concerning "Anglophilia" ==

Having read the Henry Liddell article, I fail to see the Anglophilia in this case. For example, noting the degree type isn't any different than noting what sort of degree the person got in the American system. Am I missing something here? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:12, 11 February 2007 (EST)

The term "double first degree" is meaningless to most Wikipedia readers. Only an Anglophile knows or care what that means. And did you see all the obscure titles of royality in that entry??? That entry is 95% Anglophile trivia and only 5% content.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 11 February 2007 (EST)

: Ok, first of all, I agree that many readers(not sure "most", since the term is used in many English speaking countries such as India) would not know what "double first degree" is. That's why its wikilinked. So you can click on it to learn what it is. The assertion that "only an Anglophile" would "care" what the term means is hard for me to credit. Are you asserting that one must be an anglophile to care what degrees someone has? As to the last point, "obscure titles of royality" (I will presume you meant, "royalty" although I think you actually mean peerage or the more general British honours system) I'm not deeply familiar with the rules for how to describe people per the Wikipedia manual of style for titles, but my minimal knowledge makes most of the article seem to follow the basic rule although some of them do not. I am going to go through and remove the titles that should obviously not be present under the Wikipedia style guidelines. I fail to see how an article which is about a member of a prominent 19th century British family (and thus, has many relevant titles) demonstrates anglophila by mentioning those titles. Furthermore, given the fact that the Manual of Style says that some of those titles should not be present, it is hard to see how it demonstrates a bias on Wikipedia that an article would not correspond to the manual of style (if anything, that just goes more to the general inconsistency of Wikipedia). It isn't clear to me what you mean by "Anglophile trivia" and therefore cannot respond to it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:02, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I looked at the "wikilinked" explanation for "double first degree." That link sent me to a massive explanation of the British educational system! I tried to find an explanation for "double first degree" but was unsuccessful. Apparently the term can have multiple meanings, none of which are particularly significant. So what if Henry Liddell was in the top ten percent of his college class??? Many entries about Englishmen on Wikipedia are stuffed with this silly information, as though we're all Anglophiles who worship this stuff. This junk obscures the real contributions of the subjects of the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think it matters, Wikipedia has alot of stuff that most people don't care about. I think that your claim of "anglophilia" is hard to prove. I think that the problem is that Wikipidia is so big that it is getting impossible for anyone to keep it under control, so that people can add their own favorite facts, and there is so much of it that it cannot be stopped. it isn't bias just too much information. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: It is bias towards a particular type of information. We don't have too much information about English socialism, racism, imperialism, religious persecution, etc. We don't have too much information about Irish complaints about England, or complaints by other people. We '''do''' have too much information about obscure English royal titles and nearly arbitrary college distinctions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia doesn't have "anglophilia." What Wikipedia has a very significant proportion of British contributors. Who, incidentally, are constantly pointing out valid problems with "U.S.-centric" entries.

: '''REPLY''' The contributions by English editors is fine; the obsession of some of them with obscure British royalty and silly, unexplained college distinctions does reflect an Anglophile bias worth highlighting. Is there more editing on Wikipedia by English editors than American ones? Seems like it based on my observation of so many British spellings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

en.wikipedia.org is the English-''language'' Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia.

(And I'd add that 99% of people looking up Henry Liddell are probably researching Lewis Carroll, whose fictional and nonfictional work is so liberally laced with Victorian British terms, assumptions, mindset, point-of-view, etc. that it's probably not a bad idea for anyone reading him, or reading about him to be open to picking up little bits of Victorian trivia....) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''': It's hard to see the Alice connection on Liddell's (biased) entry on Wikipedia, so many of the 99% of users could be disappointed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Ok, once again, this was something that could be easily fixed. However, I don't see what the grammatical issue is. I would appreciate if you would point it out to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:58, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Isolated bias is easily fixed, but pervasive bias is not. The Wikipedia contributors care more about an obscure royal lineage than presenting facts (and good grammar) in a clear manner. Do you know what percentage of Wikipedia administrators are English, and what their perspective is?

::: The grammar error is easy to fix, but the bias is not. "Henry George Liddell (February 6, 1811 – January 18, 1898) was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford [WHEN????], headmaster (1846–55) of Westminster School[1] author of A History of Rome (1857); and co-author (with Robert Scott) of the monumental work A Greek-English Lexicon ((1843; 8th ed., 1897; revised by H.S. Jones and others, 1940; abridged, 1957; intermediate, 1959 [ABSURD LIST OF DETAIL THERE)[2], which is still use ["USED", NOT "USE"] by students of Greek."

::: Please give credit to Conservapedia when correcting the series of errors in Wikipedia. Thank you! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Instead of claiming these simple errors as bias, why don't you just fix them when you find them. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:04, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::: It would take me all year, and then some, to "fix" the bias in Wikipedia. I'm simply giving examples here. Fixing an example does not fix the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)
:::: I am not saying to fix all of the bias, I am saying you should fix the simple grammatical errors, and things like the lack of a date when you come across them.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 21:05, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::In order to jump-start Wikipedia, many articles, particularly on older topics, were directly copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Most of them are tagged "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." They're included in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica this category]. For example, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab Ahab]. Most of these don't just "incorporate" text, they've just plain "copied" it. Compare [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ahab Ahab] in the online 1911 Britannica, for example.

:::::I wonder how many of the "Anglophilic" articles you've noticed are, in fact, 1911 Britannica material?

:::::Henry Liddell is '''not''' one of these. However, the 1911 Britannica does contain the exact sentence "Gaining a double first in 1833, Liddell became a college tutor, and was ordained in 1838." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Yeah, this is a good point. There was a project at one point to clean up all these articles but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. One occasionally runs into very out of date things, like I recently ran into an article that referred to "mohammeedans" and one runs into similar problems. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::P. S. I can't resist pointing out... Aschlafly complains that "gossip and hundreds of thousands of entries about pop songs or celebrities are pervasive on Wikipedia." However, articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu Pikachu] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Timberlake Justin Timberlake] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King The Lion King] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffyverse Buffyverse] are ''virtually free'' of Anglophilia or British spellings. So, either pop culture is pervasive on Wikipedia, or Anglophilia is pervasive on Wikipedia, but I don't see how both can be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 12 February 2007 (EST)

I lost this conversation the moment it started. I think we went a lil too far, dont you Mr.Schlafly? I guess it doesnt matter what i think anyway.:) [[Will N.]]

: '''REPLY:''' You make a good point, Will. It does matter what you think. However, note that we all learned something from this debate: Wikipedia has copied material verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I didn't know that before this discussion. That explains some of the obscure and pecularly English descriptions in many entries. Also, it shows that Wikipedia is not completely original.

: By the way, Dpbsmith, with all due respect I do think that conflicting attributes can be pervasive at the same time. Oil and water are opposites in many ways, but both can be pervasive in the same solution. E.g., [[Exxon Valdez]] oil spill. You wouldn't say that either water or oil was pervasive there, but not both, would you? :-)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::Indeed. And in mayonnaise, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I just went on Wikipedia and clicked on random article about 35-40 times, and did not find any examples of "anglophilia"--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Um, I don't think Wikipedia ever claimed to be "completely original." Wikipedia incorporates a lot of material that is in the public domain (either by release or by expiration) as well as material under the GFDL and many of the creative commons liscences. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:26, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: There's an important point here, though. A lot of our "answers" to Aschlafly take the form "but everyone ought to know thus-and-such" about Wikipedia. Aschlafly often seems to me to berate Wikipedia quite unfairly for not matching his expectations of what he ''assumes'' Wikipedia is or thinks Wikipedia ought to be.

::: The question is, what does the average reader or user, who does not contribute, has not read the policy pages, doesn't have pages on a watchlist and understand how editing works, doesn't fix casual vandalism, doesn't glance at the History, etc. etc. think Wikipedia is?

::: Is Wikipedia ''in effect'' misrepresenting itself? Is there a ''large'' discrepancy between what [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] and I and even a casual contributor know Wikipedia to be and what the average reader assumes it to be? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== "Debate" about reliability and disclosure ==

I don't know what is meant by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&curid=2896&diff=13761&oldid=13689]. I don't think Wikipedia ever hid this and if you read almost anything put out by Wikipedia discussing its early history it mentions it. This seems to imply that people were trying to cover it up or something. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:23, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:Where is this disclosed by Wikipedia? I've followed and contributed occasionally to Wikipedia for a decade and was unaware of such copying. In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

:What's lawful (copying from expired copyrighted material) does not excuse lack of attribution or credit. Wikipedia should have a strict policy of requiring attribution. Does it? Apparently not. It should.

:This relates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: You appear to be conflating a variety of different issues. First, this is disclosed anywhere, including for example on almost every article that is primarily based on the 1911 (they say at the bottom that they use it), as well as discussed at a variety of other locations such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:1911 here]. So all relevant attribution is given. As to your claim that "In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica" first there was no such debate as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Although Britannica spent a fair bit of time attacking the Nature study and has continued to spend time and effort attacking Wikipedia, James Wales has repeatedly stated that Wikipedia is not attempting to compare itself to Britannica nor supplant it. Given that there was no "debate" and that Wikipedia had used public domain work from a variety of early encyclopedias in a very small fraction of its articles which were marked as such, it is hard for me to see what else you wanted Wikipedia to do? You might have come claim about issues of intellectual honesty if Wikipeda were attempting to "debate" the relative merits, but again, Wikipedia was not attempting to do so and always stated that it was about using and sharing free encyclopedia content. (Incidentally, the 1911 edition also has nothing to do with the modern versions of Britannica since subsequent editions (I believe one of the ones from the mid 1960s) were complete or nearly complete rewrites, so any notion that Wikipedia was somehow copying from Encyclopedia Britannica as it stands now is inaccurate (irrelevant, but still inaccurate)). Now to your final comment, that this somehow "elates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity" - I'm afraid I don't see the connection at all. One is a claimed bias that Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge the contributions of Christianity to Western culture and such, the other is a claim that that Wikipedia has not sufficiently acknowledged what sources it uses. What one has to do with the other is beyond me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::*The articles copied from the 1911 Britannica are supposed to be attributed, and as far as I know most of them are. The Henry Liddell article was not copied from the 1911 Britannica, although I must say it ''looks'' to my eye as if it has been lifted piecemeal from more than one source and not attributed.
::*Checking Wikipedia for details (!), the 1974 Britannica 3 (Propaedia/Micropaedia/Macropaedia) was a complete rewrite. As recently as the 1960s there were still some articles entirely or partly based on the 1911 edition. The one that sticks in my mind was their article on Beethoven, which contained the lovely sentence "The immense changes he brought about in the range of music have their most obvious effect in the possibilities of emotional expression; and so any outbreak of vulgarity or sentimentality can with impunity claim descent from Beethoven, though its ancestry may be no higher than Meyerbeer."
::*Copying without attribution is a perpetual problem in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," and cutting and pasting particularly from websites occurs all the time. Like casual vandalism, I believe most (but not all!) of it is caught and removed pretty quickly. It is made as clear as possible to contributors that they're not supposed to do this. Copyright violations are watched for ''pretty'' carefully, and enforced ''quite'' vigorously. A "copyvio" is one of the few forms of material on Wikipedia on which an admin is supposed to shoot first and ask questions afterwords; i.e. delete as soon as noticed, and restore afterwards in those vary rare cases where the contributor proves there actually was permission to release the material under the GFDL. (A much more common case occurs when someone thinks that Wikipedia copied something from another website, but on examination it turns out that the other website copied from Wikipedia without attribution!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 13 February 2007 (EST)
::*Which is not to say there are not problems with saying something is "policy" when there is no command-and-control chain of responsibility! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: All your comments above are well-taken. I do see now that many thousands of pages on Wikipedia are copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica '''with''' attribution. That's a revelation to me.

::: That said, I still find an unsettling lack of attribution in Wikipedia's policy. Is there a policy that requires attribution to sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying. I'm not blaming Jimmy Wales, but Wikipedia is no more synonymous with Jimmy Wales at this point than the U.S. Constitution is synonymous with George Washington.

::: The sentence in Henry Liddell's entry was obviously copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Does that violate any Wikipedia policy? It should. I'm going to ensure that Conservapedia's policy requires this.

::: Note that B.C./A.D. v. [[CE]] debate is about proper attribution also, and Wikipedia policy fails there also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: I'm not aware of any specific policy stating that public domain works should be acknowledged but in practice they generally are acknowledged. As to your claim that "The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying" - this is not in any way a fault of Wikipedia but a fault of the researchers in question if it is a fault at all. Furthermore, since the Nature study looked at a specific subset of Wikipedia articles none of which contained 1911 material, I don't see why discussing that matter would be at all relevant. As to the BC/AD v. CE/BCE matter, I still don't see the connection. One is an issue of where a system came from, the other is where Wikipedia sources came from. You seem to be confusing content and meta-content issues. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::I'm not sure anyone understands how Wikipedia functions. In a broad sort of way, Wikipedia policy ''and practice'' is strongly opposed to copyright violation. This is expressed by a conspicuous warning "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted," by the reality that sysops and experienced users really do watch for suspicious material, and really do take quick and effective action when it is spotted.

::::''On the other hand,'' this only applies to material that is under copyright. As an offshoot of the Open Source movement, Wikipedia tends to ''favor'' re-use (copying!) of material that is not under copyright, and, conversely, welcomes the re-use of Wikipedia material by others. That's what the GFDL is all about.

::::Is everyone here aware that it would be ''perfectly OK'' as far as Wikipedia is concerned to copy a Wikipedia article into Conservapedia... either exactly as is, or edited so as to season it to conservative Christian taste... as long as you follow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content these rules.] (Which include giving notice that others may re-use the content copied from Wikipedia). (I'm ''not'' suggesting Conservapedia do this).

::::With regard to attribution, this is covered by Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.

::::'''But...''' what does it mean for something to be "policy" on Wikipedia? This is one of these words that probably means something different to Wikipedians than to the world at large.

::::Wikipedia has enormous numbers of contributors. Contributions are ''not'' vetted or preapproved. It's all "ready, fire, aim." Wikipedia tries to ''influence'' contributors, but it relies on the good intentions of the majority of contributors. And there are nowhere near enough administrators to "enforce" policy. Even if the people with admin privileges all agreed on how to interpret policy, which they definitely do not.

::::And, don't forget--policy pages are just like any other Wikipedia page, and you or anyone else can go in and edit them at any time! Furthermore, it is acknowledged that policy pages are more of an attempt to report or articulate what experienced Wikipedians actually do than to control what they, or anybody else, does.

::::Now, anyone who's ever been in a large organization knows that the written policy often bears only a loose relationship to what actually happens. It may be that Wikipedia is not all ''that'' different from the other large organizations, but the paradoxes and complexities of large-scale human interaction are explicitly on display.

::::Aschlafly, I trust that '''didn't''' answer your question! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:37, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Thanks, Dpbsmith, for your informative posting. Given all that you said, I guess it comes down to this: the personal views and preferences of the Wikipedia admins. There is no attempt by Wikipedia for balance in ideology or outlook by these admins. As a result, it is inevitable that certain philosophies will gain control and the place becomes dominated by certain views. This happens in any group environment, or any organization, if there is no attempt to stop it (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Is there a way to poll the views of Wikipedia admins? As I've said before, it's pretty clear what their views are simply by watching what they post and delete. But perhaps a poll would end any pretense that the Wikipedia admins are balanced as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: That's interesting because that doesn't sound at all like what Dpb said above. Now to be clear, if an admin pushes a certain viewpoint or acts in a matter biased towards one group other admins will step in. Since not everyone cares about the same issues, one will always have some completely uninvolved admins and other editors able to help out with neutrality issues. If admins act in a particularly POV way then they will get desysopped or put on some sort of probation. This has happened to admins in the past over a variety of issues. And again, the admins aren't in charge of content, that's a general editorial thing. All admins do is block problematic users, delete when there is a consensus to delete and protect when there is a strong need to protect. None of these concern direct content issues and admins are specifically disallowed from using their admin tools in content disputes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:24, 13 February 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia on AAPS==
I'm not sure how much water I want to carry for Conservapedia, and I certainly don't want to be Conservapedia's pet Wikipedia-fixer, so I've left a note on Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Neutrality_issues.3F discussion page for the AAPS article] but have not edited the article itself. It might be appropriate to place a <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag on the article itself, but I don't want to go that far yet, at least not until I see whether there's any response on the Talk page. (I expect to be chided for not fixing the article myself...)

It looks to me like the article is on balance negative toward AAPS, but that most of the comments and criticism are properly sourced.

The usual best approach to adjusting balance problems in Wikipedia articles is not to remove material on the overrepresented side if it's well-sourced, but to add well-sourced material on the opposing side, e.g. the fact that AAPS is (according to the New York Times) drawn from AMA membership and that (at least one) AAPS member has been the president of the AMA... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:21, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: Your edit to the Example of bias here is an improvement. However, I think your comment that the Wikipedia article is merely "on balance negative towards AAPS" is quite a bit understated. (Disclosure: I do work for AAPS.)

: The bulk of the entry about AAPS itself (not including its journal) is a rant by a British television journalist. Why isn't that high degree of bias prohibited, and why shouldn't the contributor be warned about a violation of a policy? --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: High degrees of bias are prohibited by the neutrality policy. However, the policy is not exercised instantaneously or with much precision. That paragraph strikes me as the Wikipedian equivalent of driving 80 mph on a interstate highway posted 65. It's against the law but it would be naive to expect to see flashing blue and red lights behind you the instant the needle crosses 65. Thousands of drivers can ''habitually'' rive 80 for ''long'' periods of time without seeing them.

:: P. S. I see the article as slightly biased, you see it as very biased... no surprises there. Disclosure: I have nothing whatsoever to do with the AAPS! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:43, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: P. P. S. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], in response to the note I left on the Talk page, one editor who's been active on this page recently cut the Brian Deer material down to about half its previous size and moved it into the section on "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons." I don't expect you to be satisfied, but I think you'll agree that it's better than it was. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the article]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: I'm at least not happy with it still. DPB, where did the NYT mention that a member had been a past president of the AMA? That would seem to be a pretty relevant detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: The shift is a slight improvement. But why are Brian Deer's intemperate comments even on AAPS's entry? How long do you think a similar rant against Brian Deer, if posted on his entry, would survive Wikipedia admin review? There is no justification for posting Brian Deer's rant on AAPS's entry. Note, by the way, that Brian Deer went off the deep end in response to criticism in England by someone other than AAPS of Brian Deer's own work, but that was not included.

:::: Also note that the date "2005" for Time's description about AAPS is wrong, and off by nearly 40 years. The Time remark is from 1967, when Time might have described Ronald Reagan the same way. Oh what a difference 40 years makes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: I've corrected the date to 1967. As discussed on the talk page for that article, Deer is an award winning journalist specializing in medical issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to include his opinion. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:48, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Citing something that is 40 years old to describe an active organization is silly at best, and obviously biased in this case. Time is editorializing rather than presenting something factual, and it's 40 years out of date. This is rank prejudice.

:::::: Allowing Deer's baseless opinion is even sillier and more biased. He has no personal knowledge of AAPS and cites no basis for his polemic, which was prompted by someone else's (not AAPS's) criticism of Deer's own work. Deer, an English journalist, has no expertise for commenting on an American organization anyway. Allowing Deer's diatribe to remain violates the NPOV that Wikipedia apparently only applies to censor conservative comments, not liberal ones.

:::::: As long as Deer's rant remains, this beautifully illustrates Wikipedia's bias. I'm moving this illustration up higher in the list here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: I'm going to disagree in part and agree in part. I agree that there may be a problem having a 40 year old comment in (although whether the piece is an editorial doesn't alter much whether or not it is relevant). The Deer assertion however seems to lack a strong basis- it isn't clear to me why an English journalist cannot comment on an American organization (it isn't like this is the 1700s and someone in Britain has almost no access to details about what is happening to organizations in the US) and regardless of what prompted the matter Deer is a qualified journalist in the relevant field. Citing a qualified journalist in the relevant field who gives his opinion does not seem biased to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:05, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::: OK, you've made yourself clear and I've updated the content page accordingly. I feel this ranks #3 in illustrating bias on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Bell Trade act ==

First note that the article has a neutrality disputed tag on top, so neutrality problems are a) not surprising b) don't reflect that poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Also note that the quote about father capitalism was "wrath of Father Capitalism and Mother Nature" which is hard to see as actually anti-capitalist. It appears to be more of an attempt by a poor writer trying to use flowerly language to say that their were both economic and environmental problems. Also note that that phrase was in any event removed a while ago. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Robert McHenry ==
...is quoted in point 23 as saying:
:One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined.

Well, yes. And that is why, at least since 2003 and I believe '''well''' before that, WIkipedia has had a policy page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not], saying:
:Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.
So McHenry's remark is beside the point, and doesn't illustrate much except that McHenry doesn't [[grok]] Wikipedia in fullness. Was this the same essay in which he likened Wikipedia to a public toilet?

[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html No, it was a different one]:
:The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
I like that remark better. At least it's funny. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:53, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::That is a funny remark. But Wikipedia does claim to be an "encyclopedia", and it does operate with any guiding principles that check and minimize the problems with democracy (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Page deletions (such as conservapedia) are done without any explanation other than (perhaps) majority vote. McHenry's observation fits Wikipedia to the tee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 18 February 2007 (EST)

The deletion of the page on conservapedia was not unexplained; the article was clearly against wikipedia's notability standards. You can complain that they selectivly enforce these standards (they do) but you cannot say that there were no legitimate grounds to delete the article. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:24, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY:''' Not true. The admin who deleted the conservapedia entry on Wikipedia did NOT explain his action. Some said it was because most (not all) of the comments favored deletion. But then defenders of Wikipedia claim it is not majority-rule. So which is it? Majority rule or reasoned basis for actions? For it to be a reasoned basis for action, the reason must be given by the person taking the action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== "Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors?" ==

Rising to the bait as usual... reaching for the rope for which to hang myself... since Aschlafly keeps asking, I'm going to guess at an answer.

Wikipedia doesn't survey these editors because I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does, ''how'' you would survey these editors. Aschlafly seems to labor under the impression that Wikipedia is like most traditional organizations, with reasonably well-structured organization charts and chains of command and so forth. It isn't.

Aschlafly or Jimbo or anyone else could ''ask'' editors to respond to a survey. There _is_ a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits List of Wikipedians by number of edits] that would enable anyone to identify the high-volume editors. One could go down that list and leave notes on all of their Talk pages asking them to fill in a survey. But what then? There's no way to compel them to answer. There's certainly no way to compel them to answer truthfully. Not as thing stand. (I can only imagine what would happen if Jimbo decreed that anyone not answering the survey would be blocked).

And Wikipedians tend to be rather antiauthoritarian and resistant to such requests. I don't know what the usual response rate is to online survey requests but I'll bet it would be about 0.2%. Make that 1% if it were clearly a personal, sincere request from Jimbo himself.

I'm afraid that the composition of WIkipedia's active editors must be guesswork based on observation of actual behavior.

One of the few factoids I am aware of is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_age List of WIkimedians by age]. A tiny voluntary sampling. Is it representative? Who knows? But it looks like a young crowd to me.

