Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bauhaus

2008-02-08T12:47:00Z

Order:

'''Bauhaus''' was a school for design and architecture founded 1919 in [[Weimar]]. The school relocated in 1925 to [[Dessau]] and was renowned as pioneer in modern architecture. After the Nazis became the biggest party in Dessau in local elections in 1932, the Bauhaus was forced to move to [[Berlin]]. This only lasted for a short time, and the Bauhaus dissolved itself under pressure from the Nazis in 1933. Many of the architects and artists affiliated with went into exile, many to the US where part of the Bauhaus legacy continued.

[[Category: Germany]]

----
==Reference==
[http://www.bauhaus-dessau.de/en/history.asp?p=history History of the Bauhaus]

Bauhaus

2008-02-08T12:46:16Z

Order: more on history and reference.

'''Bauhaus''' was a school for design and architecture founded 1919 in [[Weimar]]. The school relocated in 1925 to Dessau and was renowned as pioneer in modern architecture. After the Nazis became the biggest party in Dessau in local elections in 1932, the Bauhaus was forced to move to Berlin. This only lasted for a short time, and the Bauhaus dissolved itself under pressure from the Nazis in 1933. Many of the architects and artists affiliated with went into exile, many to the US where part of the Bauhaus legacy continued.

[[Category: Germany]]

----
==Reference==
[http://www.bauhaus-dessau.de/en/history.asp?p=history History of the Bauhaus]

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-06T14:23:23Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.''": That is not what is noted. What is noted is that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
::::::: "''...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.''": Really? Newton, to pick one example, did both.
::::::: "''...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.''": Yeah? This is not borne out by your following examples.
::::::: "''Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.''": The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a ''more'' "literal interpretation" of the Bible. But this was not the case. The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the ''non-Christian'' teachings of Aristotle.
::::::: "''Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.''": No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
::::::: "''So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.''": I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
::::::: My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to. But I was not talking particularly about America ''today'', and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Artistole might be pre-christian, but he won out over alterntaive Greek philosophers, because his views were thought to be most compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Aristoteles defenders weren't adherents of Greek religions, but Christians too. The establishment, also in science, was Christian, too.
::::::::And indeed there were those that did both, read the bible and did research. But even with Newton, who had good and bad ideas, it is obvious that his great contributions were those that he derived from observations of nature.
::::::::I still don't see that I had any of their philosophies wrong. Their were naturalists, and not literalists. If you however agree with the sentiment that "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" in science, then we got to an agreement.
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: "''Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time.''": What do you mean by that?
::::::::::: "''But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations.''": Yeah? I think that's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.
::::::::::: "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''": On the contrary, it seems that Galileo didn't think that experimental proof was necessary, and refused to explain his evidence to others. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::::::::::: "''Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention ...''": ''Principle'', not ''invention''.
::::::::::: "''First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it.''": You again commit the fallacy of conflating the Creator God with "a deity". I never said that it was because of "a deity", but because of God. To elaborate, it was because of the Christian understanding of the nature of God, not simply because of "a deity". This was the reason that Greek science didn't take off: they thought that the gods might change the laws of nature on a whim, so there was no point in studying them. But Christianity, because of it's understanding of God, saw things differently, which is ''acknowledged by the experts'' as being one of the main reasons why Christianity gave rise to science.
::::::::::: "''...without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change...''": And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change.
::::::::::: "''But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century.''": Wrong. That is, you are wrong to say that this is the way I frame the idea. This is the documented reason that science started in a Christian worldview. Despite all the comments that I've made to the contrary, and despite your own acknowledgements, you still seem to be acting as though this is something that I and I alone believe and promote, whereas all I'm doing is relating the conclusions and evidence of others. I don't know what you're talking about with John Paul XXI, but given your inability to grasp other ideas, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
::::::::::: "''The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex?''": The idea of irreducible complexity is that some things could not have arisen by chance, and this is based on ''evidence''. That it happens to be compatible with the idea of a creator may be an uncomfortable fact for your point of view, but it's not the basis of the argument.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.
::::::::::::Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.
:::::::::::: "And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.
::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
::::::::::::No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: "''Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. ... Exactly what I told you before.''": I don't recall you saying that, and if you did, I don't recall disagreeing. But you did say "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''" which does suggest something rather different.
::::::::::::: "''...that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.''": That doesn't follow from your example. That is, nobody is going to be correct on every last point, so quoting one person with a different view (and I'm taking your word for that) does not mean that Christianity has no or little predictive value.
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws.''": Thanks for taking no notice of the distinction I pointed out between "a deity" and "God".
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea.''": Well, given the lack of notice you took between "a deity" and "God", I think I have a point. Not to mention...
::::::::::::: "''To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277.''": But I didn't say that. I didn't say that God ''couldn't'', but that because of His nature, he ''wouldn't''. And it was your reference to the Pope that caused me to question your ability to grasp an idea, so this appears to justify me doing so ''in that very case''!
::::::::::::: "''No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance".''": Yet chance is all you have left if you reject purpose and design. Mutations are chance events, and natural selection selects for environments that come about by chance.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::I told you right in the beginning that Galileo accompanied his finding with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. And he did point at his telescope, the article that you quoted yourself mentions explicitly that he showed dignitaries telescopes. And it also mentioned that he refused to give proof for some of his more outlandish claims, maybe because he didn't have it. But at no point did he offer pieces of scripture as replacement for observations. He then offered nothing, and acted condescending towards his peers.
::::::::::::::That god doesn't do it because of his nature, was one of the forbidden statements. You still would have been a heretic.
::::::::::::::If one person supports an idea because of his Christian roots, and another rejects it because of the same roots, then those roots do not matter. No matter who would have won the argument, you could claim that it would be because of the Christian root either way, and therefore this claim is vacuous.
::::::::::::::I use deity and god as synonyms, because that is what they are.
::::::::::::::So you play your little game with the different meanings of "chance" again. Environments do not come about by random chance, and after selection it isn't randomly distributed either. I am happy to take you along this argument again. Nobody claims what you claim to happen by chance. But why do you have such a hard time to admit that you take recourse to the heavens, rather than try to explain why it isn't random? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