There ''is'' a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with 202 members and a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians] with 68 members. Make of it what you will. (And I'm sure you will!) (And that includes Will N!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:06, 18 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. What do we know about the political composition of Encyclopaedia Britannica editors? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== Mathematics ==

I do not understand point 16 in the list, about mathematics (I am a mathematician). I am all in favor of having an unbiased encyclopedia, but what does this entry have to do with being anti-American or anti-Christian? Wikipedia does not have an entry on elementary proofs, but it does have an entry on "Proof". It is not a mathematical textbook, so you cannot expect all proofs to be completely written out, I think.

:If no one objects, I will remove this point. --[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 02:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''REPLY:''' Unfortunately, "reverts" do not seem to have a comment section for explanations. I'm sorry for not seeing your comments here until last night, when I attempted to respond immediately. (By the way, I also have something of a mathematical background)

::: The concept of "elementary proof" was important for most of the 20th century. A Fields medal was given for an elementary proof; Paul Erdos swore by this approach; Math World recognizes it; and mathematicians who emphasize rigor appreciate the concept also. Why pretend it doesn't exist? It certainly does. Complex analysis has some inherent assumptions, and the concept of "elementary proof" recognizes as much. Why pretend otherwise?

::: Wikipedia (unlike Math World) refuses to recognize the concept of "elementary proof," and Wikipedia even omits any reference to the concept in its long-winded treatment of "proof" that you cite above. This reflects bias. Math may be less vulnerable to bias than other fields, but no field is completely immune from bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I agree that elementary proof is a very important concept. However, I think that this does not so much show bias as just the fact that Wikipedia is incomplete: probably nobody thought about adding an entry for this concept. BTW, I just noticed that Wikipedia does have an entry for Elementary proof now (since February 5), it was no doubt created as a result of this list. I updated the list accordingly.

I would be interested to see your reply to my other point, about Wikipedia not being a textbook. Do you intend to have only formal and rigorous proofs in Conservapedia?

::'''REPLY:''' The new entry in Wikipedia topic looks good, and must have been in response to the criticism here. Thanks for updating the entry here to reflect that.

:: That said, this was no oversight. Some mathematicians do falsely pretend there is no such thing as an "elementary proof," and some liberal blogs have ridiculed me for claiming otherwise. Rigor is vulnerable to bias, and this is an issue concerning rigor.

:: I wouldn't require only elementary proofs, but it essential to be aware of the concept and departures from elementary proofs. Denial of this important concept is worth criticizing, as we did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

This is very interesting, I never heard about mathematicians who denied the existence of elementary proofs. Could you give me some examples/quotes? Seems like a very strange position to have.--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 14:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Andrew, I think you exxagerate. Elementary proofs are only important in number theory, and only then mainly for aesthetic or philosophical reasons. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:: Thank you, Joshua, for denying or downplaying the significance of the elementary proofs in response to Twoflower's statement.

:: Yes, of course there are mathematicians today who deny significance to the concept of the elementary proof. The mathematicians who have inserted thousands of entries in Wikipedia for ten years without ever mentioning elementary proof, either as its own entry or as part of a comprehensive entry on proofs, further illustrate my point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::: Um, speaking as someone who has published papers in number theory where the notion of elementary proof first came to be somewhat relevant- should Wikipedia have had an article about it? Yes. Is it such a terrible thing to not have one? Not really. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK, that's the opinion of JoshuaZ, and that confirms my statement that some mathematicians downplay or deny the significance of the elementary proof. Needless to say, other mathematicians haven't agreed. A Fields medal was even given for an elementary proof once. Some mathematicians devoted their careers to the pursuit of elementary proofs. And there are obvious logical reasons for preferring elementary proofs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Obvious logical reasons? Really? Such as? There are reasons a logician might be interested in the matter, but that's not logical reasoning, and again in any event, this isn't a bias of Wikipedia but an ommision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I favor dropping the item on ''elementary proof''. I don't think that the concept is either well-defined or important. Yes, MathWorld gives a definition, but I do not believe that definition is accepted or used among mathematicians.
The point of this item seems to be that an elementary proof is somehow more rigorous or desirable than a non-elementary proof. However, I do not think that is true. If some mathematician has that view, then who is it? I think that it would be a minority view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== We need to decide what this list is ==

Is this a list of examples of biases in Wikipedia or an example of problems with Wikipedia or a list of examples of foul-ups of Wikipedia or some combination? I see all three in this, all listed as examples of bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

:Perhaps the list should be categorized; separate sections for bias, errors, omissions and whatever else. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Bias underlies many "foul-ups" and "errors". I don't separating them into categories helps.

::One of the complaints about Wikipedia is how long-winded everything is. An encyclopedia should be concise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::''Some'' encyclopedias are not concise. For what it's worth... the Encyclopædia[sic--their spelling] Britannica 11th Edition (1911)'s article on the Bible runs from page to 849 to 894. That's forty-six pages. And an Encyclopædia Britannica page is several ordinary book pages (and many computer screens). I estimated once that the article would be about 1 megabyte of ASCII text. And then it's followed by "Bible, English" from pages 894 to 905. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)

While '''''some''''' foul-ups and errors may have underlying bias, most do not. In fact, I don't think that any of the errors pointed out in this page reflect bias; we should reove them completely. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:54, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The following entry strikes me as wrong or misleading -

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public".

:Just because those editors identify themselves as liberal does not, in fact, suggest that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It depends whether they are allowing their political views into their articles, whether the articles in question are capable of being politicised and whether the entire American population is made up of only liberals and conservatives. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:I am also a bit Challenged by the concept that something could be "six times more liberal" than something else. I wonder if Noam Chomsky is six times more liberal than Phyllis Schlafly? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Horace makes a valid point. I thought about that "six times more liberal" ratio myself quite a bit, both before and after writing it. But what other number would make sense? Liberal by a 3:1 margin is many times more liberal than something that is conservative by a 2:1 margin. How many more times? Well, if the ratio went from 1:1 to 2:1 then we would say twice as many. When the ratio goes from 1:2 to 3:1 then six times as much seems appropriate. I welcome other suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I suggest that you remove the sentence-- I don't think that 'degrees of liberal' can be expressed accruately with a ratio.

Furthermore, I think that while we should strive to point out the liberalism of wikipedia, we should '''''not''''' by any means suggest that they be just as consevative/liberal as the general public. This (I hope) would be hypocrisy! We are trying to be as far to the right of the general public as possible.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:41, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Can't resist:

::::Alice was puzzled. "In ''our'' country," she remarked, "there's only one day at a time."

::::The Red Queen said, "That's a poor thin way of doing things. Now ''here'', we mostly have days and nights two or three at a time, and sometimes in the winter we take as many as five nights together—for warmth, you know."

::::"Are five nights warmer than one night, then?" Alice ventured to ask.

::::"Five times as warm, of course."

::::"But they should be five times as ''cold,'' by the same rule--"

::::"Just so!" cried the Red Queen. "Five times as warm, ''and'' five times as cold—just as I'm five times as rich as you are, ''and'' five times as clever!"

:::Oh, a concrete suggestion: once you've said 'twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative"' it seems to me the point is made. Do you really need to say anything more? Readers can draw their own conclusions, numerically if they're so inclined. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Dpbsmith, I am not sure why you removed the following post of mine, but I thought it was relevant-

::::Actually, my maths isn't great, but I think six times is not right. If I had say 12 people drawn from the general population (and assuming everyone is either conservative or liberal), on your figures I would expect four of them to be liberals. If I had 12 Wikipedia editors I would expect nine of them to be liberals. That is not a sixfold increase.

::::I emphasise that I am not a mathematician.

::::Perhaps you should just say that liberals are grossly overrepresented as editors of Wikipedia.

:::Perhaps you removed it by accident. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::I wasn't aware of removing anything. Sorry. I agree with your math by the way.

:::Is everyone aware that the lists Aschafly cites are not polls, interviews, samples, or anything like that? It is the number of Wikipedians who are aware that these categories exist (they're not advertised, you're not encouraged to add one when you create an account or anything) and have decided they want people to know their views. It is reasonably analogous to driving through a medium city and counting 201 lawn signs for Democrats and 68 for Republicans, or counting bumper stickers on cars as they drive by on a highway. It probably means ''something'' but I'm not sure I'd care to do math on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:07, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I agree that there is some merit to the above comments. But where is the flaw in the math? Polls ''do'' show that the conservative-to-liberal ration is 2:1 among the American public. That alone is useful. I didn't know that before. Did you?

:::I don't know that I know it now. I'd like to know a lot more about that poll. How can the American public be 2/3 conservative and yet vote very close to 1/2 Democratic (e.g. popular vote in last two elections?) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:37, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::The American public is ''not'' 2/3 conservative; in the poll ASchlafly cites, the single largest group are the moderates, with 40% of the respondents. Compare to the list of moderate wikipedians, who number all of 22, and you begin to get the idea that these comparisons just aren't meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:22, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::The liberal-to-conservative ratio of 3:1 based on how many signed up for the corresponding Wikipedia pages is like yard signs, as Dpbsmith says. But a ratio in yard signs ''is'' indicative of a region's views. In some ways this is better than phoning people, because this reflects strength of conviction, and willingness to speak out. And thanks to Dpbsmith for the observation in the first place!

::The only suspect part of my analysis is to conclude that Wikipedia is 6 times as liberal as the American public. I thought more about this today. Don't we draw the same conclusion about relative concentrations in solution in chemistry? And don't we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove, or "twice as sweet" in candy? If anyone can explain a flaw in this, then I'd like to see and discuss it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::The error in the math becomes apparent if you treat the ratios as percentages (and again assume everyone is either liberal or conservative). In the general population 33.3% of people identify themselves as liberal (at the 2:1 ratio). At Wikipedia 75% identify themselves as liberal (at the 1:3 ratio). An increase from 33.3% to 75% is not a sixfold increase. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::To Aschlafly--Oh, well. Since you ask.

:::No, I don't think we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove. ''My'' stove just says "wm, low, med, med hi, hi." I can't imagine someone saying "make it twice as hot" when they mean "turn it up from medium to high." The oven says "WM, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, BROIL," but those aren't degrees Kelvin, and 400 is not "twice as hot" as 200. For example, if a recipe says to cook something for one hour at 400° it would not work to cook it for two hours at 200°.

:::I don't know about sweetness, but spice heat is (or formerly was) measured in Scoville units, which in turn represent the relative amount of dilution that produces the same sensation of spice heat. In other words, if habanero sauce diluted 10:1 tastes as hot as tabasco sauce, then habanero sauce is ten times as hot.

:::Now, applying this methodology to Wikipedia and to America, the question is: how much would we have to dilute Wikipedia by adding conservatives in order to make it match America? This is a nice little algebra word problem for your high-schoolers. Call the total Wikipedian population W. We're saying 3/4 of W is liberal. We want to dilute Wikipedia until it is 1/3 liberal, same as America. So, we're going to pour conservatives into Wikipedia, stirring gently, until it reaches a size X·W where it is now 1/3 liberal. At that point, we will say Wikipedia is X times as liberal as the America (because we had to had to make it X times bigger in order to get the proportion of conservatives the same as America).
:::Let the number of liberals in Wikipedia, before and after dilution, be L.
::::L = W·(3/4)
:::We want
::::L / (W·X) = 1/3
:::Substituting,
:::: (W·(3/4)) / (W·X) = 1/3
:::: (3/4) / X = (1/3)
:::: X = (3/4) / (1/3) = 9/4 = 2.25.

:::So, Wikipedia is 2.25 times as liberal as America.

:::Checking, if WIkipedia had 100 people, it would have 75 liberals. If we multiply it by 2.25, it would have 225 people and 75 liberals, so it would have 225 - 75 = 150 conservatives, or a 2:1 ratio.

:::But this is just a game... I'm sure there are other ways to frame the question that will yield other numbers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Oh. Easier way to get the same number: 75% / 33.333% = 2.25. If you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 9 of them are liberal. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 4 of them are liberal. 9 = 2.25 × 4.

:::Of course... if you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 3 of them are conservative. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 8 of them are conservatives. So Wikipedia is 3/8 as conservative which make America 2.67 times as conservative as Wikipedia, which seemingly would make Wikipedia 2.67 time as liberal as America. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:32, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I don't think the above analysis compares the "concentrations" of liberals in the two "solutions".

:: How about drawing an analogy to a pH scale? Call conservative low pH and liberal high pH, so that we can find a ration. 2 parts conservative and one part liberal would yield a low pH. 3 parts liberal and 1 part conservative would yield another pH. I wonder what the ratio would be?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::Well, pH is ''approximately'' minus the natural logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. Since litmus turns Democratic blue in an alkaline solution and Republican red in an acid solution, I guess hydrogen ions (acid) correspond to conservatives. The, uh... uh-oh... pC... of the American public would be -log10(2/3) = 0.176, and the pC of Wikipedia would be -log10(1/4) = 0.602. (Higher pH numbers mean less acidic, and higher pC numbers mean less conservative... so I guess pC works out after all!)

::::I am not going to do anything at all with regard to comparing 0.176 and 0.602. Here are two numbers. I calculated them and I showed how I calculated them. Ain't gonna say nothing more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:16, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::: The ratios imply that WP has 6 times as many liberals as you would expect from the number of conservatives. Or the number of conservatives would have to be increased by a factor of 6 in order to match the American public. But it doesn't follow that WP is 6x as liberal as the public. If WP really functioned properly, you would only need at least one conservative editor and one liberal editor on each article. As long as they reached a consensus, then the article should be balanced, even if the number of editors is uneven. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Instead of using all of these hypothetical analogies, why don't we work with what we have. there are about 3.75 million wikipedia editors so at 3:1 that would make 2,812,500 Liberals. there are about 300 million people in the U.S. so at 2:1 that would make 100 million Liberals. 300 million/3.75 million = 80. so multiply the liberal Wikipedians by 80 to aproximate the US population to get 225 million or '''2.25''' times as many liberals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: Your math is flawed because it doesn't recognize that all the people who are neither liberal or conservative. The simple way to see this is as follows: what fraction of the liberals on Wikipedia now would give it the same balance as the American public? 1/6th. Hence Wikipedia is currently 6 times more liberal than the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::: You are automatically assuming that when you adjust the the numbers that the number of conservatives does not change. To do it properly you have to raise the number of conservatives as well as lower the number of liberals. The percentage of "unbiased" (for lack of a better word) people should stay the same. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Indeed. Amplifying a bit, as long as there's one conservative editor who is capable of adding conservative material that accords with Wikipedia's policies (particularly source citation and "facts about opinion, not opinions"), and one liberal editor similarly capable of adding liberal material, and provided the effective pool of active editors in the article really support Wikipedia's policies and are ''reasonably'' able to judge material objectively against policy... the article should stay balanced.

:::::Thus, the number that matters is not the relative number of liberal and conservative editors. It is the percentage of edits that are made by editors who are truly committed to the neutrality and verifiability policies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:23, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Right, it would be easy for Wikipedia to restore balance in such a manner. In fact, this is how the media ensures balance on certain shows (e.g., Crossfire) and many debates. But Wikipedia does not do this. Rather, it behaves in the same manner as a lynch mob. There is nothing neutral about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Fascinating, one thing I couldn't stand about Crossfire was that it felt a need to break everything down into liberal v. conservative, make sure to label who was on which side and then let them scream each other. Not every issue is simply liberal v. conservative, and I'd have to say that if Crossfire is the ideal, I'd rather be non-ideal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:40, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Something about Wikis acts as a positive-feedback loop that amplifies bad behavior. It can be infuriating to have an edit reverted or deleted. Wikipedia regularly does show "lynch-mob-like" behavior, but the lynch mobs are small, dissolve quickly, and have relatively little affect on the overall content of Wikipedia, other than to get some people so totally alienated as to never be able to think straight about WIkipedia ever again. Wikipedia to some extent is part of the USENET "flamewar" culture, and I think its [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_age age composition] may be more of a problem than its political composition.

:::::: With nobody in authority to make final decisions on policy (no, admins do ''not'' effectively have the ability to do this), borderlines are fuzzy, and everything on the border is resolved by border disputes, with inconsistent outcomes. Really notable things don't get deleted. True vanity articles always get deleted. But your Conservapedias and obscure Norwegian politicians (Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa, Minister of Education and Church Affairs 1913-1915) and articles about middle schools are on the borderline. AFD discussions about borderline articles tend to show WIkipedia at its very worst. However, you might be surprised at how often one of these discussions starts with "piling on" in the delete direction, with curt comments, and ends with a reversal ''if'' people find and quote good sources or improve the article mid-discussion.

:::::: There are certain Wikipedia characteristics that may be properly criticized, but that do ''not'' add up to consistent, systematic liberal bias. For example, the neutrality policy in operation leads to a tendency to ''include unflattering information.'' Wikipedia biographies are never respectful puff pieces, and you may be absolutely sure that an article on Ted Kennedy will mention Chappaquiddick (let me check: yep); that an article on Barney Frank will mention his affair with whozis (let me check: yep, and the name I was trying to remember was "Steve Gobie"), and similarly for Gerry Studds (check), Gary Hart (check), etc. I don't even remember whether Wilbur Mills was a Republican or a Democrat, but I certainly remember his being found wandering drunk in the Tidal Basis (whatever that is!) with a stripper, and I expect the WIkipedia article to remember it, too. (Check: "Mills is perhaps best known for a drunken incident on October 7, 1974, with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." And he was a Democrat). Tabloid-like? Maybe. Politically biassed? No.

:::::: Poor Wilbur Mills! All that time in Congress, and his legacy is "best known for a drunken incident... with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." But isn't it accurate? Without looking at Wikipedia's article (or anyone else's), can you remember any other single concrete thing about him? In my case... I have a vague notion that he was really important, so much so that I mistakenly thought he was a Senator, not a Representative But I can't think of a ''specific'' thing he did apart from the Tidal Basin incident. Can you?

:::::: By the way, although the liberal blogs have had a lot of fun with Conservapedia's objection to British spellings, I have to say I at least see Aschlafly's point. To a newcomer to Wikipedia, redirects seem like magic. I can see how typing in "phonograph record" and getting "Gramophone record" could feel as if Wikipedia were saying "No, dummy, you're wrong, it's ''gramophone.''" No handy little explanation pops up to explain that Wikipedia is deliberately inconsistent and is not endorsing one term over the other. I don't know if its ever gotten to the point of a U. S. kid telling a teacher, "No, that's the wrong spelling, Wikipedia says..." but I can imagine it happening. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:04, 4 March 2007 (EST)

This "six times more liberal" thing is comparing an anonymous poll to non-anonymous affiliations that people choose to put on their user pages, right? It could mean that liberals are just more enthusiastic about announcing their beliefs, or less certain of them when polled anonymously. The numbers can't be compared directly. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

: I am wonder who added a comment in the WP article on CP saying that CP has been criticized because the CP article on the Democrat Party includes a sentence describing a harsh view from a critic. It is criticism of the criticism of the criticism, and I am criticizing it here! Somebody needs to tell WP editors that it is not necessary to document every criticism. When an article gets to be more than half criticism, then it probably has too much. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::That sentence certainly looks tendentious, rather than factual, to ''me.'' (Of course, I think the article [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] is precisely 6.23 Scoville units ''more'' tendentious...)

:::As with Conservapedia, the entire history of the article is open to examination. The comment was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=next&oldid=112296143 here] by user Kronix1986. I am ''not'' going to act as some kind of human gateway between Conservapedia and Wikipedia and want to ''try'' to stay out of the incestuous business of editing each Wiki's article on each other. I'd suggest that ''if'' you wanted this comment removed, your best approach would be to say something about it on the article's Talk page, because when you're closely involved in an article sometimes keeping a little distance is better than direct editing. It's easier to present cogent comments on a Talk page than in an edit comment, for example.

:::The argument ''I'' would use is that the statement isn't supported by the cited source. The [http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html cited source] uses the passage ''as an example of the difference'' between the two sites. It does not criticize Conservapedia for this passage, nor does it say that Conservapedia has been criticized for this passage. Furthermore the phrase "seemingly pejorative" is a good example of weasel terms, which Wikipedia has a guideline against. In other words, the statement is clearly editorializing, ''not'' reporting something published elsewhere.

:::(This could, of course, be remedied by rewording the passage to say "One passage, used by a Guardian Unlimited writer to exemplify the different approaches of the two sites, is...") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Good luck dealing with folks who are six times more liberal than the American public! There isn't any chance that Wikipedia will have a fair or reasonably unbiased entry about Conservapedia.

:: That's OK, because this is great fodder for illustrating Wikipedia's bias. I've added a point (around #5, I think) in our list of Examples here. Watch Wikipedia's editors change its entry about Conservapedia as I point out its biased errors here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Point, if you look at the talk page for the Conservapedia there was additional criticism that didn't go in because it was decided that it would be problematic. Furthermore, attempts were made to find more reliable sources that were positive. Attempts were unsuccesful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Regarding American versus English spelling policy ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. They might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

It's interesting because America somewhere along the line changed the spelling of these words. In fact most of the English world (I'm from Australia) views the American spelling as the strange version. It seems to me that this insistence on spelling everything the American way is just another example of American arrogance. I thought the reference to the European ruling family was espicially silly. I personally have no problem with Wikipedia using the proper English spelling for words. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I would like to add a "here, here," to the remarks by Conservative. Furthermore, it seems that Conservapedia is in conflict with itself. When it comes to dates Conservapedia wishes to favor the "historical" anno Domini system in contrast to the newly developed Common Era system. But when it comes to spelling, Conservapedia decides that the historical spelling system should be discouraged and the newly developed American spelling should be used. The foundations for British spelling were published in 1755 as compared to the foundations for American spelling which were published in 1828 (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_spelling_differences&oldid=113116955] for more information). Does Conservapedia have an actual system for determining what it prefers or is this all merely the opinions of a small group of individuals?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==LIBERAL BIAS==

We should change the name of this page to "Examples of Lliberal Bias in Wikipedia".

We don't care about (in fact some of us welcome) conservative bias. The above name would not seem hypocritical. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Who said any of us here actually welcome conservative bias? This wiki was advertised as having a conservative ''perspective,'' not a conservative bias. And this difference is really rather important. A conservative perspective would merely show people how conservatives view the different things happening in the world. A conservative bias would be presenting information with the conservative perspective but instead of presenting it as the way conservatives view things it would be presented as the way things are. I hope that made sense :)
I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. That said, seeing the conservative perspective is, in fact, really intriguing and helpful to me. Conservative bias, just like liberal bias, is not in my best interests and would definitely '''not''' be welcome by some members who are curious liberals. If this is in fact an attempt to convert people throwing in bias is not going to help.
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:You may find this debate interesting... [[How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]] --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Re #32 ==

With regards to criticism #32 this can, and will, happen to any information source. Any system that involves humans is going to have errors. I assume that no member of conservapedia would be so bold as to say there is not one error within the articles. The ''Daily News'' or whatever the paper was are largely to blame as well. Any news source that publishes material based on only one source deserves to feel the slap of public humiliation.
Finally, I would like to ask, as I honestly do not know, how this is an example of bias (as the article title indicates it is)? Is it some form of Pro-Ivy-League-Rutgerian bias?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-09T13:37:46Z

Monotreme:

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

== Additional criticism just added concerning "Anglophilia" ==

Having read the Henry Liddell article, I fail to see the Anglophilia in this case. For example, noting the degree type isn't any different than noting what sort of degree the person got in the American system. Am I missing something here? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:12, 11 February 2007 (EST)

The term "double first degree" is meaningless to most Wikipedia readers. Only an Anglophile knows or care what that means. And did you see all the obscure titles of royality in that entry??? That entry is 95% Anglophile trivia and only 5% content.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 11 February 2007 (EST)

: Ok, first of all, I agree that many readers(not sure "most", since the term is used in many English speaking countries such as India) would not know what "double first degree" is. That's why its wikilinked. So you can click on it to learn what it is. The assertion that "only an Anglophile" would "care" what the term means is hard for me to credit. Are you asserting that one must be an anglophile to care what degrees someone has? As to the last point, "obscure titles of royality" (I will presume you meant, "royalty" although I think you actually mean peerage or the more general British honours system) I'm not deeply familiar with the rules for how to describe people per the Wikipedia manual of style for titles, but my minimal knowledge makes most of the article seem to follow the basic rule although some of them do not. I am going to go through and remove the titles that should obviously not be present under the Wikipedia style guidelines. I fail to see how an article which is about a member of a prominent 19th century British family (and thus, has many relevant titles) demonstrates anglophila by mentioning those titles. Furthermore, given the fact that the Manual of Style says that some of those titles should not be present, it is hard to see how it demonstrates a bias on Wikipedia that an article would not correspond to the manual of style (if anything, that just goes more to the general inconsistency of Wikipedia). It isn't clear to me what you mean by "Anglophile trivia" and therefore cannot respond to it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:02, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I looked at the "wikilinked" explanation for "double first degree." That link sent me to a massive explanation of the British educational system! I tried to find an explanation for "double first degree" but was unsuccessful. Apparently the term can have multiple meanings, none of which are particularly significant. So what if Henry Liddell was in the top ten percent of his college class??? Many entries about Englishmen on Wikipedia are stuffed with this silly information, as though we're all Anglophiles who worship this stuff. This junk obscures the real contributions of the subjects of the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think it matters, Wikipedia has alot of stuff that most people don't care about. I think that your claim of "anglophilia" is hard to prove. I think that the problem is that Wikipidia is so big that it is getting impossible for anyone to keep it under control, so that people can add their own favorite facts, and there is so much of it that it cannot be stopped. it isn't bias just too much information. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: It is bias towards a particular type of information. We don't have too much information about English socialism, racism, imperialism, religious persecution, etc. We don't have too much information about Irish complaints about England, or complaints by other people. We '''do''' have too much information about obscure English royal titles and nearly arbitrary college distinctions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia doesn't have "anglophilia." What Wikipedia has a very significant proportion of British contributors. Who, incidentally, are constantly pointing out valid problems with "U.S.-centric" entries.

: '''REPLY''' The contributions by English editors is fine; the obsession of some of them with obscure British royalty and silly, unexplained college distinctions does reflect an Anglophile bias worth highlighting. Is there more editing on Wikipedia by English editors than American ones? Seems like it based on my observation of so many British spellings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

en.wikipedia.org is the English-''language'' Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia.

(And I'd add that 99% of people looking up Henry Liddell are probably researching Lewis Carroll, whose fictional and nonfictional work is so liberally laced with Victorian British terms, assumptions, mindset, point-of-view, etc. that it's probably not a bad idea for anyone reading him, or reading about him to be open to picking up little bits of Victorian trivia....) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''': It's hard to see the Alice connection on Liddell's (biased) entry on Wikipedia, so many of the 99% of users could be disappointed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Ok, once again, this was something that could be easily fixed. However, I don't see what the grammatical issue is. I would appreciate if you would point it out to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:58, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Isolated bias is easily fixed, but pervasive bias is not. The Wikipedia contributors care more about an obscure royal lineage than presenting facts (and good grammar) in a clear manner. Do you know what percentage of Wikipedia administrators are English, and what their perspective is?

::: The grammar error is easy to fix, but the bias is not. "Henry George Liddell (February 6, 1811 – January 18, 1898) was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford [WHEN????], headmaster (1846–55) of Westminster School[1] author of A History of Rome (1857); and co-author (with Robert Scott) of the monumental work A Greek-English Lexicon ((1843; 8th ed., 1897; revised by H.S. Jones and others, 1940; abridged, 1957; intermediate, 1959 [ABSURD LIST OF DETAIL THERE)[2], which is still use ["USED", NOT "USE"] by students of Greek."

::: Please give credit to Conservapedia when correcting the series of errors in Wikipedia. Thank you! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Instead of claiming these simple errors as bias, why don't you just fix them when you find them. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:04, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::: It would take me all year, and then some, to "fix" the bias in Wikipedia. I'm simply giving examples here. Fixing an example does not fix the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)
:::: I am not saying to fix all of the bias, I am saying you should fix the simple grammatical errors, and things like the lack of a date when you come across them.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 21:05, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::In order to jump-start Wikipedia, many articles, particularly on older topics, were directly copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Most of them are tagged "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." They're included in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica this category]. For example, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab Ahab]. Most of these don't just "incorporate" text, they've just plain "copied" it. Compare [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ahab Ahab] in the online 1911 Britannica, for example.

:::::I wonder how many of the "Anglophilic" articles you've noticed are, in fact, 1911 Britannica material?

:::::Henry Liddell is '''not''' one of these. However, the 1911 Britannica does contain the exact sentence "Gaining a double first in 1833, Liddell became a college tutor, and was ordained in 1838." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Yeah, this is a good point. There was a project at one point to clean up all these articles but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. One occasionally runs into very out of date things, like I recently ran into an article that referred to "mohammeedans" and one runs into similar problems. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::P. S. I can't resist pointing out... Aschlafly complains that "gossip and hundreds of thousands of entries about pop songs or celebrities are pervasive on Wikipedia." However, articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu Pikachu] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Timberlake Justin Timberlake] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King The Lion King] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffyverse Buffyverse] are ''virtually free'' of Anglophilia or British spellings. So, either pop culture is pervasive on Wikipedia, or Anglophilia is pervasive on Wikipedia, but I don't see how both can be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 12 February 2007 (EST)

I lost this conversation the moment it started. I think we went a lil too far, dont you Mr.Schlafly? I guess it doesnt matter what i think anyway.:) [[Will N.]]

: '''REPLY:''' You make a good point, Will. It does matter what you think. However, note that we all learned something from this debate: Wikipedia has copied material verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I didn't know that before this discussion. That explains some of the obscure and pecularly English descriptions in many entries. Also, it shows that Wikipedia is not completely original.

: By the way, Dpbsmith, with all due respect I do think that conflicting attributes can be pervasive at the same time. Oil and water are opposites in many ways, but both can be pervasive in the same solution. E.g., [[Exxon Valdez]] oil spill. You wouldn't say that either water or oil was pervasive there, but not both, would you? :-)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::Indeed. And in mayonnaise, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I just went on Wikipedia and clicked on random article about 35-40 times, and did not find any examples of "anglophilia"--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Um, I don't think Wikipedia ever claimed to be "completely original." Wikipedia incorporates a lot of material that is in the public domain (either by release or by expiration) as well as material under the GFDL and many of the creative commons liscences. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:26, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: There's an important point here, though. A lot of our "answers" to Aschlafly take the form "but everyone ought to know thus-and-such" about Wikipedia. Aschlafly often seems to me to berate Wikipedia quite unfairly for not matching his expectations of what he ''assumes'' Wikipedia is or thinks Wikipedia ought to be.

::: The question is, what does the average reader or user, who does not contribute, has not read the policy pages, doesn't have pages on a watchlist and understand how editing works, doesn't fix casual vandalism, doesn't glance at the History, etc. etc. think Wikipedia is?

::: Is Wikipedia ''in effect'' misrepresenting itself? Is there a ''large'' discrepancy between what [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] and I and even a casual contributor know Wikipedia to be and what the average reader assumes it to be? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== "Debate" about reliability and disclosure ==

I don't know what is meant by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&curid=2896&diff=13761&oldid=13689]. I don't think Wikipedia ever hid this and if you read almost anything put out by Wikipedia discussing its early history it mentions it. This seems to imply that people were trying to cover it up or something. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:23, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:Where is this disclosed by Wikipedia? I've followed and contributed occasionally to Wikipedia for a decade and was unaware of such copying. In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

:What's lawful (copying from expired copyrighted material) does not excuse lack of attribution or credit. Wikipedia should have a strict policy of requiring attribution. Does it? Apparently not. It should.

:This relates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: You appear to be conflating a variety of different issues. First, this is disclosed anywhere, including for example on almost every article that is primarily based on the 1911 (they say at the bottom that they use it), as well as discussed at a variety of other locations such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:1911 here]. So all relevant attribution is given. As to your claim that "In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica" first there was no such debate as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Although Britannica spent a fair bit of time attacking the Nature study and has continued to spend time and effort attacking Wikipedia, James Wales has repeatedly stated that Wikipedia is not attempting to compare itself to Britannica nor supplant it. Given that there was no "debate" and that Wikipedia had used public domain work from a variety of early encyclopedias in a very small fraction of its articles which were marked as such, it is hard for me to see what else you wanted Wikipedia to do? You might have come claim about issues of intellectual honesty if Wikipeda were attempting to "debate" the relative merits, but again, Wikipedia was not attempting to do so and always stated that it was about using and sharing free encyclopedia content. (Incidentally, the 1911 edition also has nothing to do with the modern versions of Britannica since subsequent editions (I believe one of the ones from the mid 1960s) were complete or nearly complete rewrites, so any notion that Wikipedia was somehow copying from Encyclopedia Britannica as it stands now is inaccurate (irrelevant, but still inaccurate)). Now to your final comment, that this somehow "elates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity" - I'm afraid I don't see the connection at all. One is a claimed bias that Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge the contributions of Christianity to Western culture and such, the other is a claim that that Wikipedia has not sufficiently acknowledged what sources it uses. What one has to do with the other is beyond me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::*The articles copied from the 1911 Britannica are supposed to be attributed, and as far as I know most of them are. The Henry Liddell article was not copied from the 1911 Britannica, although I must say it ''looks'' to my eye as if it has been lifted piecemeal from more than one source and not attributed.
::*Checking Wikipedia for details (!), the 1974 Britannica 3 (Propaedia/Micropaedia/Macropaedia) was a complete rewrite. As recently as the 1960s there were still some articles entirely or partly based on the 1911 edition. The one that sticks in my mind was their article on Beethoven, which contained the lovely sentence "The immense changes he brought about in the range of music have their most obvious effect in the possibilities of emotional expression; and so any outbreak of vulgarity or sentimentality can with impunity claim descent from Beethoven, though its ancestry may be no higher than Meyerbeer."
::*Copying without attribution is a perpetual problem in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," and cutting and pasting particularly from websites occurs all the time. Like casual vandalism, I believe most (but not all!) of it is caught and removed pretty quickly. It is made as clear as possible to contributors that they're not supposed to do this. Copyright violations are watched for ''pretty'' carefully, and enforced ''quite'' vigorously. A "copyvio" is one of the few forms of material on Wikipedia on which an admin is supposed to shoot first and ask questions afterwords; i.e. delete as soon as noticed, and restore afterwards in those vary rare cases where the contributor proves there actually was permission to release the material under the GFDL. (A much more common case occurs when someone thinks that Wikipedia copied something from another website, but on examination it turns out that the other website copied from Wikipedia without attribution!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 13 February 2007 (EST)
::*Which is not to say there are not problems with saying something is "policy" when there is no command-and-control chain of responsibility! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: All your comments above are well-taken. I do see now that many thousands of pages on Wikipedia are copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica '''with''' attribution. That's a revelation to me.

::: That said, I still find an unsettling lack of attribution in Wikipedia's policy. Is there a policy that requires attribution to sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying. I'm not blaming Jimmy Wales, but Wikipedia is no more synonymous with Jimmy Wales at this point than the U.S. Constitution is synonymous with George Washington.

::: The sentence in Henry Liddell's entry was obviously copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Does that violate any Wikipedia policy? It should. I'm going to ensure that Conservapedia's policy requires this.

::: Note that B.C./A.D. v. [[CE]] debate is about proper attribution also, and Wikipedia policy fails there also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: I'm not aware of any specific policy stating that public domain works should be acknowledged but in practice they generally are acknowledged. As to your claim that "The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying" - this is not in any way a fault of Wikipedia but a fault of the researchers in question if it is a fault at all. Furthermore, since the Nature study looked at a specific subset of Wikipedia articles none of which contained 1911 material, I don't see why discussing that matter would be at all relevant. As to the BC/AD v. CE/BCE matter, I still don't see the connection. One is an issue of where a system came from, the other is where Wikipedia sources came from. You seem to be confusing content and meta-content issues. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::I'm not sure anyone understands how Wikipedia functions. In a broad sort of way, Wikipedia policy ''and practice'' is strongly opposed to copyright violation. This is expressed by a conspicuous warning "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted," by the reality that sysops and experienced users really do watch for suspicious material, and really do take quick and effective action when it is spotted.

::::''On the other hand,'' this only applies to material that is under copyright. As an offshoot of the Open Source movement, Wikipedia tends to ''favor'' re-use (copying!) of material that is not under copyright, and, conversely, welcomes the re-use of Wikipedia material by others. That's what the GFDL is all about.

::::Is everyone here aware that it would be ''perfectly OK'' as far as Wikipedia is concerned to copy a Wikipedia article into Conservapedia... either exactly as is, or edited so as to season it to conservative Christian taste... as long as you follow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content these rules.] (Which include giving notice that others may re-use the content copied from Wikipedia). (I'm ''not'' suggesting Conservapedia do this).

::::With regard to attribution, this is covered by Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.

::::'''But...''' what does it mean for something to be "policy" on Wikipedia? This is one of these words that probably means something different to Wikipedians than to the world at large.

::::Wikipedia has enormous numbers of contributors. Contributions are ''not'' vetted or preapproved. It's all "ready, fire, aim." Wikipedia tries to ''influence'' contributors, but it relies on the good intentions of the majority of contributors. And there are nowhere near enough administrators to "enforce" policy. Even if the people with admin privileges all agreed on how to interpret policy, which they definitely do not.

::::And, don't forget--policy pages are just like any other Wikipedia page, and you or anyone else can go in and edit them at any time! Furthermore, it is acknowledged that policy pages are more of an attempt to report or articulate what experienced Wikipedians actually do than to control what they, or anybody else, does.

::::Now, anyone who's ever been in a large organization knows that the written policy often bears only a loose relationship to what actually happens. It may be that Wikipedia is not all ''that'' different from the other large organizations, but the paradoxes and complexities of large-scale human interaction are explicitly on display.

::::Aschlafly, I trust that '''didn't''' answer your question! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:37, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Thanks, Dpbsmith, for your informative posting. Given all that you said, I guess it comes down to this: the personal views and preferences of the Wikipedia admins. There is no attempt by Wikipedia for balance in ideology or outlook by these admins. As a result, it is inevitable that certain philosophies will gain control and the place becomes dominated by certain views. This happens in any group environment, or any organization, if there is no attempt to stop it (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Is there a way to poll the views of Wikipedia admins? As I've said before, it's pretty clear what their views are simply by watching what they post and delete. But perhaps a poll would end any pretense that the Wikipedia admins are balanced as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: That's interesting because that doesn't sound at all like what Dpb said above. Now to be clear, if an admin pushes a certain viewpoint or acts in a matter biased towards one group other admins will step in. Since not everyone cares about the same issues, one will always have some completely uninvolved admins and other editors able to help out with neutrality issues. If admins act in a particularly POV way then they will get desysopped or put on some sort of probation. This has happened to admins in the past over a variety of issues. And again, the admins aren't in charge of content, that's a general editorial thing. All admins do is block problematic users, delete when there is a consensus to delete and protect when there is a strong need to protect. None of these concern direct content issues and admins are specifically disallowed from using their admin tools in content disputes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:24, 13 February 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia on AAPS==
I'm not sure how much water I want to carry for Conservapedia, and I certainly don't want to be Conservapedia's pet Wikipedia-fixer, so I've left a note on Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Neutrality_issues.3F discussion page for the AAPS article] but have not edited the article itself. It might be appropriate to place a <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag on the article itself, but I don't want to go that far yet, at least not until I see whether there's any response on the Talk page. (I expect to be chided for not fixing the article myself...)

It looks to me like the article is on balance negative toward AAPS, but that most of the comments and criticism are properly sourced.

The usual best approach to adjusting balance problems in Wikipedia articles is not to remove material on the overrepresented side if it's well-sourced, but to add well-sourced material on the opposing side, e.g. the fact that AAPS is (according to the New York Times) drawn from AMA membership and that (at least one) AAPS member has been the president of the AMA... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:21, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: Your edit to the Example of bias here is an improvement. However, I think your comment that the Wikipedia article is merely "on balance negative towards AAPS" is quite a bit understated. (Disclosure: I do work for AAPS.)

: The bulk of the entry about AAPS itself (not including its journal) is a rant by a British television journalist. Why isn't that high degree of bias prohibited, and why shouldn't the contributor be warned about a violation of a policy? --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: High degrees of bias are prohibited by the neutrality policy. However, the policy is not exercised instantaneously or with much precision. That paragraph strikes me as the Wikipedian equivalent of driving 80 mph on a interstate highway posted 65. It's against the law but it would be naive to expect to see flashing blue and red lights behind you the instant the needle crosses 65. Thousands of drivers can ''habitually'' rive 80 for ''long'' periods of time without seeing them.

:: P. S. I see the article as slightly biased, you see it as very biased... no surprises there. Disclosure: I have nothing whatsoever to do with the AAPS! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:43, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: P. P. S. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], in response to the note I left on the Talk page, one editor who's been active on this page recently cut the Brian Deer material down to about half its previous size and moved it into the section on "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons." I don't expect you to be satisfied, but I think you'll agree that it's better than it was. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the article]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: I'm at least not happy with it still. DPB, where did the NYT mention that a member had been a past president of the AMA? That would seem to be a pretty relevant detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: The shift is a slight improvement. But why are Brian Deer's intemperate comments even on AAPS's entry? How long do you think a similar rant against Brian Deer, if posted on his entry, would survive Wikipedia admin review? There is no justification for posting Brian Deer's rant on AAPS's entry. Note, by the way, that Brian Deer went off the deep end in response to criticism in England by someone other than AAPS of Brian Deer's own work, but that was not included.

:::: Also note that the date "2005" for Time's description about AAPS is wrong, and off by nearly 40 years. The Time remark is from 1967, when Time might have described Ronald Reagan the same way. Oh what a difference 40 years makes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: I've corrected the date to 1967. As discussed on the talk page for that article, Deer is an award winning journalist specializing in medical issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to include his opinion. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:48, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Citing something that is 40 years old to describe an active organization is silly at best, and obviously biased in this case. Time is editorializing rather than presenting something factual, and it's 40 years out of date. This is rank prejudice.

:::::: Allowing Deer's baseless opinion is even sillier and more biased. He has no personal knowledge of AAPS and cites no basis for his polemic, which was prompted by someone else's (not AAPS's) criticism of Deer's own work. Deer, an English journalist, has no expertise for commenting on an American organization anyway. Allowing Deer's diatribe to remain violates the NPOV that Wikipedia apparently only applies to censor conservative comments, not liberal ones.

:::::: As long as Deer's rant remains, this beautifully illustrates Wikipedia's bias. I'm moving this illustration up higher in the list here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: I'm going to disagree in part and agree in part. I agree that there may be a problem having a 40 year old comment in (although whether the piece is an editorial doesn't alter much whether or not it is relevant). The Deer assertion however seems to lack a strong basis- it isn't clear to me why an English journalist cannot comment on an American organization (it isn't like this is the 1700s and someone in Britain has almost no access to details about what is happening to organizations in the US) and regardless of what prompted the matter Deer is a qualified journalist in the relevant field. Citing a qualified journalist in the relevant field who gives his opinion does not seem biased to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:05, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::: OK, you've made yourself clear and I've updated the content page accordingly. I feel this ranks #3 in illustrating bias on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Bell Trade act ==

First note that the article has a neutrality disputed tag on top, so neutrality problems are a) not surprising b) don't reflect that poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Also note that the quote about father capitalism was "wrath of Father Capitalism and Mother Nature" which is hard to see as actually anti-capitalist. It appears to be more of an attempt by a poor writer trying to use flowerly language to say that their were both economic and environmental problems. Also note that that phrase was in any event removed a while ago. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Robert McHenry ==
...is quoted in point 23 as saying:
:One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined.

Well, yes. And that is why, at least since 2003 and I believe '''well''' before that, WIkipedia has had a policy page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not], saying:
:Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.
So McHenry's remark is beside the point, and doesn't illustrate much except that McHenry doesn't [[grok]] Wikipedia in fullness. Was this the same essay in which he likened Wikipedia to a public toilet?

[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html No, it was a different one]:
:The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
I like that remark better. At least it's funny. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:53, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::That is a funny remark. But Wikipedia does claim to be an "encyclopedia", and it does operate with any guiding principles that check and minimize the problems with democracy (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Page deletions (such as conservapedia) are done without any explanation other than (perhaps) majority vote. McHenry's observation fits Wikipedia to the tee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 18 February 2007 (EST)

The deletion of the page on conservapedia was not unexplained; the article was clearly against wikipedia's notability standards. You can complain that they selectivly enforce these standards (they do) but you cannot say that there were no legitimate grounds to delete the article. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:24, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY:''' Not true. The admin who deleted the conservapedia entry on Wikipedia did NOT explain his action. Some said it was because most (not all) of the comments favored deletion. But then defenders of Wikipedia claim it is not majority-rule. So which is it? Majority rule or reasoned basis for actions? For it to be a reasoned basis for action, the reason must be given by the person taking the action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== "Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors?" ==

Rising to the bait as usual... reaching for the rope for which to hang myself... since Aschlafly keeps asking, I'm going to guess at an answer.

Wikipedia doesn't survey these editors because I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does, ''how'' you would survey these editors. Aschlafly seems to labor under the impression that Wikipedia is like most traditional organizations, with reasonably well-structured organization charts and chains of command and so forth. It isn't.

Aschlafly or Jimbo or anyone else could ''ask'' editors to respond to a survey. There _is_ a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits List of Wikipedians by number of edits] that would enable anyone to identify the high-volume editors. One could go down that list and leave notes on all of their Talk pages asking them to fill in a survey. But what then? There's no way to compel them to answer. There's certainly no way to compel them to answer truthfully. Not as thing stand. (I can only imagine what would happen if Jimbo decreed that anyone not answering the survey would be blocked).

And Wikipedians tend to be rather antiauthoritarian and resistant to such requests. I don't know what the usual response rate is to online survey requests but I'll bet it would be about 0.2%. Make that 1% if it were clearly a personal, sincere request from Jimbo himself.

I'm afraid that the composition of WIkipedia's active editors must be guesswork based on observation of actual behavior.

One of the few factoids I am aware of is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_age List of WIkimedians by age]. A tiny voluntary sampling. Is it representative? Who knows? But it looks like a young crowd to me.