(unindent)"''I told you right in the beginning that Galileo accompanied his finding with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible''": Perhaps you did, but that's not quite the same thing as "''Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible''". The rest of your first paragraph appears to be arguing points that I don't disagree with.

"''That god doesn't do it because of his nature, was one of the forbidden statements.''": Reference please.

"''If one person supports an idea because of his Christian roots, and another rejects it because of the same roots, then those roots do not matter.''": That assumes that they are both correctly applying the Christian principles. But nobody is perfect, so it's entirely possible that one of them has ''misapplied'' the principles. So simply quoting an example of two people supposedly basing their opposing views on Christian principles does not by itself prove that Christian principles do not matter.

"''I use deity and god as synonyms, because that is what they are.''": The distinction that I drew was not between "deity" and "god", but "a deity" (that is, any given deity) and "God" (with a capital "G", that is, a ''particular'' deity). "'''a''' deity" and "'''G'''od" are not synonyms.

"''So you play your little game ...''": Game? No, it's no game.

"''Environments do not come about by random chance, and after selection it isn't randomly distributed either.''": If there is no design, then it's down to chance.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:49, 6 February 2008 (EST)
:If you want an accessible introduction to the condemnations of 1277 look here [http://www.economist.com/diversions/millennium/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=346780]. A better introduction can be found here [http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/1254/]. Chapter six for example explicitly refers to what we discuss, but it's in German. But to summarize, and the economist mentions it too, the idea that God couldn't do something, like changing the laws of nature, was forbidden.
:You assume that there exist such a thing as "Christian principles". And then not in the platonic universe, but in reality. In reality the Christian principles are what Christians say they are. Especially if you claim the knowledge that Europeans had of these principles caused modern science to emerge in Europe. It then only matters what Europeans thought they would be. And we know that they thought differently. And we have no way to determine in advance which interpretation is the correct one; all you offer is hindsight.
:The capital G god, is a god. So, you are right that it is not a synonym, and God is a particular instance of a deity. But it still correct to call it a deity, as you say yourself. But what is your point? If it is a property of deities that the can change laws, then it should be in particular be a property of an omnipotent deity.
:If it's not a game, then it is probably a mistake that you us the word with different meanings. Doesn't make your argument correct.
:You claimed before that lack of design implies that it must be chance. And we are now talking about "chance" with the meaning of "Probability", but you should know that the difference between the two uses of the word chance by now. If something happens by "chance" it can mean without purpose, or with a certain probability. So, I asked you before, and I am waiting for a few month now, to give me a single example, where lack of design lead to a random event. A single instant. I am not even asking you to prove your general claim that lack of design leads to chance, but just for a single example. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:23, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== Cdesign proponentsists ==

I would like to include mention of [[Cdesign proponentsists]] in the paragraph about the Dover case as an argument linking creationism and ID. I can not edit the page to do this, so will someone with authority please review and include it. --[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)
: I've unlocked the article, but I don't think that the term deserves mention in the article. It's little more than irrelevant trivia. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Bauhaus

2008-02-06T12:39:47Z

Order: added details

'''Bauhaus''' was a school for design and architecture founded 1919 in [[Weimar]]. The school relocated in 1925 to Dessau and was renowned as pioneer in modern architecture. The school was forced in 1933 to close, due to pressure from the new [[Nazi]] government.

[[Category: Germany]]

North Dakota

2008-02-06T05:18:58Z

Order: added ref

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|North Dakota
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:North_Dakota_State_Flag.gif|250px]]
Flag of North Dakota
|-
|Capital
|[[Bismarck]]
|-
|Nickname
|Peace Garden State
|-
|Official Language
|[[English]]
|-
|Governor
|[[John Hoeven]] ([[Republican|R]])
|-
|U.S. Senator
|[[Byron Dorgan]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|U.S. Senator
|[[Kent Conrad]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|House of Representative
|[[Earl Pomeroy]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|Area
|70,762 sq mi
|-
|Population (2000 estimate)
|642,200
|-
|Admission to Union
|November 2, 1889
|-
|}

'''North Dakota''' (or '''Nodak''') is a northern Midwestern state that became the thirty-ninth state to enter into the union on November 2, 1889. It entered on the same day as [[South Dakota]], but is given status first because of alphabetical order. Its capital is Bismarck, and largest city by population is Fargo. North Dakota is the only state that has a state-owned bank in the nation.<ref>http://www.banknd.nd.gov/bndhome.jsp</ref> North Dakota is located in the center of the North American continent. The exact geographical center is located 97 miles NE of [[Bismarck]], 15 miles SW of [[Rugby]]. <ref>http://hypertextbook.com/bent/photos/geographic.center.html</ref>

Its current political nature is an anomaly; while it has given its electoral votes to Republican Presidential candidates since 1968, usually by wide margins, voters have continued to elect all Democrats to both Houses of Congress. The current governor of North Dakota is [[John Hoeve]].

==Notable people from North Dakota==

*[[Dick Armey]], a former US Representative who played a significant role in the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994, was born in Cando.
*[[Louis L'Amour]], an author who specialized in writing Westerns, was born in Jamestown.
*[[Sacagawea]], who served as a guide on Lewis and Clark's expedition, spent several years living in a village in what is now North Dakota.

== References ==
<references/>

{{USstates}}
[[Category:US state]]

North Dakota

2008-02-06T05:18:10Z

Order: center of the continent

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|North Dakota
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:North_Dakota_State_Flag.gif|250px]]
Flag of North Dakota
|-
|Capital
|[[Bismarck]]
|-
|Nickname
|Peace Garden State
|-
|Official Language
|[[English]]
|-
|Governor
|[[John Hoeven]] ([[Republican|R]])
|-
|U.S. Senator
|[[Byron Dorgan]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|U.S. Senator
|[[Kent Conrad]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|House of Representative
|[[Earl Pomeroy]] ([[Democrat|D]])
|-
|Area
|70,762 sq mi
|-
|Population (2000 estimate)
|642,200
|-
|Admission to Union
|November 2, 1889
|-
|}

'''North Dakota''' (or '''Nodak''') is a northern Midwestern state that became the thirty-ninth state to enter into the union on November 2, 1889. It entered on the same day as [[South Dakota]], but is given status first because of alphabetical order. Its capital is Bismarck, and largest city by population is Fargo. North Dakota is the only state that has a state-owned bank in the nation.<ref>http://www.banknd.nd.gov/bndhome.jsp</ref> North Dakota is located in the center of the North American continent. The exact geographical center is located 97 miles NE of [[Bismarck]], 15 miles SW of [[Rugby]].

Its current political nature is an anomaly; while it has given its electoral votes to Republican Presidential candidates since 1968, usually by wide margins, voters have continued to elect all Democrats to both Houses of Congress. The current governor of North Dakota is [[John Hoeve]].