There ''is'' a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with 202 members and a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians] with 68 members. Make of it what you will. (And I'm sure you will!) (And that includes Will N!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:06, 18 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. What do we know about the political composition of Encyclopaedia Britannica editors? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== Mathematics ==

I do not understand point 16 in the list, about mathematics (I am a mathematician). I am all in favor of having an unbiased encyclopedia, but what does this entry have to do with being anti-American or anti-Christian? Wikipedia does not have an entry on elementary proofs, but it does have an entry on "Proof". It is not a mathematical textbook, so you cannot expect all proofs to be completely written out, I think.

:If no one objects, I will remove this point. --[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 02:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''REPLY:''' Unfortunately, "reverts" do not seem to have a comment section for explanations. I'm sorry for not seeing your comments here until last night, when I attempted to respond immediately. (By the way, I also have something of a mathematical background)

::: The concept of "elementary proof" was important for most of the 20th century. A Fields medal was given for an elementary proof; Paul Erdos swore by this approach; Math World recognizes it; and mathematicians who emphasize rigor appreciate the concept also. Why pretend it doesn't exist? It certainly does. Complex analysis has some inherent assumptions, and the concept of "elementary proof" recognizes as much. Why pretend otherwise?

::: Wikipedia (unlike Math World) refuses to recognize the concept of "elementary proof," and Wikipedia even omits any reference to the concept in its long-winded treatment of "proof" that you cite above. This reflects bias. Math may be less vulnerable to bias than other fields, but no field is completely immune from bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I agree that elementary proof is a very important concept. However, I think that this does not so much show bias as just the fact that Wikipedia is incomplete: probably nobody thought about adding an entry for this concept. BTW, I just noticed that Wikipedia does have an entry for Elementary proof now (since February 5), it was no doubt created as a result of this list. I updated the list accordingly.

I would be interested to see your reply to my other point, about Wikipedia not being a textbook. Do you intend to have only formal and rigorous proofs in Conservapedia?

::'''REPLY:''' The new entry in Wikipedia topic looks good, and must have been in response to the criticism here. Thanks for updating the entry here to reflect that.

:: That said, this was no oversight. Some mathematicians do falsely pretend there is no such thing as an "elementary proof," and some liberal blogs have ridiculed me for claiming otherwise. Rigor is vulnerable to bias, and this is an issue concerning rigor.

:: I wouldn't require only elementary proofs, but it essential to be aware of the concept and departures from elementary proofs. Denial of this important concept is worth criticizing, as we did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

This is very interesting, I never heard about mathematicians who denied the existence of elementary proofs. Could you give me some examples/quotes? Seems like a very strange position to have.--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 14:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Andrew, I think you exxagerate. Elementary proofs are only important in number theory, and only then mainly for aesthetic or philosophical reasons. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:: Thank you, Joshua, for denying or downplaying the significance of the elementary proofs in response to Twoflower's statement.

:: Yes, of course there are mathematicians today who deny significance to the concept of the elementary proof. The mathematicians who have inserted thousands of entries in Wikipedia for ten years without ever mentioning elementary proof, either as its own entry or as part of a comprehensive entry on proofs, further illustrate my point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::: Um, speaking as someone who has published papers in number theory where the notion of elementary proof first came to be somewhat relevant- should Wikipedia have had an article about it? Yes. Is it such a terrible thing to not have one? Not really. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK, that's the opinion of JoshuaZ, and that confirms my statement that some mathematicians downplay or deny the significance of the elementary proof. Needless to say, other mathematicians haven't agreed. A Fields medal was even given for an elementary proof once. Some mathematicians devoted their careers to the pursuit of elementary proofs. And there are obvious logical reasons for preferring elementary proofs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Obvious logical reasons? Really? Such as? There are reasons a logician might be interested in the matter, but that's not logical reasoning, and again in any event, this isn't a bias of Wikipedia but an ommision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I favor dropping the item on ''elementary proof''. I don't think that the concept is either well-defined or important. Yes, MathWorld gives a definition, but I do not believe that definition is accepted or used among mathematicians.
The point of this item seems to be that an elementary proof is somehow more rigorous or desirable than a non-elementary proof. However, I do not think that is true. If some mathematician has that view, then who is it? I think that it would be a minority view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== We need to decide what this list is ==

Is this a list of examples of biases in Wikipedia or an example of problems with Wikipedia or a list of examples of foul-ups of Wikipedia or some combination? I see all three in this, all listed as examples of bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

:Perhaps the list should be categorized; separate sections for bias, errors, omissions and whatever else. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Bias underlies many "foul-ups" and "errors". I don't separating them into categories helps.

::One of the complaints about Wikipedia is how long-winded everything is. An encyclopedia should be concise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::''Some'' encyclopedias are not concise. For what it's worth... the Encyclopædia[sic--their spelling] Britannica 11th Edition (1911)'s article on the Bible runs from page to 849 to 894. That's forty-six pages. And an Encyclopædia Britannica page is several ordinary book pages (and many computer screens). I estimated once that the article would be about 1 megabyte of ASCII text. And then it's followed by "Bible, English" from pages 894 to 905. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)

While '''''some''''' foul-ups and errors may have underlying bias, most do not. In fact, I don't think that any of the errors pointed out in this page reflect bias; we should reove them completely. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:54, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The following entry strikes me as wrong or misleading -

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public".

:Just because those editors identify themselves as liberal does not, in fact, suggest that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It depends whether they are allowing their political views into their articles, whether the articles in question are capable of being politicised and whether the entire American population is made up of only liberals and conservatives. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:I am also a bit Challenged by the concept that something could be "six times more liberal" than something else. I wonder if Noam Chomsky is six times more liberal than Phyllis Schlafly? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Horace makes a valid point. I thought about that "six times more liberal" ratio myself quite a bit, both before and after writing it. But what other number would make sense? Liberal by a 3:1 margin is many times more liberal than something that is conservative by a 2:1 margin. How many more times? Well, if the ratio went from 1:1 to 2:1 then we would say twice as many. When the ratio goes from 1:2 to 3:1 then six times as much seems appropriate. I welcome other suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I suggest that you remove the sentence-- I don't think that 'degrees of liberal' can be expressed accruately with a ratio.

Furthermore, I think that while we should strive to point out the liberalism of wikipedia, we should '''''not''''' by any means suggest that they be just as consevative/liberal as the general public. This (I hope) would be hypocrisy! We are trying to be as far to the right of the general public as possible.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:41, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Can't resist:

::::Alice was puzzled. "In ''our'' country," she remarked, "there's only one day at a time."

::::The Red Queen said, "That's a poor thin way of doing things. Now ''here'', we mostly have days and nights two or three at a time, and sometimes in the winter we take as many as five nights together—for warmth, you know."

::::"Are five nights warmer than one night, then?" Alice ventured to ask.

::::"Five times as warm, of course."

::::"But they should be five times as ''cold,'' by the same rule--"

::::"Just so!" cried the Red Queen. "Five times as warm, ''and'' five times as cold—just as I'm five times as rich as you are, ''and'' five times as clever!"

:::Oh, a concrete suggestion: once you've said 'twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative"' it seems to me the point is made. Do you really need to say anything more? Readers can draw their own conclusions, numerically if they're so inclined. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Dpbsmith, I am not sure why you removed the following post of mine, but I thought it was relevant-

::::Actually, my maths isn't great, but I think six times is not right. If I had say 12 people drawn from the general population (and assuming everyone is either conservative or liberal), on your figures I would expect four of them to be liberals. If I had 12 Wikipedia editors I would expect nine of them to be liberals. That is not a sixfold increase.

::::I emphasise that I am not a mathematician.

::::Perhaps you should just say that liberals are grossly overrepresented as editors of Wikipedia.

:::Perhaps you removed it by accident. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::I wasn't aware of removing anything. Sorry. I agree with your math by the way.

:::Is everyone aware that the lists Aschafly cites are not polls, interviews, samples, or anything like that? It is the number of Wikipedians who are aware that these categories exist (they're not advertised, you're not encouraged to add one when you create an account or anything) and have decided they want people to know their views. It is reasonably analogous to driving through a medium city and counting 201 lawn signs for Democrats and 68 for Republicans, or counting bumper stickers on cars as they drive by on a highway. It probably means ''something'' but I'm not sure I'd care to do math on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:07, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I agree that there is some merit to the above comments. But where is the flaw in the math? Polls ''do'' show that the conservative-to-liberal ration is 2:1 among the American public. That alone is useful. I didn't know that before. Did you?

:::I don't know that I know it now. I'd like to know a lot more about that poll. How can the American public be 2/3 conservative and yet vote very close to 1/2 Democratic (e.g. popular vote in last two elections?) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:37, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::The American public is ''not'' 2/3 conservative; in the poll ASchlafly cites, the single largest group are the moderates, with 40% of the respondents. Compare to the list of moderate wikipedians, who number all of 22, and you begin to get the idea that these comparisons just aren't meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:22, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::The liberal-to-conservative ratio of 3:1 based on how many signed up for the corresponding Wikipedia pages is like yard signs, as Dpbsmith says. But a ratio in yard signs ''is'' indicative of a region's views. In some ways this is better than phoning people, because this reflects strength of conviction, and willingness to speak out. And thanks to Dpbsmith for the observation in the first place!

::The only suspect part of my analysis is to conclude that Wikipedia is 6 times as liberal as the American public. I thought more about this today. Don't we draw the same conclusion about relative concentrations in solution in chemistry? And don't we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove, or "twice as sweet" in candy? If anyone can explain a flaw in this, then I'd like to see and discuss it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::The error in the math becomes apparent if you treat the ratios as percentages (and again assume everyone is either liberal or conservative). In the general population 33.3% of people identify themselves as liberal (at the 2:1 ratio). At Wikipedia 75% identify themselves as liberal (at the 1:3 ratio). An increase from 33.3% to 75% is not a sixfold increase. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::To Aschlafly--Oh, well. Since you ask.

:::No, I don't think we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove. ''My'' stove just says "wm, low, med, med hi, hi." I can't imagine someone saying "make it twice as hot" when they mean "turn it up from medium to high." The oven says "WM, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, BROIL," but those aren't degrees Kelvin, and 400 is not "twice as hot" as 200. For example, if a recipe says to cook something for one hour at 400° it would not work to cook it for two hours at 200°.

:::I don't know about sweetness, but spice heat is (or formerly was) measured in Scoville units, which in turn represent the relative amount of dilution that produces the same sensation of spice heat. In other words, if habanero sauce diluted 10:1 tastes as hot as tabasco sauce, then habanero sauce is ten times as hot.

:::Now, applying this methodology to Wikipedia and to America, the question is: how much would we have to dilute Wikipedia by adding conservatives in order to make it match America? This is a nice little algebra word problem for your high-schoolers. Call the total Wikipedian population W. We're saying 3/4 of W is liberal. We want to dilute Wikipedia until it is 1/3 liberal, same as America. So, we're going to pour conservatives into Wikipedia, stirring gently, until it reaches a size X·W where it is now 1/3 liberal. At that point, we will say Wikipedia is X times as liberal as the America (because we had to had to make it X times bigger in order to get the proportion of conservatives the same as America).
:::Let the number of liberals in Wikipedia, before and after dilution, be L.
::::L = W·(3/4)
:::We want
::::L / (W·X) = 1/3
:::Substituting,
:::: (W·(3/4)) / (W·X) = 1/3
:::: (3/4) / X = (1/3)
:::: X = (3/4) / (1/3) = 9/4 = 2.25.

:::So, Wikipedia is 2.25 times as liberal as America.

:::Checking, if WIkipedia had 100 people, it would have 75 liberals. If we multiply it by 2.25, it would have 225 people and 75 liberals, so it would have 225 - 75 = 150 conservatives, or a 2:1 ratio.

:::But this is just a game... I'm sure there are other ways to frame the question that will yield other numbers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Oh. Easier way to get the same number: 75% / 33.333% = 2.25. If you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 9 of them are liberal. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 4 of them are liberal. 9 = 2.25 × 4.

:::Of course... if you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 3 of them are conservative. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 8 of them are conservatives. So Wikipedia is 3/8 as conservative which make America 2.67 times as conservative as Wikipedia, which seemingly would make Wikipedia 2.67 time as liberal as America. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:32, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I don't think the above analysis compares the "concentrations" of liberals in the two "solutions".

:: How about drawing an analogy to a pH scale? Call conservative low pH and liberal high pH, so that we can find a ration. 2 parts conservative and one part liberal would yield a low pH. 3 parts liberal and 1 part conservative would yield another pH. I wonder what the ratio would be?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::Well, pH is ''approximately'' minus the natural logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. Since litmus turns Democratic blue in an alkaline solution and Republican red in an acid solution, I guess hydrogen ions (acid) correspond to conservatives. The, uh... uh-oh... pC... of the American public would be -log10(2/3) = 0.176, and the pC of Wikipedia would be -log10(1/4) = 0.602. (Higher pH numbers mean less acidic, and higher pC numbers mean less conservative... so I guess pC works out after all!)

::::I am not going to do anything at all with regard to comparing 0.176 and 0.602. Here are two numbers. I calculated them and I showed how I calculated them. Ain't gonna say nothing more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:16, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::: The ratios imply that WP has 6 times as many liberals as you would expect from the number of conservatives. Or the number of conservatives would have to be increased by a factor of 6 in order to match the American public. But it doesn't follow that WP is 6x as liberal as the public. If WP really functioned properly, you would only need at least one conservative editor and one liberal editor on each article. As long as they reached a consensus, then the article should be balanced, even if the number of editors is uneven. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Instead of using all of these hypothetical analogies, why don't we work with what we have. there are about 3.75 million wikipedia editors so at 3:1 that would make 2,812,500 Liberals. there are about 300 million people in the U.S. so at 2:1 that would make 100 million Liberals. 300 million/3.75 million = 80. so multiply the liberal Wikipedians by 80 to aproximate the US population to get 225 million or '''2.25''' times as many liberals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: Your math is flawed because it doesn't recognize that all the people who are neither liberal or conservative. The simple way to see this is as follows: what fraction of the liberals on Wikipedia now would give it the same balance as the American public? 1/6th. Hence Wikipedia is currently 6 times more liberal than the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::: You are automatically assuming that when you adjust the the numbers that the number of conservatives does not change. To do it properly you have to raise the number of conservatives as well as lower the number of liberals. The percentage of "unbiased" (for lack of a better word) people should stay the same. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Indeed. Amplifying a bit, as long as there's one conservative editor who is capable of adding conservative material that accords with Wikipedia's policies (particularly source citation and "facts about opinion, not opinions"), and one liberal editor similarly capable of adding liberal material, and provided the effective pool of active editors in the article really support Wikipedia's policies and are ''reasonably'' able to judge material objectively against policy... the article should stay balanced.

:::::Thus, the number that matters is not the relative number of liberal and conservative editors. It is the percentage of edits that are made by editors who are truly committed to the neutrality and verifiability policies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:23, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Right, it would be easy for Wikipedia to restore balance in such a manner. In fact, this is how the media ensures balance on certain shows (e.g., Crossfire) and many debates. But Wikipedia does not do this. Rather, it behaves in the same manner as a lynch mob. There is nothing neutral about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Fascinating, one thing I couldn't stand about Crossfire was that it felt a need to break everything down into liberal v. conservative, make sure to label who was on which side and then let them scream each other. Not every issue is simply liberal v. conservative, and I'd have to say that if Crossfire is the ideal, I'd rather be non-ideal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:40, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Something about Wikis acts as a positive-feedback loop that amplifies bad behavior. It can be infuriating to have an edit reverted or deleted. Wikipedia regularly does show "lynch-mob-like" behavior, but the lynch mobs are small, dissolve quickly, and have relatively little affect on the overall content of Wikipedia, other than to get some people so totally alienated as to never be able to think straight about WIkipedia ever again. Wikipedia to some extent is part of the USENET "flamewar" culture, and I think its [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_age age composition] may be more of a problem than its political composition.

:::::: With nobody in authority to make final decisions on policy (no, admins do ''not'' effectively have the ability to do this), borderlines are fuzzy, and everything on the border is resolved by border disputes, with inconsistent outcomes. Really notable things don't get deleted. True vanity articles always get deleted. But your Conservapedias and obscure Norwegian politicians (Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa, Minister of Education and Church Affairs 1913-1915) and articles about middle schools are on the borderline. AFD discussions about borderline articles tend to show WIkipedia at its very worst. However, you might be surprised at how often one of these discussions starts with "piling on" in the delete direction, with curt comments, and ends with a reversal ''if'' people find and quote good sources or improve the article mid-discussion.

:::::: There are certain Wikipedia characteristics that may be properly criticized, but that do ''not'' add up to consistent, systematic liberal bias. For example, the neutrality policy in operation leads to a tendency to ''include unflattering information.'' Wikipedia biographies are never respectful puff pieces, and you may be absolutely sure that an article on Ted Kennedy will mention Chappaquiddick (let me check: yep); that an article on Barney Frank will mention his affair with whozis (let me check: yep, and the name I was trying to remember was "Steve Gobie"), and similarly for Gerry Studds (check), Gary Hart (check), etc. I don't even remember whether Wilbur Mills was a Republican or a Democrat, but I certainly remember his being found wandering drunk in the Tidal Basis (whatever that is!) with a stripper, and I expect the WIkipedia article to remember it, too. (Check: "Mills is perhaps best known for a drunken incident on October 7, 1974, with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." And he was a Democrat). Tabloid-like? Maybe. Politically biassed? No.

:::::: Poor Wilbur Mills! All that time in Congress, and his legacy is "best known for a drunken incident... with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." But isn't it accurate? Without looking at Wikipedia's article (or anyone else's), can you remember any other single concrete thing about him? In my case... I have a vague notion that he was really important, so much so that I mistakenly thought he was a Senator, not a Representative But I can't think of a ''specific'' thing he did apart from the Tidal Basin incident. Can you?

:::::: By the way, although the liberal blogs have had a lot of fun with Conservapedia's objection to British spellings, I have to say I at least see Aschlafly's point. To a newcomer to Wikipedia, redirects seem like magic. I can see how typing in "phonograph record" and getting "Gramophone record" could feel as if Wikipedia were saying "No, dummy, you're wrong, it's ''gramophone.''" No handy little explanation pops up to explain that Wikipedia is deliberately inconsistent and is not endorsing one term over the other. I don't know if its ever gotten to the point of a U. S. kid telling a teacher, "No, that's the wrong spelling, Wikipedia says..." but I can imagine it happening. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:04, 4 March 2007 (EST)

This "six times more liberal" thing is comparing an anonymous poll to non-anonymous affiliations that people put on their user pages, right? --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

: I am wonder who added a comment in the WP article on CP saying that CP has been criticized because the CP article on the Democrat Party includes a sentence describing a harsh view from a critic. It is criticism of the criticism of the criticism, and I am criticizing it here! Somebody needs to tell WP editors that it is not necessary to document every criticism. When an article gets to be more than half criticism, then it probably has too much. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::That sentence certainly looks tendentious, rather than factual, to ''me.'' (Of course, I think the article [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] is precisely 6.23 Scoville units ''more'' tendentious...)

:::As with Conservapedia, the entire history of the article is open to examination. The comment was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=next&oldid=112296143 here] by user Kronix1986. I am ''not'' going to act as some kind of human gateway between Conservapedia and Wikipedia and want to ''try'' to stay out of the incestuous business of editing each Wiki's article on each other. I'd suggest that ''if'' you wanted this comment removed, your best approach would be to say something about it on the article's Talk page, because when you're closely involved in an article sometimes keeping a little distance is better than direct editing. It's easier to present cogent comments on a Talk page than in an edit comment, for example.

:::The argument ''I'' would use is that the statement isn't supported by the cited source. The [http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html cited source] uses the passage ''as an example of the difference'' between the two sites. It does not criticize Conservapedia for this passage, nor does it say that Conservapedia has been criticized for this passage. Furthermore the phrase "seemingly pejorative" is a good example of weasel terms, which Wikipedia has a guideline against. In other words, the statement is clearly editorializing, ''not'' reporting something published elsewhere.

:::(This could, of course, be remedied by rewording the passage to say "One passage, used by a Guardian Unlimited writer to exemplify the different approaches of the two sites, is...") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Good luck dealing with folks who are six times more liberal than the American public! There isn't any chance that Wikipedia will have a fair or reasonably unbiased entry about Conservapedia.

:: That's OK, because this is great fodder for illustrating Wikipedia's bias. I've added a point (around #5, I think) in our list of Examples here. Watch Wikipedia's editors change its entry about Conservapedia as I point out its biased errors here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Point, if you look at the talk page for the Conservapedia there was additional criticism that didn't go in because it was decided that it would be problematic. Furthermore, attempts were made to find more reliable sources that were positive. Attempts were unsuccesful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Regarding American versus English spelling policy ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. They might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

It's interesting because America somewhere along the line changed the spelling of these words. In fact most of the English world (I'm from Australia) views the American spelling as the strange version. It seems to me that this insistence on spelling everything the American way is just another example of American arrogance. I thought the reference to the European ruling family was espicially silly. I personally have no problem with Wikipedia using the proper English spelling for words. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I would like to add a "here, here," to the remarks by Conservative. Furthermore, it seems that Conservapedia is in conflict with itself. When it comes to dates Conservapedia wishes to favor the "historical" anno Domini system in contrast to the newly developed Common Era system. But when it comes to spelling, Conservapedia decides that the historical spelling system should be discouraged and the newly developed American spelling should be used. The foundations for British spelling were published in 1755 as compared to the foundations for American spelling which were published in 1828 (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_spelling_differences&oldid=113116955] for more information). Does Conservapedia have an actual system for determining what it prefers or is this all merely the opinions of a small group of individuals?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==LIBERAL BIAS==

We should change the name of this page to "Examples of Lliberal Bias in Wikipedia".

We don't care about (in fact some of us welcome) conservative bias. The above name would not seem hypocritical. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Who said any of us here actually welcome conservative bias? This wiki was advertised as having a conservative ''perspective,'' not a conservative bias. And this difference is really rather important. A conservative perspective would merely show people how conservatives view the different things happening in the world. A conservative bias would be presenting information with the conservative perspective but instead of presenting it as the way conservatives view things it would be presented as the way things are. I hope that made sense :)
I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. That said, seeing the conservative perspective is, in fact, really intriguing and helpful to me. Conservative bias, just like liberal bias, is not in my best interests and would definitely '''not''' be welcome by some members who are curious liberals. If this is in fact an attempt to convert people throwing in bias is not going to help.
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:You may find this debate interesting... [[How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]] --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Re #32 ==

With regards to criticism #32 this can, and will, happen to any information source. Any system that involves humans is going to have errors. I assume that no member of conservapedia would be so bold as to say there is not one error within the articles. The ''Daily News'' or whatever the paper was are largely to blame as well. Any news source that publishes material based on only one source deserves to feel the slap of public humiliation.
Finally, I would like to ask, as I honestly do not know, how this is an example of bias (as the article title indicates it is)? Is it some form of Pro-Ivy-League-Rutgerian bias?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-09T13:36:12Z

Monotreme: Six Times More Liberal

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

== Additional criticism just added concerning "Anglophilia" ==

Having read the Henry Liddell article, I fail to see the Anglophilia in this case. For example, noting the degree type isn't any different than noting what sort of degree the person got in the American system. Am I missing something here? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:12, 11 February 2007 (EST)

The term "double first degree" is meaningless to most Wikipedia readers. Only an Anglophile knows or care what that means. And did you see all the obscure titles of royality in that entry??? That entry is 95% Anglophile trivia and only 5% content.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 11 February 2007 (EST)

: Ok, first of all, I agree that many readers(not sure "most", since the term is used in many English speaking countries such as India) would not know what "double first degree" is. That's why its wikilinked. So you can click on it to learn what it is. The assertion that "only an Anglophile" would "care" what the term means is hard for me to credit. Are you asserting that one must be an anglophile to care what degrees someone has? As to the last point, "obscure titles of royality" (I will presume you meant, "royalty" although I think you actually mean peerage or the more general British honours system) I'm not deeply familiar with the rules for how to describe people per the Wikipedia manual of style for titles, but my minimal knowledge makes most of the article seem to follow the basic rule although some of them do not. I am going to go through and remove the titles that should obviously not be present under the Wikipedia style guidelines. I fail to see how an article which is about a member of a prominent 19th century British family (and thus, has many relevant titles) demonstrates anglophila by mentioning those titles. Furthermore, given the fact that the Manual of Style says that some of those titles should not be present, it is hard to see how it demonstrates a bias on Wikipedia that an article would not correspond to the manual of style (if anything, that just goes more to the general inconsistency of Wikipedia). It isn't clear to me what you mean by "Anglophile trivia" and therefore cannot respond to it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:02, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I looked at the "wikilinked" explanation for "double first degree." That link sent me to a massive explanation of the British educational system! I tried to find an explanation for "double first degree" but was unsuccessful. Apparently the term can have multiple meanings, none of which are particularly significant. So what if Henry Liddell was in the top ten percent of his college class??? Many entries about Englishmen on Wikipedia are stuffed with this silly information, as though we're all Anglophiles who worship this stuff. This junk obscures the real contributions of the subjects of the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think it matters, Wikipedia has alot of stuff that most people don't care about. I think that your claim of "anglophilia" is hard to prove. I think that the problem is that Wikipidia is so big that it is getting impossible for anyone to keep it under control, so that people can add their own favorite facts, and there is so much of it that it cannot be stopped. it isn't bias just too much information. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: It is bias towards a particular type of information. We don't have too much information about English socialism, racism, imperialism, religious persecution, etc. We don't have too much information about Irish complaints about England, or complaints by other people. We '''do''' have too much information about obscure English royal titles and nearly arbitrary college distinctions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia doesn't have "anglophilia." What Wikipedia has a very significant proportion of British contributors. Who, incidentally, are constantly pointing out valid problems with "U.S.-centric" entries.

: '''REPLY''' The contributions by English editors is fine; the obsession of some of them with obscure British royalty and silly, unexplained college distinctions does reflect an Anglophile bias worth highlighting. Is there more editing on Wikipedia by English editors than American ones? Seems like it based on my observation of so many British spellings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

en.wikipedia.org is the English-''language'' Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia.

(And I'd add that 99% of people looking up Henry Liddell are probably researching Lewis Carroll, whose fictional and nonfictional work is so liberally laced with Victorian British terms, assumptions, mindset, point-of-view, etc. that it's probably not a bad idea for anyone reading him, or reading about him to be open to picking up little bits of Victorian trivia....) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''': It's hard to see the Alice connection on Liddell's (biased) entry on Wikipedia, so many of the 99% of users could be disappointed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Ok, once again, this was something that could be easily fixed. However, I don't see what the grammatical issue is. I would appreciate if you would point it out to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:58, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Isolated bias is easily fixed, but pervasive bias is not. The Wikipedia contributors care more about an obscure royal lineage than presenting facts (and good grammar) in a clear manner. Do you know what percentage of Wikipedia administrators are English, and what their perspective is?

::: The grammar error is easy to fix, but the bias is not. "Henry George Liddell (February 6, 1811 – January 18, 1898) was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford [WHEN????], headmaster (1846–55) of Westminster School[1] author of A History of Rome (1857); and co-author (with Robert Scott) of the monumental work A Greek-English Lexicon ((1843; 8th ed., 1897; revised by H.S. Jones and others, 1940; abridged, 1957; intermediate, 1959 [ABSURD LIST OF DETAIL THERE)[2], which is still use ["USED", NOT "USE"] by students of Greek."

::: Please give credit to Conservapedia when correcting the series of errors in Wikipedia. Thank you! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Instead of claiming these simple errors as bias, why don't you just fix them when you find them. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:04, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::: It would take me all year, and then some, to "fix" the bias in Wikipedia. I'm simply giving examples here. Fixing an example does not fix the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)
:::: I am not saying to fix all of the bias, I am saying you should fix the simple grammatical errors, and things like the lack of a date when you come across them.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 21:05, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::In order to jump-start Wikipedia, many articles, particularly on older topics, were directly copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Most of them are tagged "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." They're included in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica this category]. For example, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab Ahab]. Most of these don't just "incorporate" text, they've just plain "copied" it. Compare [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ahab Ahab] in the online 1911 Britannica, for example.

:::::I wonder how many of the "Anglophilic" articles you've noticed are, in fact, 1911 Britannica material?

:::::Henry Liddell is '''not''' one of these. However, the 1911 Britannica does contain the exact sentence "Gaining a double first in 1833, Liddell became a college tutor, and was ordained in 1838." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Yeah, this is a good point. There was a project at one point to clean up all these articles but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. One occasionally runs into very out of date things, like I recently ran into an article that referred to "mohammeedans" and one runs into similar problems. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::P. S. I can't resist pointing out... Aschlafly complains that "gossip and hundreds of thousands of entries about pop songs or celebrities are pervasive on Wikipedia." However, articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu Pikachu] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Timberlake Justin Timberlake] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King The Lion King] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffyverse Buffyverse] are ''virtually free'' of Anglophilia or British spellings. So, either pop culture is pervasive on Wikipedia, or Anglophilia is pervasive on Wikipedia, but I don't see how both can be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 12 February 2007 (EST)

I lost this conversation the moment it started. I think we went a lil too far, dont you Mr.Schlafly? I guess it doesnt matter what i think anyway.:) [[Will N.]]

: '''REPLY:''' You make a good point, Will. It does matter what you think. However, note that we all learned something from this debate: Wikipedia has copied material verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I didn't know that before this discussion. That explains some of the obscure and pecularly English descriptions in many entries. Also, it shows that Wikipedia is not completely original.

: By the way, Dpbsmith, with all due respect I do think that conflicting attributes can be pervasive at the same time. Oil and water are opposites in many ways, but both can be pervasive in the same solution. E.g., [[Exxon Valdez]] oil spill. You wouldn't say that either water or oil was pervasive there, but not both, would you? :-)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::Indeed. And in mayonnaise, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I just went on Wikipedia and clicked on random article about 35-40 times, and did not find any examples of "anglophilia"--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Um, I don't think Wikipedia ever claimed to be "completely original." Wikipedia incorporates a lot of material that is in the public domain (either by release or by expiration) as well as material under the GFDL and many of the creative commons liscences. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:26, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: There's an important point here, though. A lot of our "answers" to Aschlafly take the form "but everyone ought to know thus-and-such" about Wikipedia. Aschlafly often seems to me to berate Wikipedia quite unfairly for not matching his expectations of what he ''assumes'' Wikipedia is or thinks Wikipedia ought to be.

::: The question is, what does the average reader or user, who does not contribute, has not read the policy pages, doesn't have pages on a watchlist and understand how editing works, doesn't fix casual vandalism, doesn't glance at the History, etc. etc. think Wikipedia is?

::: Is Wikipedia ''in effect'' misrepresenting itself? Is there a ''large'' discrepancy between what [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] and I and even a casual contributor know Wikipedia to be and what the average reader assumes it to be? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== "Debate" about reliability and disclosure ==

I don't know what is meant by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&curid=2896&diff=13761&oldid=13689]. I don't think Wikipedia ever hid this and if you read almost anything put out by Wikipedia discussing its early history it mentions it. This seems to imply that people were trying to cover it up or something. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:23, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:Where is this disclosed by Wikipedia? I've followed and contributed occasionally to Wikipedia for a decade and was unaware of such copying. In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

:What's lawful (copying from expired copyrighted material) does not excuse lack of attribution or credit. Wikipedia should have a strict policy of requiring attribution. Does it? Apparently not. It should.

:This relates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: You appear to be conflating a variety of different issues. First, this is disclosed anywhere, including for example on almost every article that is primarily based on the 1911 (they say at the bottom that they use it), as well as discussed at a variety of other locations such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:1911 here]. So all relevant attribution is given. As to your claim that "In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica" first there was no such debate as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Although Britannica spent a fair bit of time attacking the Nature study and has continued to spend time and effort attacking Wikipedia, James Wales has repeatedly stated that Wikipedia is not attempting to compare itself to Britannica nor supplant it. Given that there was no "debate" and that Wikipedia had used public domain work from a variety of early encyclopedias in a very small fraction of its articles which were marked as such, it is hard for me to see what else you wanted Wikipedia to do? You might have come claim about issues of intellectual honesty if Wikipeda were attempting to "debate" the relative merits, but again, Wikipedia was not attempting to do so and always stated that it was about using and sharing free encyclopedia content. (Incidentally, the 1911 edition also has nothing to do with the modern versions of Britannica since subsequent editions (I believe one of the ones from the mid 1960s) were complete or nearly complete rewrites, so any notion that Wikipedia was somehow copying from Encyclopedia Britannica as it stands now is inaccurate (irrelevant, but still inaccurate)). Now to your final comment, that this somehow "elates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity" - I'm afraid I don't see the connection at all. One is a claimed bias that Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge the contributions of Christianity to Western culture and such, the other is a claim that that Wikipedia has not sufficiently acknowledged what sources it uses. What one has to do with the other is beyond me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::*The articles copied from the 1911 Britannica are supposed to be attributed, and as far as I know most of them are. The Henry Liddell article was not copied from the 1911 Britannica, although I must say it ''looks'' to my eye as if it has been lifted piecemeal from more than one source and not attributed.
::*Checking Wikipedia for details (!), the 1974 Britannica 3 (Propaedia/Micropaedia/Macropaedia) was a complete rewrite. As recently as the 1960s there were still some articles entirely or partly based on the 1911 edition. The one that sticks in my mind was their article on Beethoven, which contained the lovely sentence "The immense changes he brought about in the range of music have their most obvious effect in the possibilities of emotional expression; and so any outbreak of vulgarity or sentimentality can with impunity claim descent from Beethoven, though its ancestry may be no higher than Meyerbeer."
::*Copying without attribution is a perpetual problem in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," and cutting and pasting particularly from websites occurs all the time. Like casual vandalism, I believe most (but not all!) of it is caught and removed pretty quickly. It is made as clear as possible to contributors that they're not supposed to do this. Copyright violations are watched for ''pretty'' carefully, and enforced ''quite'' vigorously. A "copyvio" is one of the few forms of material on Wikipedia on which an admin is supposed to shoot first and ask questions afterwords; i.e. delete as soon as noticed, and restore afterwards in those vary rare cases where the contributor proves there actually was permission to release the material under the GFDL. (A much more common case occurs when someone thinks that Wikipedia copied something from another website, but on examination it turns out that the other website copied from Wikipedia without attribution!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 13 February 2007 (EST)
::*Which is not to say there are not problems with saying something is "policy" when there is no command-and-control chain of responsibility! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: All your comments above are well-taken. I do see now that many thousands of pages on Wikipedia are copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica '''with''' attribution. That's a revelation to me.

::: That said, I still find an unsettling lack of attribution in Wikipedia's policy. Is there a policy that requires attribution to sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying. I'm not blaming Jimmy Wales, but Wikipedia is no more synonymous with Jimmy Wales at this point than the U.S. Constitution is synonymous with George Washington.

::: The sentence in Henry Liddell's entry was obviously copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Does that violate any Wikipedia policy? It should. I'm going to ensure that Conservapedia's policy requires this.

::: Note that B.C./A.D. v. [[CE]] debate is about proper attribution also, and Wikipedia policy fails there also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: I'm not aware of any specific policy stating that public domain works should be acknowledged but in practice they generally are acknowledged. As to your claim that "The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying" - this is not in any way a fault of Wikipedia but a fault of the researchers in question if it is a fault at all. Furthermore, since the Nature study looked at a specific subset of Wikipedia articles none of which contained 1911 material, I don't see why discussing that matter would be at all relevant. As to the BC/AD v. CE/BCE matter, I still don't see the connection. One is an issue of where a system came from, the other is where Wikipedia sources came from. You seem to be confusing content and meta-content issues. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::I'm not sure anyone understands how Wikipedia functions. In a broad sort of way, Wikipedia policy ''and practice'' is strongly opposed to copyright violation. This is expressed by a conspicuous warning "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted," by the reality that sysops and experienced users really do watch for suspicious material, and really do take quick and effective action when it is spotted.

::::''On the other hand,'' this only applies to material that is under copyright. As an offshoot of the Open Source movement, Wikipedia tends to ''favor'' re-use (copying!) of material that is not under copyright, and, conversely, welcomes the re-use of Wikipedia material by others. That's what the GFDL is all about.

::::Is everyone here aware that it would be ''perfectly OK'' as far as Wikipedia is concerned to copy a Wikipedia article into Conservapedia... either exactly as is, or edited so as to season it to conservative Christian taste... as long as you follow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content these rules.] (Which include giving notice that others may re-use the content copied from Wikipedia). (I'm ''not'' suggesting Conservapedia do this).

::::With regard to attribution, this is covered by Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.

::::'''But...''' what does it mean for something to be "policy" on Wikipedia? This is one of these words that probably means something different to Wikipedians than to the world at large.

::::Wikipedia has enormous numbers of contributors. Contributions are ''not'' vetted or preapproved. It's all "ready, fire, aim." Wikipedia tries to ''influence'' contributors, but it relies on the good intentions of the majority of contributors. And there are nowhere near enough administrators to "enforce" policy. Even if the people with admin privileges all agreed on how to interpret policy, which they definitely do not.

::::And, don't forget--policy pages are just like any other Wikipedia page, and you or anyone else can go in and edit them at any time! Furthermore, it is acknowledged that policy pages are more of an attempt to report or articulate what experienced Wikipedians actually do than to control what they, or anybody else, does.

::::Now, anyone who's ever been in a large organization knows that the written policy often bears only a loose relationship to what actually happens. It may be that Wikipedia is not all ''that'' different from the other large organizations, but the paradoxes and complexities of large-scale human interaction are explicitly on display.

::::Aschlafly, I trust that '''didn't''' answer your question! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:37, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Thanks, Dpbsmith, for your informative posting. Given all that you said, I guess it comes down to this: the personal views and preferences of the Wikipedia admins. There is no attempt by Wikipedia for balance in ideology or outlook by these admins. As a result, it is inevitable that certain philosophies will gain control and the place becomes dominated by certain views. This happens in any group environment, or any organization, if there is no attempt to stop it (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Is there a way to poll the views of Wikipedia admins? As I've said before, it's pretty clear what their views are simply by watching what they post and delete. But perhaps a poll would end any pretense that the Wikipedia admins are balanced as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: That's interesting because that doesn't sound at all like what Dpb said above. Now to be clear, if an admin pushes a certain viewpoint or acts in a matter biased towards one group other admins will step in. Since not everyone cares about the same issues, one will always have some completely uninvolved admins and other editors able to help out with neutrality issues. If admins act in a particularly POV way then they will get desysopped or put on some sort of probation. This has happened to admins in the past over a variety of issues. And again, the admins aren't in charge of content, that's a general editorial thing. All admins do is block problematic users, delete when there is a consensus to delete and protect when there is a strong need to protect. None of these concern direct content issues and admins are specifically disallowed from using their admin tools in content disputes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:24, 13 February 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia on AAPS==
I'm not sure how much water I want to carry for Conservapedia, and I certainly don't want to be Conservapedia's pet Wikipedia-fixer, so I've left a note on Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Neutrality_issues.3F discussion page for the AAPS article] but have not edited the article itself. It might be appropriate to place a <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag on the article itself, but I don't want to go that far yet, at least not until I see whether there's any response on the Talk page. (I expect to be chided for not fixing the article myself...)

It looks to me like the article is on balance negative toward AAPS, but that most of the comments and criticism are properly sourced.

The usual best approach to adjusting balance problems in Wikipedia articles is not to remove material on the overrepresented side if it's well-sourced, but to add well-sourced material on the opposing side, e.g. the fact that AAPS is (according to the New York Times) drawn from AMA membership and that (at least one) AAPS member has been the president of the AMA... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:21, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: Your edit to the Example of bias here is an improvement. However, I think your comment that the Wikipedia article is merely "on balance negative towards AAPS" is quite a bit understated. (Disclosure: I do work for AAPS.)

: The bulk of the entry about AAPS itself (not including its journal) is a rant by a British television journalist. Why isn't that high degree of bias prohibited, and why shouldn't the contributor be warned about a violation of a policy? --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: High degrees of bias are prohibited by the neutrality policy. However, the policy is not exercised instantaneously or with much precision. That paragraph strikes me as the Wikipedian equivalent of driving 80 mph on a interstate highway posted 65. It's against the law but it would be naive to expect to see flashing blue and red lights behind you the instant the needle crosses 65. Thousands of drivers can ''habitually'' rive 80 for ''long'' periods of time without seeing them.

:: P. S. I see the article as slightly biased, you see it as very biased... no surprises there. Disclosure: I have nothing whatsoever to do with the AAPS! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:43, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: P. P. S. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], in response to the note I left on the Talk page, one editor who's been active on this page recently cut the Brian Deer material down to about half its previous size and moved it into the section on "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons." I don't expect you to be satisfied, but I think you'll agree that it's better than it was. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the article]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: I'm at least not happy with it still. DPB, where did the NYT mention that a member had been a past president of the AMA? That would seem to be a pretty relevant detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: The shift is a slight improvement. But why are Brian Deer's intemperate comments even on AAPS's entry? How long do you think a similar rant against Brian Deer, if posted on his entry, would survive Wikipedia admin review? There is no justification for posting Brian Deer's rant on AAPS's entry. Note, by the way, that Brian Deer went off the deep end in response to criticism in England by someone other than AAPS of Brian Deer's own work, but that was not included.

:::: Also note that the date "2005" for Time's description about AAPS is wrong, and off by nearly 40 years. The Time remark is from 1967, when Time might have described Ronald Reagan the same way. Oh what a difference 40 years makes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: I've corrected the date to 1967. As discussed on the talk page for that article, Deer is an award winning journalist specializing in medical issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to include his opinion. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:48, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Citing something that is 40 years old to describe an active organization is silly at best, and obviously biased in this case. Time is editorializing rather than presenting something factual, and it's 40 years out of date. This is rank prejudice.

:::::: Allowing Deer's baseless opinion is even sillier and more biased. He has no personal knowledge of AAPS and cites no basis for his polemic, which was prompted by someone else's (not AAPS's) criticism of Deer's own work. Deer, an English journalist, has no expertise for commenting on an American organization anyway. Allowing Deer's diatribe to remain violates the NPOV that Wikipedia apparently only applies to censor conservative comments, not liberal ones.

:::::: As long as Deer's rant remains, this beautifully illustrates Wikipedia's bias. I'm moving this illustration up higher in the list here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: I'm going to disagree in part and agree in part. I agree that there may be a problem having a 40 year old comment in (although whether the piece is an editorial doesn't alter much whether or not it is relevant). The Deer assertion however seems to lack a strong basis- it isn't clear to me why an English journalist cannot comment on an American organization (it isn't like this is the 1700s and someone in Britain has almost no access to details about what is happening to organizations in the US) and regardless of what prompted the matter Deer is a qualified journalist in the relevant field. Citing a qualified journalist in the relevant field who gives his opinion does not seem biased to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:05, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::: OK, you've made yourself clear and I've updated the content page accordingly. I feel this ranks #3 in illustrating bias on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Bell Trade act ==

First note that the article has a neutrality disputed tag on top, so neutrality problems are a) not surprising b) don't reflect that poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Also note that the quote about father capitalism was "wrath of Father Capitalism and Mother Nature" which is hard to see as actually anti-capitalist. It appears to be more of an attempt by a poor writer trying to use flowerly language to say that their were both economic and environmental problems. Also note that that phrase was in any event removed a while ago. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Robert McHenry ==
...is quoted in point 23 as saying:
:One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined.

Well, yes. And that is why, at least since 2003 and I believe '''well''' before that, WIkipedia has had a policy page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not], saying:
:Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.
So McHenry's remark is beside the point, and doesn't illustrate much except that McHenry doesn't [[grok]] Wikipedia in fullness. Was this the same essay in which he likened Wikipedia to a public toilet?

[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html No, it was a different one]:
:The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
I like that remark better. At least it's funny. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:53, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::That is a funny remark. But Wikipedia does claim to be an "encyclopedia", and it does operate with any guiding principles that check and minimize the problems with democracy (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Page deletions (such as conservapedia) are done without any explanation other than (perhaps) majority vote. McHenry's observation fits Wikipedia to the tee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 18 February 2007 (EST)

The deletion of the page on conservapedia was not unexplained; the article was clearly against wikipedia's notability standards. You can complain that they selectivly enforce these standards (they do) but you cannot say that there were no legitimate grounds to delete the article. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:24, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY:''' Not true. The admin who deleted the conservapedia entry on Wikipedia did NOT explain his action. Some said it was because most (not all) of the comments favored deletion. But then defenders of Wikipedia claim it is not majority-rule. So which is it? Majority rule or reasoned basis for actions? For it to be a reasoned basis for action, the reason must be given by the person taking the action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== "Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors?" ==

Rising to the bait as usual... reaching for the rope for which to hang myself... since Aschlafly keeps asking, I'm going to guess at an answer.

Wikipedia doesn't survey these editors because I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does, ''how'' you would survey these editors. Aschlafly seems to labor under the impression that Wikipedia is like most traditional organizations, with reasonably well-structured organization charts and chains of command and so forth. It isn't.

Aschlafly or Jimbo or anyone else could ''ask'' editors to respond to a survey. There _is_ a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits List of Wikipedians by number of edits] that would enable anyone to identify the high-volume editors. One could go down that list and leave notes on all of their Talk pages asking them to fill in a survey. But what then? There's no way to compel them to answer. There's certainly no way to compel them to answer truthfully. Not as thing stand. (I can only imagine what would happen if Jimbo decreed that anyone not answering the survey would be blocked).

And Wikipedians tend to be rather antiauthoritarian and resistant to such requests. I don't know what the usual response rate is to online survey requests but I'll bet it would be about 0.2%. Make that 1% if it were clearly a personal, sincere request from Jimbo himself.

I'm afraid that the composition of WIkipedia's active editors must be guesswork based on observation of actual behavior.

One of the few factoids I am aware of is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_age List of WIkimedians by age]. A tiny voluntary sampling. Is it representative? Who knows? But it looks like a young crowd to me.

There ''is'' a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with 202 members and a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians] with 68 members. Make of it what you will. (And I'm sure you will!) (And that includes Will N!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:06, 18 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. What do we know about the political composition of Encyclopaedia Britannica editors? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== Mathematics ==

I do not understand point 16 in the list, about mathematics (I am a mathematician). I am all in favor of having an unbiased encyclopedia, but what does this entry have to do with being anti-American or anti-Christian? Wikipedia does not have an entry on elementary proofs, but it does have an entry on "Proof". It is not a mathematical textbook, so you cannot expect all proofs to be completely written out, I think.

:If no one objects, I will remove this point. --[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 02:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''REPLY:''' Unfortunately, "reverts" do not seem to have a comment section for explanations. I'm sorry for not seeing your comments here until last night, when I attempted to respond immediately. (By the way, I also have something of a mathematical background)

::: The concept of "elementary proof" was important for most of the 20th century. A Fields medal was given for an elementary proof; Paul Erdos swore by this approach; Math World recognizes it; and mathematicians who emphasize rigor appreciate the concept also. Why pretend it doesn't exist? It certainly does. Complex analysis has some inherent assumptions, and the concept of "elementary proof" recognizes as much. Why pretend otherwise?

::: Wikipedia (unlike Math World) refuses to recognize the concept of "elementary proof," and Wikipedia even omits any reference to the concept in its long-winded treatment of "proof" that you cite above. This reflects bias. Math may be less vulnerable to bias than other fields, but no field is completely immune from bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I agree that elementary proof is a very important concept. However, I think that this does not so much show bias as just the fact that Wikipedia is incomplete: probably nobody thought about adding an entry for this concept. BTW, I just noticed that Wikipedia does have an entry for Elementary proof now (since February 5), it was no doubt created as a result of this list. I updated the list accordingly.

I would be interested to see your reply to my other point, about Wikipedia not being a textbook. Do you intend to have only formal and rigorous proofs in Conservapedia?

::'''REPLY:''' The new entry in Wikipedia topic looks good, and must have been in response to the criticism here. Thanks for updating the entry here to reflect that.

:: That said, this was no oversight. Some mathematicians do falsely pretend there is no such thing as an "elementary proof," and some liberal blogs have ridiculed me for claiming otherwise. Rigor is vulnerable to bias, and this is an issue concerning rigor.

:: I wouldn't require only elementary proofs, but it essential to be aware of the concept and departures from elementary proofs. Denial of this important concept is worth criticizing, as we did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

This is very interesting, I never heard about mathematicians who denied the existence of elementary proofs. Could you give me some examples/quotes? Seems like a very strange position to have.--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 14:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Andrew, I think you exxagerate. Elementary proofs are only important in number theory, and only then mainly for aesthetic or philosophical reasons. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:: Thank you, Joshua, for denying or downplaying the significance of the elementary proofs in response to Twoflower's statement.

:: Yes, of course there are mathematicians today who deny significance to the concept of the elementary proof. The mathematicians who have inserted thousands of entries in Wikipedia for ten years without ever mentioning elementary proof, either as its own entry or as part of a comprehensive entry on proofs, further illustrate my point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::: Um, speaking as someone who has published papers in number theory where the notion of elementary proof first came to be somewhat relevant- should Wikipedia have had an article about it? Yes. Is it such a terrible thing to not have one? Not really. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK, that's the opinion of JoshuaZ, and that confirms my statement that some mathematicians downplay or deny the significance of the elementary proof. Needless to say, other mathematicians haven't agreed. A Fields medal was even given for an elementary proof once. Some mathematicians devoted their careers to the pursuit of elementary proofs. And there are obvious logical reasons for preferring elementary proofs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Obvious logical reasons? Really? Such as? There are reasons a logician might be interested in the matter, but that's not logical reasoning, and again in any event, this isn't a bias of Wikipedia but an ommision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I favor dropping the item on ''elementary proof''. I don't think that the concept is either well-defined or important. Yes, MathWorld gives a definition, but I do not believe that definition is accepted or used among mathematicians.
The point of this item seems to be that an elementary proof is somehow more rigorous or desirable than a non-elementary proof. However, I do not think that is true. If some mathematician has that view, then who is it? I think that it would be a minority view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== We need to decide what this list is ==

Is this a list of examples of biases in Wikipedia or an example of problems with Wikipedia or a list of examples of foul-ups of Wikipedia or some combination? I see all three in this, all listed as examples of bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

:Perhaps the list should be categorized; separate sections for bias, errors, omissions and whatever else. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Bias underlies many "foul-ups" and "errors". I don't separating them into categories helps.

::One of the complaints about Wikipedia is how long-winded everything is. An encyclopedia should be concise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::''Some'' encyclopedias are not concise. For what it's worth... the Encyclopædia[sic--their spelling] Britannica 11th Edition (1911)'s article on the Bible runs from page to 849 to 894. That's forty-six pages. And an Encyclopædia Britannica page is several ordinary book pages (and many computer screens). I estimated once that the article would be about 1 megabyte of ASCII text. And then it's followed by "Bible, English" from pages 894 to 905. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)

While '''''some''''' foul-ups and errors may have underlying bias, most do not. In fact, I don't think that any of the errors pointed out in this page reflect bias; we should reove them completely. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:54, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The following entry strikes me as wrong or misleading -

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public".

:Just because those editors identify themselves as liberal does not, in fact, suggest that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It depends whether they are allowing their political views into their articles, whether the articles in question are capable of being politicised and whether the entire American population is made up of only liberals and conservatives. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:I am also a bit Challenged by the concept that something could be "six times more liberal" than something else. I wonder if Noam Chomsky is six times more liberal than Phyllis Schlafly? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Horace makes a valid point. I thought about that "six times more liberal" ratio myself quite a bit, both before and after writing it. But what other number would make sense? Liberal by a 3:1 margin is many times more liberal than something that is conservative by a 2:1 margin. How many more times? Well, if the ratio went from 1:1 to 2:1 then we would say twice as many. When the ratio goes from 1:2 to 3:1 then six times as much seems appropriate. I welcome other suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I suggest that you remove the sentence-- I don't think that 'degrees of liberal' can be expressed accruately with a ratio.

Furthermore, I think that while we should strive to point out the liberalism of wikipedia, we should '''''not''''' by any means suggest that they be just as consevative/liberal as the general public. This (I hope) would be hypocrisy! We are trying to be as far to the right of the general public as possible.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:41, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Can't resist:

::::Alice was puzzled. "In ''our'' country," she remarked, "there's only one day at a time."

::::The Red Queen said, "That's a poor thin way of doing things. Now ''here'', we mostly have days and nights two or three at a time, and sometimes in the winter we take as many as five nights together—for warmth, you know."

::::"Are five nights warmer than one night, then?" Alice ventured to ask.

::::"Five times as warm, of course."

::::"But they should be five times as ''cold,'' by the same rule--"

::::"Just so!" cried the Red Queen. "Five times as warm, ''and'' five times as cold—just as I'm five times as rich as you are, ''and'' five times as clever!"

:::Oh, a concrete suggestion: once you've said 'twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative"' it seems to me the point is made. Do you really need to say anything more? Readers can draw their own conclusions, numerically if they're so inclined. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Dpbsmith, I am not sure why you removed the following post of mine, but I thought it was relevant-

::::Actually, my maths isn't great, but I think six times is not right. If I had say 12 people drawn from the general population (and assuming everyone is either conservative or liberal), on your figures I would expect four of them to be liberals. If I had 12 Wikipedia editors I would expect nine of them to be liberals. That is not a sixfold increase.

::::I emphasise that I am not a mathematician.

::::Perhaps you should just say that liberals are grossly overrepresented as editors of Wikipedia.

:::Perhaps you removed it by accident. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::I wasn't aware of removing anything. Sorry. I agree with your math by the way.

:::Is everyone aware that the lists Aschafly cites are not polls, interviews, samples, or anything like that? It is the number of Wikipedians who are aware that these categories exist (they're not advertised, you're not encouraged to add one when you create an account or anything) and have decided they want people to know their views. It is reasonably analogous to driving through a medium city and counting 201 lawn signs for Democrats and 68 for Republicans, or counting bumper stickers on cars as they drive by on a highway. It probably means ''something'' but I'm not sure I'd care to do math on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:07, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I agree that there is some merit to the above comments. But where is the flaw in the math? Polls ''do'' show that the conservative-to-liberal ration is 2:1 among the American public. That alone is useful. I didn't know that before. Did you?

:::I don't know that I know it now. I'd like to know a lot more about that poll. How can the American public be 2/3 conservative and yet vote very close to 1/2 Democratic (e.g. popular vote in last two elections?) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:37, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::The American public is ''not'' 2/3 conservative; in the poll ASchlafly cites, the single largest group are the moderates, with 40% of the respondents. Compare to the list of moderate wikipedians, who number all of 22, and you begin to get the idea that these comparisons just aren't meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:22, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::The liberal-to-conservative ratio of 3:1 based on how many signed up for the corresponding Wikipedia pages is like yard signs, as Dpbsmith says. But a ratio in yard signs ''is'' indicative of a region's views. In some ways this is better than phoning people, because this reflects strength of conviction, and willingness to speak out. And thanks to Dpbsmith for the observation in the first place!

::The only suspect part of my analysis is to conclude that Wikipedia is 6 times as liberal as the American public. I thought more about this today. Don't we draw the same conclusion about relative concentrations in solution in chemistry? And don't we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove, or "twice as sweet" in candy? If anyone can explain a flaw in this, then I'd like to see and discuss it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::The error in the math becomes apparent if you treat the ratios as percentages (and again assume everyone is either liberal or conservative). In the general population 33.3% of people identify themselves as liberal (at the 2:1 ratio). At Wikipedia 75% identify themselves as liberal (at the 1:3 ratio). An increase from 33.3% to 75% is not a sixfold increase. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::To Aschlafly--Oh, well. Since you ask.

:::No, I don't think we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove. ''My'' stove just says "wm, low, med, med hi, hi." I can't imagine someone saying "make it twice as hot" when they mean "turn it up from medium to high." The oven says "WM, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, BROIL," but those aren't degrees Kelvin, and 400 is not "twice as hot" as 200. For example, if a recipe says to cook something for one hour at 400° it would not work to cook it for two hours at 200°.

:::I don't know about sweetness, but spice heat is (or formerly was) measured in Scoville units, which in turn represent the relative amount of dilution that produces the same sensation of spice heat. In other words, if habanero sauce diluted 10:1 tastes as hot as tabasco sauce, then habanero sauce is ten times as hot.

:::Now, applying this methodology to Wikipedia and to America, the question is: how much would we have to dilute Wikipedia by adding conservatives in order to make it match America? This is a nice little algebra word problem for your high-schoolers. Call the total Wikipedian population W. We're saying 3/4 of W is liberal. We want to dilute Wikipedia until it is 1/3 liberal, same as America. So, we're going to pour conservatives into Wikipedia, stirring gently, until it reaches a size X·W where it is now 1/3 liberal. At that point, we will say Wikipedia is X times as liberal as the America (because we had to had to make it X times bigger in order to get the proportion of conservatives the same as America).
:::Let the number of liberals in Wikipedia, before and after dilution, be L.
::::L = W·(3/4)
:::We want
::::L / (W·X) = 1/3
:::Substituting,
:::: (W·(3/4)) / (W·X) = 1/3
:::: (3/4) / X = (1/3)
:::: X = (3/4) / (1/3) = 9/4 = 2.25.

:::So, Wikipedia is 2.25 times as liberal as America.

:::Checking, if WIkipedia had 100 people, it would have 75 liberals. If we multiply it by 2.25, it would have 225 people and 75 liberals, so it would have 225 - 75 = 150 conservatives, or a 2:1 ratio.

:::But this is just a game... I'm sure there are other ways to frame the question that will yield other numbers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Oh. Easier way to get the same number: 75% / 33.333% = 2.25. If you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 9 of them are liberal. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 4 of them are liberal. 9 = 2.25 × 4.

:::Of course... if you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 3 of them are conservative. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 8 of them are conservatives. So Wikipedia is 3/8 as conservative which make America 2.67 times as conservative as Wikipedia, which seemingly would make Wikipedia 2.67 time as liberal as America. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:32, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I don't think the above analysis compares the "concentrations" of liberals in the two "solutions".

:: How about drawing an analogy to a pH scale? Call conservative low pH and liberal high pH, so that we can find a ration. 2 parts conservative and one part liberal would yield a low pH. 3 parts liberal and 1 part conservative would yield another pH. I wonder what the ratio would be?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::Well, pH is ''approximately'' minus the natural logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. Since litmus turns Democratic blue in an alkaline solution and Republican red in an acid solution, I guess hydrogen ions (acid) correspond to conservatives. The, uh... uh-oh... pC... of the American public would be -log10(2/3) = 0.176, and the pC of Wikipedia would be -log10(1/4) = 0.602. (Higher pH numbers mean less acidic, and higher pC numbers mean less conservative... so I guess pC works out after all!)

::::I am not going to do anything at all with regard to comparing 0.176 and 0.602. Here are two numbers. I calculated them and I showed how I calculated them. Ain't gonna say nothing more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:16, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::: The ratios imply that WP has 6 times as many liberals as you would expect from the number of conservatives. Or the number of conservatives would have to be increased by a factor of 6 in order to match the American public. But it doesn't follow that WP is 6x as liberal as the public. If WP really functioned properly, you would only need at least one conservative editor and one liberal editor on each article. As long as they reached a consensus, then the article should be balanced, even if the number of editors is uneven. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Instead of using all of these hypothetical analogies, why don't we work with what we have. there are about 3.75 million wikipedia editors so at 3:1 that would make 2,812,500 Liberals. there are about 300 million people in the U.S. so at 2:1 that would make 100 million Liberals. 300 million/3.75 million = 80. so multiply the liberal Wikipedians by 80 to aproximate the US population to get 225 million or '''2.25''' times as many liberals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: Your math is flawed because it doesn't recognize that all the people who are neither liberal or conservative. The simple way to see this is as follows: what fraction of the liberals on Wikipedia now would give it the same balance as the American public? 1/6th. Hence Wikipedia is currently 6 times more liberal than the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::: You are automatically assuming that when you adjust the the numbers that the number of conservatives does not change. To do it properly you have to raise the number of conservatives as well as lower the number of liberals. The percentage of "unbiased" (for lack of a better word) people should stay the same. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Indeed. Amplifying a bit, as long as there's one conservative editor who is capable of adding conservative material that accords with Wikipedia's policies (particularly source citation and "facts about opinion, not opinions"), and one liberal editor similarly capable of adding liberal material, and provided the effective pool of active editors in the article really support Wikipedia's policies and are ''reasonably'' able to judge material objectively against policy... the article should stay balanced.

:::::Thus, the number that matters is not the relative number of liberal and conservative editors. It is the percentage of edits that are made by editors who are truly committed to the neutrality and verifiability policies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:23, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Right, it would be easy for Wikipedia to restore balance in such a manner. In fact, this is how the media ensures balance on certain shows (e.g., Crossfire) and many debates. But Wikipedia does not do this. Rather, it behaves in the same manner as a lynch mob. There is nothing neutral about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Fascinating, one thing I couldn't stand about Crossfire was that it felt a need to break everything down into liberal v. conservative, make sure to label who was on which side and then let them scream each other. Not every issue is simply liberal v. conservative, and I'd have to say that if Crossfire is the ideal, I'd rather be non-ideal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:40, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Something about Wikis acts as a positive-feedback loop that amplifies bad behavior. It can be infuriating to have an edit reverted or deleted. Wikipedia regularly does show "lynch-mob-like" behavior, but the lynch mobs are small, dissolve quickly, and have relatively little affect on the overall content of Wikipedia, other than to get some people so totally alienated as to never be able to think straight about WIkipedia ever again. Wikipedia to some extent is part of the USENET "flamewar" culture, and I think its [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_age age composition] may be more of a problem than its political composition.

:::::: With nobody in authority to make final decisions on policy (no, admins do ''not'' effectively have the ability to do this), borderlines are fuzzy, and everything on the border is resolved by border disputes, with inconsistent outcomes. Really notable things don't get deleted. True vanity articles always get deleted. But your Conservapedias and obscure Norwegian politicians (Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa, Minister of Education and Church Affairs 1913-1915) and articles about middle schools are on the borderline. AFD discussions about borderline articles tend to show WIkipedia at its very worst. However, you might be surprised at how often one of these discussions starts with "piling on" in the delete direction, with curt comments, and ends with a reversal ''if'' people find and quote good sources or improve the article mid-discussion.

:::::: There are certain Wikipedia characteristics that may be properly criticized, but that do ''not'' add up to consistent, systematic liberal bias. For example, the neutrality policy in operation leads to a tendency to ''include unflattering information.'' Wikipedia biographies are never respectful puff pieces, and you may be absolutely sure that an article on Ted Kennedy will mention Chappaquiddick (let me check: yep); that an article on Barney Frank will mention his affair with whozis (let me check: yep, and the name I was trying to remember was "Steve Gobie"), and similarly for Gerry Studds (check), Gary Hart (check), etc. I don't even remember whether Wilbur Mills was a Republican or a Democrat, but I certainly remember his being found wandering drunk in the Tidal Basis (whatever that is!) with a stripper, and I expect the WIkipedia article to remember it, too. (Check: "Mills is perhaps best known for a drunken incident on October 7, 1974, with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." And he was a Democrat). Tabloid-like? Maybe. Politically biassed? No.

:::::: Poor Wilbur Mills! All that time in Congress, and his legacy is "best known for a drunken incident... with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." But isn't it accurate? Without looking at Wikipedia's article (or anyone else's), can you remember any other single concrete thing about him? In my case... I have a vague notion that he was really important, so much so that I mistakenly thought he was a Senator, not a Representative But I can't think of a ''specific'' thing he did apart from the Tidal Basin incident. Can you?

:::::: By the way, although the liberal blogs have had a lot of fun with Conservapedia's objection to British spellings, I have to say I at least see Aschlafly's point. To a newcomer to Wikipedia, redirects seem like magic. I can see how typing in "phonograph record" and getting "Gramophone record" could feel as if Wikipedia were saying "No, dummy, you're wrong, it's ''gramophone.''" No handy little explanation pops up to explain that Wikipedia is deliberately inconsistent and is not endorsing one term over the other. I don't know if its ever gotten to the point of a U. S. kid telling a teacher, "No, that's the wrong spelling, Wikipedia says..." but I can imagine it happening. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:04, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

: I am wonder who added a comment in the WP article on CP saying that CP has been criticized because the CP article on the Democrat Party includes a sentence describing a harsh view from a critic. It is criticism of the criticism of the criticism, and I am criticizing it here! Somebody needs to tell WP editors that it is not necessary to document every criticism. When an article gets to be more than half criticism, then it probably has too much. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::That sentence certainly looks tendentious, rather than factual, to ''me.'' (Of course, I think the article [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] is precisely 6.23 Scoville units ''more'' tendentious...)

:::As with Conservapedia, the entire history of the article is open to examination. The comment was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=next&oldid=112296143 here] by user Kronix1986. I am ''not'' going to act as some kind of human gateway between Conservapedia and Wikipedia and want to ''try'' to stay out of the incestuous business of editing each Wiki's article on each other. I'd suggest that ''if'' you wanted this comment removed, your best approach would be to say something about it on the article's Talk page, because when you're closely involved in an article sometimes keeping a little distance is better than direct editing. It's easier to present cogent comments on a Talk page than in an edit comment, for example.

:::The argument ''I'' would use is that the statement isn't supported by the cited source. The [http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html cited source] uses the passage ''as an example of the difference'' between the two sites. It does not criticize Conservapedia for this passage, nor does it say that Conservapedia has been criticized for this passage. Furthermore the phrase "seemingly pejorative" is a good example of weasel terms, which Wikipedia has a guideline against. In other words, the statement is clearly editorializing, ''not'' reporting something published elsewhere.

:::(This could, of course, be remedied by rewording the passage to say "One passage, used by a Guardian Unlimited writer to exemplify the different approaches of the two sites, is...") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Good luck dealing with folks who are six times more liberal than the American public! There isn't any chance that Wikipedia will have a fair or reasonably unbiased entry about Conservapedia.

:: That's OK, because this is great fodder for illustrating Wikipedia's bias. I've added a point (around #5, I think) in our list of Examples here. Watch Wikipedia's editors change its entry about Conservapedia as I point out its biased errors here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Point, if you look at the talk page for the Conservapedia there was additional criticism that didn't go in because it was decided that it would be problematic. Furthermore, attempts were made to find more reliable sources that were positive. Attempts were unsuccesful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Regarding American versus English spelling policy ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. They might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

It's interesting because America somewhere along the line changed the spelling of these words. In fact most of the English world (I'm from Australia) views the American spelling as the strange version. It seems to me that this insistence on spelling everything the American way is just another example of American arrogance. I thought the reference to the European ruling family was espicially silly. I personally have no problem with Wikipedia using the proper English spelling for words. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I would like to add a "here, here," to the remarks by Conservative. Furthermore, it seems that Conservapedia is in conflict with itself. When it comes to dates Conservapedia wishes to favor the "historical" anno Domini system in contrast to the newly developed Common Era system. But when it comes to spelling, Conservapedia decides that the historical spelling system should be discouraged and the newly developed American spelling should be used. The foundations for British spelling were published in 1755 as compared to the foundations for American spelling which were published in 1828 (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_spelling_differences&oldid=113116955] for more information). Does Conservapedia have an actual system for determining what it prefers or is this all merely the opinions of a small group of individuals?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==LIBERAL BIAS==

We should change the name of this page to "Examples of Lliberal Bias in Wikipedia".

We don't care about (in fact some of us welcome) conservative bias. The above name would not seem hypocritical. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Who said any of us here actually welcome conservative bias? This wiki was advertised as having a conservative ''perspective,'' not a conservative bias. And this difference is really rather important. A conservative perspective would merely show people how conservatives view the different things happening in the world. A conservative bias would be presenting information with the conservative perspective but instead of presenting it as the way conservatives view things it would be presented as the way things are. I hope that made sense :)
I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. That said, seeing the conservative perspective is, in fact, really intriguing and helpful to me. Conservative bias, just like liberal bias, is not in my best interests and would definitely '''not''' be welcome by some members who are curious liberals. If this is in fact an attempt to convert people throwing in bias is not going to help.
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:You may find this debate interesting... [[How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]] --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Re #32 ==

With regards to criticism #32 this can, and will, happen to any information source. Any system that involves humans is going to have errors. I assume that no member of conservapedia would be so bold as to say there is not one error within the articles. The ''Daily News'' or whatever the paper was are largely to blame as well. Any news source that publishes material based on only one source deserves to feel the slap of public humiliation.
Finally, I would like to ask, as I honestly do not know, how this is an example of bias (as the article title indicates it is)? Is it some form of Pro-Ivy-League-Rutgerian bias?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Six Times More Liberal ==

''"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."''

This is comparing an anonymous poll to non-anonymous affiliations that people put on their user pages, right? --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Fox News Channel

2007-03-09T11:09:35Z

Monotreme:

Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a news channel which would counteract them. Fox News claims to be "Fair & Balanced"<ref>Fair & Balanced[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,27906,00.html]</ref> a claim which it backs up by having shows like [[Hannity & Colmes]]. Fox News has enjoyed success over every other news channel.{{fact}} It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity. Fox News characterizes itself as reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide. <ref>We Report. You Decide.[http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=foxiu1.jpg]</ref>.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news shows. Many Fox News hosts, while they are very modest, believe this is because they show both sides of the issues and refuse to viciously attack George W. Bush or the Iraq War, despite such attacks being popular among liberal agents in the media. Frequently, Fox News will report on "good news" from Iraq, such as new schools being built and new roads being built while putting the suicide bombings in context of the broader war on terrorism and the religion they represent.

In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary.<ref>Tony Snow to be Named White House Press Secretary[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193093,00.html]</ref>

The station has come under vicious and repeated attacks from [[Liberal|Liberals]] since its inception.<ref>Block FNC.[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002220590_foxblocker26.html?syndication=rss]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Christmas

2007-03-09T11:08:32Z

Monotreme: /* Modern-day cultural significance */

'''Christmas''' is a [[holiday]] which celebrates the birth of [[Jesus Christ]]. It is celebrated on December 25th by the Roman Catholic church and most Protestant denominations, and on January 7th by the Orthodox Catholic Church.

In Western countries, during the Christmas season people generally hang up colored lights, place a pine tree (Christmas tree) in their house, sing carols, and exchange gifts. Gift-giving commemorates the gifts given to the Christ child by the Magi, and is symbolic of the fact that Jesus came as the greatest gift of all.
==History==
Christmas has had a long and complex history. Christmas is a relatively unimportant holiday in the Christian liturgy (less important, for example, than the Feast of the Epiphany). It is usually assumed that the historical Jesus was born in the Spring. The Catholic Church may have set a date near the date of the Winter Solstice in order to draw parishioners away from licentious pagan festivals occuring at about the same time of year. Early Protestants, including the Puritans who settled in Plymouth, did not celebrate Christmas, which they denounced as Papist.

Many of the customs we have come to associate with Christmas developed in Victorian England, notably the Christmas Tree (which originated in Germany and was introduced in England by Prince Albert). The concept of Christmas as a family-centered celebration and a time of generosity, good will, and friendliness to neighbors, was promoted and codified by Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol.''

In the United States, the image of Santa Claus and his reindeer has been shaped by Clement Moore's poem, "A Visit from Saint Nicholas" (with the famous opening line "'Twas the night before Christmas.") Images created by the Coca-Cola company in the 1930s also played a role. In other countries, the depictions of Santa vary widely; in the Netherlands, for example, he is shown (correctly) as wearing a bishop's mitre.

In the United States, during the twentieth century, gift-giving assumed a greater and greater role, and by mid-century had become of great commercial importance, to the point where some felt the religious aspects were becoming forgotten. As Stan Freberg put it<ref>in a recording, "Green Christmas"</ref> in 1958, "There are two S's in Christmas and they're ''both'' dollar signs." The single week before Christmas currently accounts for 25% to 30% of all retail sales. Meanwhile, the relatively unimportant Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, which falls at about the same time, evolved to become a sort of Jewish counterpart to Christmas. In workplaces and public dialog, the two celebrations were referred to as "the holiday season."

The tension between religious and secularized Christmas has waxed and waned periodically over the years. Bing Crosby, a devout Catholic, initially refused to sing ''White Christmas'' because of its having been written by a Jew and containing no explicitly religious content; he changed his mind; the song become his greatest hit.

==Modern-day cultural significance==
In recent years, the celebration of Christmas has become part of the "culture wars," with Christian conservatives asking for an increased recognition of the religious core of the holiday, and for maintaining a separation between it and other holidays occuring at the same time of yeaer, while [[liberal]]s would rather see it combined with other seasonal holidays.

[[Fox News]] pundits [[John Gibson]] and [[Bill O'Reilly]] claim that Christmas has come under attack by "[[liberal]]s."

==Notes and references==
<references/>

Christmas

2007-03-09T11:08:19Z

Monotreme:

'''Christmas''' is a [[holiday]] which celebrates the birth of [[Jesus Christ]]. It is celebrated on December 25th by the Roman Catholic church and most Protestant denominations, and on January 7th by the Orthodox Catholic Church.

In Western countries, during the Christmas season people generally hang up colored lights, place a pine tree (Christmas tree) in their house, sing carols, and exchange gifts. Gift-giving commemorates the gifts given to the Christ child by the Magi, and is symbolic of the fact that Jesus came as the greatest gift of all.
==History==
Christmas has had a long and complex history. Christmas is a relatively unimportant holiday in the Christian liturgy (less important, for example, than the Feast of the Epiphany). It is usually assumed that the historical Jesus was born in the Spring. The Catholic Church may have set a date near the date of the Winter Solstice in order to draw parishioners away from licentious pagan festivals occuring at about the same time of year. Early Protestants, including the Puritans who settled in Plymouth, did not celebrate Christmas, which they denounced as Papist.

Many of the customs we have come to associate with Christmas developed in Victorian England, notably the Christmas Tree (which originated in Germany and was introduced in England by Prince Albert). The concept of Christmas as a family-centered celebration and a time of generosity, good will, and friendliness to neighbors, was promoted and codified by Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol.''

In the United States, the image of Santa Claus and his reindeer has been shaped by Clement Moore's poem, "A Visit from Saint Nicholas" (with the famous opening line "'Twas the night before Christmas.") Images created by the Coca-Cola company in the 1930s also played a role. In other countries, the depictions of Santa vary widely; in the Netherlands, for example, he is shown (correctly) as wearing a bishop's mitre.

In the United States, during the twentieth century, gift-giving assumed a greater and greater role, and by mid-century had become of great commercial importance, to the point where some felt the religious aspects were becoming forgotten. As Stan Freberg put it<ref>in a recording, "Green Christmas"</ref> in 1958, "There are two S's in Christmas and they're ''both'' dollar signs." The single week before Christmas currently accounts for 25% to 30% of all retail sales. Meanwhile, the relatively unimportant Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, which falls at about the same time, evolved to become a sort of Jewish counterpart to Christmas. In workplaces and public dialog, the two celebrations were referred to as "the holiday season."

The tension between religious and secularized Christmas has waxed and waned periodically over the years. Bing Crosby, a devout Catholic, initially refused to sing ''White Christmas'' because of its having been written by a Jew and containing no explicitly religious content; he changed his mind; the song become his greatest hit.

==Modern-day cultural significance==
In recent years, the celebration of Christmas has become part of the "culture wars," with Christian conservatives asking for an increased recognition of the religious core of the holiday, and for maintaining a separation between it and other holidays occuring at the same time of yeaer, while [[liberal]]s would rather see it combined with other seasonal holidays.

Fox News pundits John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly claim that Christmas has come under attack by "[[liberal]]s."

==Notes and references==
<references/>

Genocide

2007-03-09T10:51:02Z

Monotreme: repetition

Genocide is a racial cleansing, or a killing of people because they belong to a certain culture or religious group.

Genocide

2007-03-09T10:50:52Z

Monotreme:

Genocide is a racial cleansing, or a killing of people because they belong to a certain race, culture or religious group.

Liberal

2007-03-09T10:50:11Z

Monotreme:

'''Liberal''' is a term used to describe a person who generally is left-wing in their attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy"—at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms. <ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

"Liberalism" today means the favoring of collectivism or egalitarianism over individual responsibility. Liberals tend to prefer equality in result rather than increased opportunities that can result in unequal results.

The term "liberal" is used often in the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Some examples of liberal beliefs include:

* gun control
* taxpayer funding of abortion and drug-abuse care
* prohibiting prayer in school
* equal rights for men and women
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* amnesty for illegal aliens
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public school
* protection of endangered species
* foreign treaties, especially for disarmament
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions

Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Labour Party in Great Britain.<ref>http://www.labour.org.uk/home</ref>

An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

:Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==References==
<references/>

Satan

2007-02-23T11:53:51Z

Monotreme:

'''Satan''' (from the Hebrew "ha-satan", "accuser") was a member of the [[divine council]] who rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]], where he leads a host of fallen angels (or [[demon]]s).

Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil).

Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although priests are able to [[exorcise]] his influence.

In the [[New Testament]], Satan tries to tempt [[Jesus]] in the desert, and fails.

New Testament

2007-02-23T11:48:19Z

Monotreme:

The New Testament is a collection of books written by various authors between 45 AD and 140 AD, revolving around the life and work of [[Jesus Christ]], and the apostles he worked with.

Christianity

2007-02-23T11:46:47Z

Monotreme:

'''Christianity''' is a religion that follows the teachings of [[Jesus of Nazareth]], as described in the books of the [[New Testament]]. It is the world's most popular religion, with over two billion members. <ref>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Hell

2007-02-23T11:44:36Z

Monotreme:

'''Hell''' (from the [[Hebrew]] "sheol") is a Christian afterlife where the wicked are punished eternally for all the [[sin]]s they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth. It is populated by [[demon]]s which torture the [[soul]]s of the damned, and is ruled by [[Satan]].

Suicide

2007-02-23T11:42:15Z

Monotreme:

The killing of oneself. This is a [[sin]] in the [[Christian]] religion, but other religions regard it as a path to the afterlife.

Suicide attack

2007-02-23T11:40:13Z

Monotreme:

The [[Japanese]] name for the hurricanes that drove back the Mongol invaders; meaning "divine wind" or "wind of the [[god]]s". The term was also used to describe the Japanese [[suicide]] attacks on Allied naval vessels in [[World War II]].

Cathedral

2007-02-23T11:38:08Z

Monotreme:

A cathedral is a larger version of a [[church]], often the main church of a religious diocese and the seat of the local [[bishop]].

Church

2007-02-23T11:36:51Z

Monotreme:

A church is a building in which the [[Christian]] [[God]] is worshipped.

A larger version of a church is a [[cathedral]].

Saint

2007-02-23T11:35:52Z

Monotreme:

A saint is a person who has been recognised by [[god]] as doing great work for the [[Christian]] [[church]], or making a great personal [[sacrifice]] in the name of their [[religion]].

Opus Dei

2007-02-23T11:34:33Z

Monotreme:

'''The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei''' (from the [[Latin]] "work of [[God]]") is a Catholic religious group that believes every member of their church has the potential to become a [[saint]], and must perform God's work to attain this holy prize.

The group was started in 1928 by the [[Roman Catholic]] priest Josemaría Escrivá.

Controversially, Opus Dei appear in [[The Da Vinci Code]], but are misrepresented as an evil organization.

Maple syrup

2007-02-23T11:26:37Z

Monotreme:

Maple syrup is a sweet syrup made from the sap of maple trees. It is often eaten with pancakes or waffles, and is particularly often eaten in [[Canada]].

Complementary goods

2007-02-23T11:25:39Z

Monotreme:

Complementary goods are commodities that depend on each other such that in increase in the price of one good causes a decrease in the demand for the related good. For example, an increase in the price of [[french toast]] could cause a decrease in the demand for [[maple syrup]], because those two goods are often consumed together. An increase in the price of [[salad dressing]] could cause a decrease in demand for [[salad]].

Complementary goods are the opposite of [[substitute goods]].

Acute angle

2007-02-23T11:23:45Z

Monotreme:

An acute angle is any angle which has a measure of less than <math>90^o</math>. The opposite of an acute angle is an [[obtuse angle]].

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-02-23T11:20:00Z

Monotreme:

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on [[Wikipedia]]. Please add to this, and also contribute entries to [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia].

# 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 is Christian-friendly and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give enough credit to Christianity.
# 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.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> 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!
# 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."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# 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", even there there are far more American than British users. 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.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labor</ref>. 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.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it and failing 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,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act that was debatably against the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgement of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred, but makes the doubtful claim that the Spanish Golden Age flourished in Latin America.
# 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.
# Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. (What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia?)
# 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".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> 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.
# The Wikipedia entry for [[John Peter Zenger]] links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omits any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World!
# Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism). Quantity is not quality.
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#:The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective[citation needed] because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]]. Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and does not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article spells his wife's name incorrectly, and cites no source for the item. The item has been in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#:Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royality, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref>. That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
#:One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined.
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#:I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#:I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#:They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#:In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#:Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#:I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population.
#:There are no data or surveys to back that [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?].
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist John Lawrence Seigenthaler was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#:When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
#What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#:"Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
----
==References==

<references/>

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-02-23T11:15:14Z

Monotreme: Wikipedia article mentions the papacy.

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on [[Wikipedia]]. Please add to this, and also contribute entries to [http://www.conservapedia.com Conservapedia].

# 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 is Christian-friendly and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give enough credit to Christianity.
# 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.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> 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!
# 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."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# 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", even there there are far more American than British users. 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.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labor</ref>. 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.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it and failing 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,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act that was debatably against the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgement of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred, but makes the doubtful claim that the Spanish Golden Age flourished in Latin America.
# 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.
# Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.
# 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".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> 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.
# The Wikipedia entry for [[John Peter Zenger]] links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omits any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World!
# Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism). Quantity is not quality.
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#:The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective[citation needed] because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]]. Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and does not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article spells his wife's name incorrectly, and cites no source for the item. The item has been in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#:Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royality, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref>. That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
#:One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined.
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#:I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#:I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#:They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#:In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#:Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#:I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population.
#:There are no data or surveys to back that [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?].
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist John Lawrence Seigenthaler was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#:When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
#What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#:"Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
----
==References==

<references/>

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-02-22T18:28:02Z

Monotreme: /* Yes */

Post Your Thoughts

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

Counter- The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another species. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
-Chris J
::: Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Which part is unclear? The statements concerning the fossil record and crossbreeding within a species are simple, factual observations. If the argument concernig rate of change in units of Darwins is not based on a linear function, what is it based on? And to clarify- by saying that Change approaches a horizontal assymptote, I mean that change continues over time, but becomes infinitely small and and never exceeds a fixed point. The dog may, through natural reproduction, become another kind of dog. But observation tells us that it will never sprout wings and become a bird.
-Chris J
:::: Ok, for starters, you refer "observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote" - it isn't clear what your relevant vairable is that is being bounded. Continuing, your next sentence claims that "it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another species." I'm not even sure what to make of this sentence since dog breeds aren't separate species. You furthermore assert that "it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed" if anything this is what one might have thought before Mendel. Since alleles come in discrete entities and one does not have genetic continua, this is false. Not only is it false, it is irrelevant, since whether we are able to breed something to be identical to some pre-existing similar organism is irrelevant. Your summary remarks that "The dog remains a dog" and your rephrase that "observation tells us that it will never sprout wings and become a bird" are simply assertions and not very relevant ones anyways(evolution wouldn't expect a dog to "sprout wings" although there are excellent examples of transitionals between true flyers and others). The terminology is so vague as to make it unclear exactly you mean that a dog will always remain a dog. Do you mean there will be never be a reproductive barrier? Do you mean that it will fit what your intuitive notion of what a dog looks like?. (Also, while we are on the topic of defintions, you use both "species" in a non-standard way, and use "kind" in a way that isn't even standard for creationists. If you are going to use terms in a non-standard fashion, defining them would be good). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::Chris, I think you have a misconception of how common descent works. The claim that no dog will become anything other than another kind of dog is, in fact, true, according to evolutionary theory, not a challenge of it. The statement is essentially no different than the claim that mammals never become anything other than mammals, or eukaryotes will never be anything other than eukaryotes. Common descent specifies that evolution happens via nested clades: groups within groups, not one group becoming another. This can be confusing because Linnean taxonomy is static, not cladistic.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:22, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::::Evolution proposes that complexity increases such that more advanced species somehow emerge from less sophisticated ones. This is has never been observed, has never been duplicated in a laboratory, and requires a reduction in entropy at constant energy that contradicts all observations. All observations are of devolution, or the disappearance or reduction in complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: That's incorrect. Evolution does not make any claims about some species being more or less advanced. Evolution does not work on a ladder. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you claim that increases in complexity have never been observed. As in many cases, this may depend on what you mean by complexity. However, regardless of what you mean a variety of mutations have been observed in humans and other species which add essentially new functions to the species. One common example of this is bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:07, 20 February 2007 (EST)

I specified that evolutionary change is the dependent variable, or Y-value, bounded by a horizontal assymptote, with time as the independent variable, or X-value. Your second remark is entirely correct- I misused the word "species" when I meant to refer only to changes between breeds. Observation has shown that some dominant genetic traits tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring, but alleles place boundaries on the change that can occur through this process. It is true that it is difficult to quantify evolutionary change, since it does not appear to progress in any certain direction- another challenge to the above argument concerning the progress of evolutionary change over time. I chose a rational graph with the dependent variable bounded by a horizontal assymptote as an illustration because the aforementioned argument seemed to assume that evolutionary change could be expressed with respect to time or reproductive cycles by a linear graph. I chose the example of cross breeding because it is an example of the reproductive cycle being manipulated to produce maximum evolutionary change. The natural rate of change would be much slower, if indeed there were any measurable change. My statements about a dog "remaining a dog" and not changing species were meant only as examples of the genetic limitations of evolutionary change through natural reproduction, which is generaly limited by species, though somtimes by more inclusive levels of biological classification.

: I'm not sure I completely follow some of what you said such as "Observation has shown that some dominant genetic traits tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring"- alleles are passed on just as frequently whether they are dominant or recessive. We are however, getting to the crux of the matter (although I incidentally note that you ignored the issue of discrete genetics), saying that change is "generaly limited by species, though somtimes by more inclusive levels of biological classification" is not useful. Beyond the species level all classification has a highly arbitrary element to it, at which point it isn't at all clear *why* you would presume that evolution at that level wouldn't occur (there is no sign of any magic barrier or such). This has also the incidental problem that speciation is in fact common. There are possibly hundreds of observed speciation events and I could easily provide (if you wanted) 10 or 15 of them and the relevant citations. (Also, many creationists support not just that speciation has occured but that rapid speciation occured right after the Deluge(indeed, in AIG's account this speciation happened far more uniformily and far faster than any biologist would ever predict and far faster than any observed level). To some extent this reflects a changing of the goalposts- 100 years ago no creationist acknowledged any form of evolution, then in the 1960s the evidence got overwhelming enough that the creationists conceded "microevolution" meaning evolution within species, and more recently many creationists now agree that evolution above the species level can occur, but not much above it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:'''
:::The boundry that defines into what an organism can and cannot evolve is not a "magic barrier" but its own DNA. An organism can only lose genetic information. There has never been an observed exception to this rule. What Chris tried to demonstrate (I think) by his example of a dog is that a dog can change but it cannot become anything beyond the limit set by its own genes; it cannot "sprout wings and become a bird"

:::--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:00, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Ben, this doesn't help at all. This is yet more vague assertions with undefined terms. And almost any defintion of the terms will in fact render the statements false. For example the claim that "an organism can only lose genetic information" - so in this context what do you mean by information? Do you mean in terms of Shannon's measure of information? This is easily seen to be false. Do you mean in terms of Kolmogorov complexity? Again, the claim is false. Indeed, by any reasonable defintion the claim is false. To see why consider the following: Consider some function f that is a function of the current genetic makeup of some creature and turns out some non-negative real number representing how much information there is in that genome. Now, suppose creature A through either mutation or recombination has offspring A' and f(A') < f(A) (that is, A' has lost information). Then the mutation that goes from A' to something with genome A is an example of a gain in information. Since all mutations are reversible, we've established that for any reasonable defintion of information, information can be gained (modulo the essentially trivial case of all genomes having the same information value) [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:27, 13 February 2007 (EST)

#*'''Counter:''' Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

>95% of academic biologists support it.

Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology.

:'''Comment on logic''': I am sorry, but your answer is an appeal to authority, a common logical mistake. But its ok. I am sure there is still more evidence to support your point? [[User:David R|David R]]

: '''Reply''': You say that "95% of academic biologists support it." What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have often wondered if there was a place were one could view this sort of information. It would be most helpful.

: You go on to say that "Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology." Again, what evidence do you have to support this statement? Here are some creation biologists, to name a few:

* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

: All of them have doctoral degrees in some sort of biology and all argue against macro-evolution and for creationism. Are you claiming that all of them have a poor understanding of biology? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:29, 17 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Another Reply''': I assume that you have a better understanding of biology upon which to base this attack? Please enlighten us; how would a wise biologist refute the facts that seemingly disprove evolution? Where is the host of intermediate links? When have biologists observed an organism acctually '''''gain''''' genetic information through a mutation rather than lose it? [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

:: '''Response''': I take it your claim is that all mutations cause a loss of genetic information. This claim is false. Consider: if all mutations cause a loss of genetic information, then point mutations cause a loss of genetic information. But all point mutations are reversible—that is, the nucleotide that changes can change back. So if the original point mutation caused a loss of information, the reversed mutation must cause a gain in information.--[[User:Stereotypical A|Stereotypical A]] 20:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::: REPLY: It requires intelligent intervention to reverse a mutation. Lost genetic information will not be restored simply by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Absolutely false. Point mutations can go either way (and frequently do). In fact, there are a number of tests which measure how mutagenic various mutagens are by using this property. Basically, you take a type of bactera which has a point mutation that leaves it unable to synthesize a necessary amino acid and then you grow a colony of that bacterium and expose them to the desired mutagen. Then you measure what fraction of the colony can survive if you remove the necessary amino acid from the medium. This sort of test has been done for about 30 years now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:58, 20 February 2007 (EST)
Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution. The late evolution-promoter Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College. Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while. Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory. But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation.

>It is at least a puzzle to understand how Creationism accounts for seemingly-badly-designed aspects of anatomy and physiology. For example, the eyes of cephalopods (squid, octopus) and those of vertebrates (mammals, including humans) are strikingly similar in their general "design" with one conspicuous exception. In the cephalopod eye, the retina is structured exactly as one would expect: the light-sensitive receptors face forward, toward the lens, and the nerve fibers that join to form the optic nerve exit in the back.

In the human eye, however, the retina is structured in a very surprising way that is exactly the reverse. The receptors face ''backwards,'' and not only the nerve fibers that collect to form the optic nerve but also all of the blood vessels that nourish it are in ''front,'' where they block the view and cast shadows on the retina. The result is that the human eye has a large and seemingly unnecessary blind spot, and that very intricate processing by the brain is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels.

It all works, of course, but it is puzzling as to why an intelligent creator would design it this way, particularly given that the much older cephalopod eye does it the "right" way. No doubt it is ''possible'' to explain this (just as it is ''possible'' to explain fossils by saying that God created the fossils along with everything else in 4004 BC).

It seems much easier to explain this as a series of incremental adaptations rather than as being "designed" the way a human engineer would design a camera. Of course that does not mean that the incremental adaptations were necessarily guided by pure natural selection as envisioned by Darwin, either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:01, 18 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Reply''': I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

: '''Reply''': I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence '''for''' creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar?

: You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain <nowiki>[that]</nowiki> is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately '''designed'''. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST)

::It's certainly a point of view... but didn't you feel that you needed to work just a bit to arrive at it?

::Although it's certainly ''possible,'' I don't believe that God involves himself in the design details of vertebrate anatomy, and I certainly don't believe he goes to the effort of putting in deliberate design errors as a trick to test peoples' faith. I think a lot more likely that God created the general conditions under which evolution by natural selection takes place, and the "wrong" anatomy of the vertebrate retina is the result of the constraints of having evolved in gradual steps. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Reply:''' There is nothing to indicate that the human eye is an "error"; it works wonderfully. Also under the belief that God is omnipotent, I have no trouble as you do in believing that God would design the details of vertebrate anatomy, especially in light of the arguments against evolution below (with the possible exception of argument #7). Why would he let life progress at random when he could create every thing "fearfully and wonderfully" to reflect his awesome greatness?

[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

'''3''' There is a double nested hierarchy. That is, all life forms two nested hierarchies, one morphological and one genetic and these hierarchies correspond to how they evolved. While it is true that when designers as we know them design things they design them with similarities, they do not design them in nested hierarchies. Human designers will use an idea in one place and then copy that section over somewhere else. (For example, one would not expect an engineer to design the panda's thumb but rather expect the engineer use the pre-existing thumb design from primates). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:01, 13 February 2007 (EST)

==No==

If you have questions about Evolution/Creationism see the articles on this website [[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp]]

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution ''does not even qualify as a theory!!'' According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if '''''ANY''''' data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

'''No'''
: 1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
::'''Counter:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Some transitional forms]
:::'''Counter:'''

:::All of these examples given in the above about the evolution of the whale are nonsense:

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus Pakicetus] -- What makes this a "link"? It was nothing but a land mammal gone extinct.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus Ambulocetus] -- The reason given that this is a link is complete nonsense. It resembles a whale??? Most trees resemble eachother, they all have a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. Does this mean that all trees are somehow missing links between each other?

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon Dorudon] -- I guess Wikipedia supposes this is a missing link because it uses sonar??? Same as example above.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus Basilosaurus] -- Another extinct species called a link because it "resembles" a whale.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurhinodelphis Eurhinodelphis] -- No reason given that is may be a missing link.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalodon Mammalodon colliveri] -- The article just makes an unsupported statement. I would consider this article for deletion (no notability).

:::[[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)

:::: '''Counter''' This may be an example of where going to specialized sources rather than relying on Wikipedia would be in order. However, some of these do in fact make clear why they are considered transitionals. For example, Pakicetus (as discussed in the Wikipedia article) had an inner ear structure that was very cetacean.(Not mentioned in the article but also relevant, Pakicetus had teeth that were very similar to some of the later transitionals in this list although not quite of the standard cetacean form) Proceeding, ambulectus had a bone structure consistent with something which spent time both walking and swimming and bears some similarities to Pakicetus. Basilosaurus looks almost like a modern whale except for the vestigial limbs. I'm not going to go into the others in detail but that should make it clear that there is good reason to see these as transitionals. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:49, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!

: 3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.
::And what evidence would that be?

: 4. All mutations are harmful.
::'''Counter''' This is a false argument. Firstly, it is estimated 1/3 of point mutations (mutations affecting one link in the DNA and no others) are not harmful. Secondly, though the number is small, there are documented cases of mutations being beneficial - an example is sickle cell anemia. This mutation is a flaw in the hemoglobin gene of humans, causing these molecules to covalently bond into long, bristly fibers inside the red blood cell that distort them into a sickle cell shape. This mutation makes sickle cell individuals immune to malaria, and many of the people residing in countries where this disease is prevalent have this mutation. The people affected by this mutation have lived and multiplied, thereby disproving this myth. Also see Counter argument to #5. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' Phyllis, I don't know where you got your information on sickle cell anemia but it was certainly a biased source. You have not given the full story; 25% of those with sickle cell anemia die prematurely! '''''This is not a good mutation.''''' As the closest thing to a good mutation that evolutionists can come up with this is not supportive of evolution at all.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:''' Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations. Simple probability predicts this: a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form. The odds are overwhelming. It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places. If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place? That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes? Of course not. It never happens.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

::I don't see how you can claim that it is overall harmful. It confers immunity to a highly destructive disease to the majority of the population that has the trait. The price of the acute disorder is not a bar to it being an overall benefit for a population, especially since even those sufferers often live long enough to reproduce. Beneficial and detrimental are generally contextual and environmental, not absolute. The recent mutation (we was tracked back to a single man in Italy) that causes immunity to LDH cholesterol (and thus to many forms of heart disease caused by fatty modern diets) is certainly beneficial in modern society. Tetrachromatism in women (four color vision) is likewise a very neat mutational development, but it's not clear that it confers any selective advantage. In a different environment it might be beneficial or even detrimental for some reason.

'''Further Reply:''' Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Comment:''' You should try to bear with Mr. Schlafly's abstract analogies (I know that they rarely make sense) and respond to his points that are doing you any harm; e.g. "Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations."

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

*This is not '''exactly''' a counter to [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. But... Darwin was writing in the days when breeders were starting to do amazing things with selective breeding, which was one of the things that impressed him. Selective breeding is still going on and it is still amazing. In 1910 the average domesticated chickens laid 80 eggs a year; by 1999 292 eggs a year. There are similar stories for milk production per cow, meat per chicken, etc. Some of the improvement is due to changes in feed, antibiotics, hormones, whatever, but most of it is from selective breeding. So the question I would ask is: if all mutations are harmful, then where do breeders find the slightly improved animals to select as the progenitors of the next generation? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 22 January 2007 (EST)

: The vast majority of mutations are neutral or have no observable phenotypic change. Furthermore, of those mutations which are not in those categories, for most mutations whether or not the mutation is beneficial is highly connected to the environment which the relevant organism is found (sickle-cell anemia provides a vivid demonstration of this). However, other examples which are more directly beneficial. For example, many bacteria have gained mutations for immunity to various antibiotics, while other bacteria have gained mutations that allow them to eat nylon (a purely synthetic material). A more prosaic example is lactose tolerance. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:43, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: 5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
::'''Counter''' This is not true. For example, through a specific type of sympatric speciation, new species of plants are able to form and have formed in abundance. It occurs from meiosis not occuring properly in the production of gametes. These "mutant" offspring are a new species and cannot produce offspring with the species they came from, yet can produce fertile offspring with other plants that were mutated the same way. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism '''''gaining''''' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further reply:''' Right. The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further reply:''' The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Comment:''' I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only ''lose'' genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the ''gain'' genetic information.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

: 6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
::'''Counter''' Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrasing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A '''closed''' system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.
::::'''Comment on "closed system":''' So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun. Where does the Sun get its energy? What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away? Molecules are ''still'' breaking down within the Sun. No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics. [[User:David R|David R]]

:::::'''Further comment:''' That's right, David. By the way, the injection of energy into a system ''increases'' entropy. The only way to decrease entropy is intelligent ordering or intervention. Without that, entropy and disorder always increase. Whatever species existed 5000 years ago, in the absence of divine intervention there must be less ordered, less advanced, fewer species today. We see many examples of this: species go extinct each year, breeds of dogs degrade (e.g., Golden Retriever), even humans have increased incidence of asthma and other health problems from generation to generation. Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today. Entropy predicts degradation of everything over time in the absence of intelligent intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)
::::::The injection of energy into a system increases enthalpy, not entropy, Aschlafly. DNA, proteins, and other highly-ordered macromolecules stay together not because of intelligent intervention, but because of enthalpic contributions that offset the entropic cost. Also, you state that "Entropy predicts degradation... in the absence of intelligent intervention", just after you comment that everything is degrading. Wouldn't that imply, then, the absence of intelligent intervention?
::'''Counter:'''"All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time." This is just false. We know living things become more complex and organized over time, because we can see it happening, e.g. a seed growing into a tree.

: 7. There is vast beauty in the world which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1)
::'''Counter''' This is an irrelevant argument. What evidence exists to say that evolution cannot produce beauty? Besides that, what is the definition of beauty? Beauty can be a life form adapted to its environment, beauty can be a beneficial mutation, beauty can be monomers spontaneously forming polymers when dripped on hot clay...all examples of evolution. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

:::This argument "against" evolution is terrible! Though evolution is false this isn't why. Unfortunately for evolutionists everywhere your counter argument does no better supporting evolution than the first one did disproving it.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Brilliant autumn foliage is beautiful. You won't find anyone who sincerely denies it, exact perhaps the most hardened evolutionist. But it is impossible for the beauty in brilliant autumn foliage to have evolved before humans even existed.

:::: Evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature. Over 99% of Americans think there is beauty in nature. Take your pick. Count me as part of the over 99% majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)

:::::I don't think "evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature." Where did you get that? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm curious to know. Do creationists go around saying such a thing?) Stephen Jay Gould wrote "Shall we appreciate any less the beauty of nature because its harmony is unplanned?" Darwin wrote
::::::"The view seen when crossing the hills behind Praia Grande was most beautiful; the colours were intense, and the prevailing tint a dark blue; the sky and the calm waters of the bay vied with each other in splendour;" "The number of beautiful fishing birds, such as egrets and cranes, and the succulent plants assuming most fantastical forms, gave to the scene an interest which it would not otherwise have possessed." "The beautiful view of the distant wooded hills, reflected in the perfectly calm water of an extensive lagoon, quite refreshed us." etc. etc. etc.
:::::Maybe you think that evolutionists must seal their minds into logic-tight compartments in order to appreciate the beauty of nature while at the same time trying to explain it from natural causes, but they do it nonetheless. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

: 8. Abiogenesis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
::'''Counter''' Regardless if it's possible or not, it's not an argument against macroevolution.
::'''Counter''' You don't know that it's impossible. No one knows what the simplest life form is, but pretending that abiogenesis concerns the simplest MODERN life (i.e. a modern cell) is nonsense: that's not what's being suggested at all. Besides, talking about stacking chemical reactions that observably naturally occur is not "springing from nothing."[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 23:49, 20 February 2007 (EST)

'''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

:: ''''Counter''' The above claims are simply false. We have hundreds of major transitional fossils(which is what I presume you mean by "missing link") between a variety of different groups. Examples include Australopithecus as transitional between humans ape like ancestors and humans, hasiophis terrasanctus (sp?) a transitional snake with hind limbs and many others. Name almost any major grouping and we will have transitional fossils between the various groups. For some groups we have very detailed transitional sequences. For example, between fish and tetrapods is a particularly good example, and the transitions between land mammals and whales have become well developed over the last 20 years. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: 9. The "Anthro-Simianic Paradox" -- If great apes evolved into humans, why are there still great apes? The inherent inconsistency in the pro-Darwinistical position can be verified scientifically, using the foam dinosaurs that grow larger in water. Place a package of tiny foam dinosaurs (representing apes) into a sink (representing evolution). All the dinosaurs will grow to giant proportions (representing humans) and no tiny foam dinosaurs will be left. Clearly, scientists must examine alternate hypotheses for the evolution of giant foam dinosaurs (human beings).

:: I'm presuming this is a parody. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Evolution is a Racist Philosophy ==

*"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178)."

*"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): 129.)" -evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn

*The full title of Darwin's book is ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''
**It's worth noting though that "races" in the title refers to kinds of animals: it's never used to refer to people and in fact the book never mentions human beings at all until the very end, and then only briefly.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:44, 20 February 2007 (EST)

*Hitler's atrocities were based on evolutionary philosophy.

::Evolution has certainly been used by racists in support of their views. Racists have used many things, including Christianity, in support of their views. Think of the burning crosses of the Ku Klux Klan.

::And, yes, Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day... which was the time when the British Empire was busily colonizing places inhabited by dark-skinned people. You would have been hard-pressed to find many people in Darwin's England who were ''not'' racists, by today's standards.

::I think the point being raised here is an appropriate one to raise. But I think "evolution is a racist philosophy" is an exaggeration. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:36, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::Christianity is not racist at its core, yet it is made to seem racist by some. Jesus came to save all, not just more "advanced races." Evolution '''is''' racist at its core, yet it is made to seem like it's not. Dpbsmith, you say that "Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day," this is true, but what does that have to do with he argument? Are you saying that racism influenced him when he came up with evolution, in the way that he uses evolution to support racism? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::1) I'm acknowledging that the quotation from Darwin ''can'' fairly be described as racist. 2) I'm saying that many evil things are done in the name of many causes, and that people who do evil things will usually find a way to justify them. 3) I'm saying that I think more people have been killed by people claiming to be acting in the name of Jesus than by people claiming to be acting in the name of Darwin.

:::It is sometimes difficult to believe just how prevasive racism was from, perhaps, the mid-1800s through the mid-1900s. When The New York Times reviewed Longfellow's ''Song of Hiawatha'' in 1855, the reviewer said that Longfellow had "embalm[ed] pleasantly enough the monstrous traditions of an uninteresting, and, one may almost say, a justly exterminated race." That doesn't excuse Darwin. But it does put it into context. I think I agree with you to the extent that Darwin said things that can be fairly called "racist" and that Jesus did not. I don't agree that that makes evolution "racist at the core." OK, I think I've made my point clearly enough... I'll leave you to get in the last word if you like. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:26, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Also note that racism on Darwin's part in no way matters for whether the modern theory of evolution is either racist or correct. First, in general, the truth or falsity of any idea is independent of who it came from (if Darwin were a serial killer who liked to steal candy from babies it would not change the validity of his ideas in the slightest (if you don't believe me, perform the same thought experiment with [[Newton]] or [[Josiah Willard Gibbs]])). Second, the modern neo-synthesis is far removed from Darwin's original notions. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:34, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Atheism

2007-02-22T18:09:15Z

Monotreme: /* Atheist Morality */

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any supernatural deity. This disbelief can take a number of forms, such as the assertion that deities do not exist, or the absence of any belief in any deity.

[[Stalin]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] are prominent atheists. Dawkins wrote a book, called "The God Delusion". Stalin is now dead, having killed millions of people in the name of Marxis-Leninism (which is predicated on atheism).

== Atheist morality ==
Viewed as a simple philosophical framework of "no god exists", atheism can provide no logical basis for any moral standard. Some atheists reject normal social conventions and live their lives according to the rule that "anything goes". Many feel this has led to a large rise in crime[http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/CrimeAndDivorce.shtml], drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy,[http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/wb/xp-98766] pedophilia[http://www-gatago.com/alt/atheism/42639959.html] and bestiality.

==References==
<references/>

Atheism

2007-02-22T17:54:13Z

Monotreme: reverting weird one-sentence blog quote

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any supernatural deity. This disbelief can take a number of forms, such as the assertion that deities do not exist, or the absence of any belief in any deity.

[[Stalin]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] are prominent atheists. Dawkins wrote a book, called "The God Delusion". Stalin is now dead, having killed millions of people in the name of Marxis-Leninism (which is predicated on atheism). In contrast, neither [[Hitler]] nor [[Tomás de Torquemada]] were atheists; both are also now dead, having killed millions of people in the name of [[Christianity]].

== Atheist morality ==
Since atheists have no God and therefore no grounds for a system of morality, they live their lives according to the rule that "anything goes".{{fact}} In recent years, this has led to a large rise in drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy and pedophilia.{{fact}}

Intelligent design

2007-02-22T17:51:42Z

Monotreme:

Intelligent Design is the theory that all biological complexity must derive from a non-human designer (such as [[God]]), rather than the chance processes of [[evolution]] and [[natural selection]].

Deoxyribonucleic acid

2007-02-22T17:50:24Z

Monotreme:

DNA, otherwise known as deoxyribonucleic acid, is a [[chemical]] that encodes the [[gene]]tic instructions for the development of living organisms. All living creatures contain DNA, and the DNA of two creatures' offspring is a combination of its parents DNA.

Aristotle

2007-02-22T17:22:45Z

Monotreme: neutral pov

[[Image:Aristotle.gif|thumb|150px|Aristotle]]
Aristotle lived from 384 to 322 BC. He was a [[Greek philosopher]] who was a student of [[Plato]] and the tutor of [[Alexander the Great]]. Aristotle emphasized reason and observation of the natural world, and he is believed by many to be the greatest philosopher of all time.

Aristotle came to the [[Academy]] when he was seventeen and stayed there for twenty years until the death of [[Plato]], although he was not believed to be implicated in this. Aristotle’s approach was the opposite of Plato: Aristotle thought experience was the key to knowledge, and embarked on the massive task of observing and compiling as much information as possible, although unfortunately this did not extend to counting the number of teeth in someone's mouth before making pronouncements on the subject. In contrast to Plato’s interest in physics and maths, Aristotle was fascinated by biology and classified over 500 animal species. He ultimately founded his own school, the Lyceum, and equipped it with specimens, libraries, maps and other accoutrements found in modern universities. Aristotle defended the usefulness of slavery.

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T17:19:21Z

Monotreme: /* More deletions */

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T17:02:36Z

Monotreme:

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
Charles Darwin was born in [[England]] to a Christian family on February 12, [[1809]]. He was a significant figure in the development of the theory of evolution. After touring the [[Galapagos Islands]] and studying the animals that lived there, he came up with his theory of [[natural selection]] and published [[''The Origin of Species'']] in [[1859]].

While often regarded by evolutionists as "the father of modern biology," Darwin himself was aware that some aspects of his work were not as scientific as he wished. In a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, he wrote "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=104]

There are rumors that he recanted his theory on his deathbed, begging the forgiveness of God. {{fact}}

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T16:40:25Z

Monotreme:

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T15:28:57Z

Monotreme:

Patriotism

2007-02-22T14:33:29Z

Monotreme: revert humour

Patriotism, or love of country, is the highest [[United States|American]] virtue. Patriotism means unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the [[president|Leader]] of the country. The opposite of patriotism, [[treason]], is the act of questioning, criticizing or voting against the Leader.

Patriotism comes from the Latin. An ancient Latino poet wrote "Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori", which means "It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die"<ref>Horace, ''Odes'' (iii 2.13)</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

Closed system

2007-02-22T14:32:08Z

Monotreme: ?

A closed system is a physical system that does not exchange matter with its surroundings, and which is not subject to intelligent intervention.

A closed system may exchange heat with its surroundings. (citation needed)

Sun

2007-02-22T14:30:16Z

Monotreme:

The sun is a star, a giant ball of flaming gas. It provides the [[Earth]] with light and heat. In Christian theology, [[God]] created the sun on the first day of [[Creation]]. <ref>Genesis 1</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2007-02-22T14:28:56Z

Monotreme:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a [[closed system]], [[entropy]] can never decrease. Put another way, heat tends to flow to cooler places.

According to this law, it is impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]], and entropy in a completely closed system must either increase or remain constant. It should be noted, however, that the second law is statistical, and therefore this is only true on average. Net decreases of entropy, while rare, are possible.

Creationists claim that the second law disproves evolution<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp</ref>, although the scientific community reject this, claiming that evolution on [[Earth]] does not operate in a closed system (ie. taking heat and radiation from the [[sun]]).

==References==
<references/>

Jesus Christ

2007-02-22T14:26:06Z

Monotreme:

[[Image:Christ.jpg|center|300px]]

The name '''Jesus''' is simply the name "Joshua" translated first into Greek, then English. In Christian discourse, the name '''Jesus''' almost always refers specifically to '''Jesus of Nazareth,''' believed by Christian followers to be God's son, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:18-25;&version=31;</ref> The life of Jesus is recorded in the Bible in the [[Gospel]]s of [[Matthew]], [[Mark]], [[Luke]], and [[John]]. According to the Gospels, Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and three days later he rose from the dead.

The first time John saw Jesus, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!"
<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:29&version=31;</ref>

==Other people in the Bible named "Jesus"==

The author of ''Ecclesiastius,'' a book which Catholics include in the Douay Bible, but Protestants place in the Apocrypha, is known as ''Jesus of Sira.''

==The Historical Jesus==

Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible,{{fact}} but few scholars take this seriously. Historical evidence for Jesus is comparable to that of many historical personalities such as Caesar, Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, and Socrates, and many others. For example, Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in 115 A.D. <ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref>, and Josephus, a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about Him. <ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref>.

But historical facts, or their absence, are irrelevant since we all know He existed. Historical sources and scientific facts are unnecessary.

==References==
<references/>

Communist

2007-02-22T14:13:39Z

Monotreme:

See [[communism]].

Alger Hiss

2007-02-22T14:13:07Z

Monotreme:

'''Alger Hiss''' (1904-1996) was high-level United States government official in the 1940s who was accused of being a [[communist]] spy. He denied he knew [[Whittaker Chambers]], a former American communist who claimed that Hiss had been passing him [[State Department]] secrets for years. Congressman Richard Nixon was convinced that Hiss was lying and questioned him when he appeared before the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]] during the [[Cold War]] in 1948.

Both Hiss and Chambers testified before the House Committee, contradicting each other. One had to be lying. When Chambers ultimately produced typed documents of State Department information and claimed they came from Hiss, a federal prosecutor in [[Manhattan]] indicted Hiss for perjury in the early 1950s.

But Hiss could afford the best attorney and had the most impressive array of character witnesses ever assembled. It included two U. S. Supreme Court justices, a former Solicitor General, a former Democratic presidential candidate ([[John W. Davis]]) and a future one ([[Adlai Stevenson]]). Hiss' jury selection was also superb for him: the foreman proved to be sympathetic to the liberal and perhaps even communist movement in America.

Hiss did well on the witness stand in his defense, but his attorney probably erred in putting his wife on. His defense counsel was scathing in his attack on the prosecution's star witness, Chambers himself, who admitted that he worked for the communist cause in America.

The jury could not agree on a verdict, splitting with eight in favor of conviction and four against it. Despite testimony that the unlawfully leaked documents were typed on Hiss' typewriter, the four were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

As is typical, the government then brought the case for retrial. Prosecutions typically do better the second time, learning from its mistakes. The judge allowed a broader range of questioning. New defense counsel was weaker, conceding that the leaked documents were typed by the typewriter found in Hiss' possession, but disputing that he typed them. Inexplicably, Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter did not testify for Hiss in the second case.

The defense relied heavily on testimony by a expert witness who was a psychiatrist, who painted Chambers as a pathological liar. But the prosecutor destroyed the witness in one of the most famous cross-examinations in American legal history.

Hiss maintained his innocence until he died, despite the eventual release of secret Soviet files apparently identifying him as a spy. Perhaps Hiss felt he could not go back on his prior statements, or perhaps he remained true to communism in protecting the movement. The case helped define American politics for forty years, propelling Nixon to the Vice Presidency in 1952, Barry Goldwater to the Republican nomination for president in 1964, Nixon to the White House in 1968, and ultimately [[Ronald Reagan]] to the White House in 1980, where he awarded Chambers a posthumous Medal of Freedom.

Red Army

2007-02-22T14:11:51Z

Monotreme:

After the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin ordered that the old army be demobilized and a new Red Army was formed of Peasants and Workers. Lenin appionted Leon Trotsky as its commander. The new fledgeling army had to be assembled quickly in response to the [[White Army]]. Trotsky was effective in pulling the new army together, and later Lenin remarked, "Show me another man who could have pratically created a model army in a year and win the respect of military specialists as well."<ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSred.htm</ref>

The Red Army went on to defeat the [[White Army]] in the civil war. At the outbreak of World War II, the Red Army had 1,800,000 soldiers, 10,000 tanks, and 5,000 front-line planes. Originally, the soldiers swore an oath to fight for international socialism. However, that was changed in January of 1939. Men pledged "To protect with all his strength the property of the Army and the people and to cherish unto death his people, the Soviet homeland, and the government of Workers and Peasants, also, to respond at first call from the government of Workers and Peasants to defend the homeland, the U.S.S.R."<ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSred.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

User talk:Euthyphro

2007-02-22T13:58:55Z

Monotreme:

Please don't just copy articles from Wikipedia! --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:58, 22 February 2007 (EST)