==Notable people from North Dakota==

*[[Dick Armey]], a former US Representative who played a significant role in the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994, was born in Cando.
*[[Louis L'Amour]], an author who specialized in writing Westerns, was born in Jamestown.
*[[Sacagawea]], who served as a guide on Lewis and Clark's expedition, spent several years living in a village in what is now North Dakota.

== References ==
<references/>

{{USstates}}
[[Category:US state]]

Manitoba

2008-02-05T03:35:31Z

Order: The georgraphical center is in North dakota

'''Manitoba''' is a province of [[Canada]], between [[Ontario]] and [[Saskatchewan]], and to the north the territory of [[Nunavut]]. To the south it borders the [[American]] States of [[North Dakota]] and [[Minnesota]].

Manitoba's largest city is [[Winnipeg]], which contains over one half the provincial population.

[[York Factory]] was founded in 1684 and was the provinces oldest settlement. [[Charles II]] had granted the entire [[Hudson Bay]] watershed to the [[Hudson's Bay Company]], which was purchased from them by the Canadian Government in 1869 for 300,000 pounds. Manitoba joined confederation in 1870. The total area of Manitoba is 649,950 km2 and had a population of 1,182,921 in 2007 accounting for 3.6% of the national total.<ref>[http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070628/d070628c.htm |Statistics Canada: Canada's Population estimates]</ref>

[[Category:Canada]]

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.travelmanitoba.com/ Manitoba Tourism]
* [http://www.destinationwinnipeg.ca/ Destination Winnipeg]

Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve

2008-02-05T03:29:20Z

Order: copyedit

[[Image:Mt Nimba.jpg|right|thumb|500px|Mount Nimba]]
[[Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve]] is a 69 square mile national park straddling the borders of [[Côte d'Ivoire]] and [[Guinea]]; the region also extends into [[Liberia]], but this section is unprotected and heavily exploited for [[mineral]]s and wildlife. Including semi-[[deciduous]] forest, [[rain forest]] and [[savanna]], it is called a "strict" reserve as, unlike many other national parks, [[tourism]] is forbidden. It has an extremely rich [[endemic]] flora and fauna, and more than 500 new species of fauna have been discovered, including over 200 endemic species. Of special interest is the endangered [[Vivipary|viviparous]] [[toad]] (''Nimbaphrynoides occidentalis''), which occurs only in the upper [[montane]] habitats of Mt. Nimba.<ref>''IUCN Technical Review'' World Heritage Nomination 155 (1981)</ref> Important species of [[mammal]]s include the [[leopard]], the dwarf African otter shrew, which was first discovered in 1954 on Mt. Nimba, and a population of [[chimpanzee|chimpanzees]] whose behavior involves the use of stone tools.<ref>'''Matsuzawa, T.''' ''et al.'' "Emergence of Culture in Wild Chimpanzees: Education by Master-Apprenticeship" (2001) [http://www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/koudou-shinkei/shikou/reference/book_Priori/Priori.html Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University]. Accessed 16 January 2008</ref> The actual mountain has the highest grade [[iron]] deposits in the world, being almost solid iron [[ore]]. Mining on Mount Nimba accounts for approximately 1 per cent of world production, currently set at around 900 million tons.

==Indigenous population==
There has probably never been any permanent settlement on the actual mountain, however there are ten villages in the immediate vicinity of Nimba with several thousand inhabitants, mainly subsisting through [[agriculture]]. Since 1991, population pressure has been increasing following the arrival of refugees from Liberia.<ref>''Local human population'' Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve: Protected Areas Programme [http://www2.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/data/wh/mtnimba.html World Conservation Monitoring Centre]. Accessed 16 January 2008</ref>

==Cultural heritage==
Hewn stone tools and chippings have been discovered in a rock shelter at Blandé at the northern end of the mountain.<ref>''Cultural heritage'' Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve: Protected Areas Programme [http://www2.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/data/wh/mtnimba.html World Conservation Monitoring Centre]. Accessed 16 January 2008</ref>

==World heritage==
The reserve was inscribed as a [[UNESCO]] [[World Heritage Site]] in 1981, under criteria 9 and 10<ref>''Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve'' [http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/155 UNESCO]. Accessed 16 January 2008</ref> of the agency's selection criteria.<ref>''Selection criteria'' [http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ UNESCO]. Accessed 16 January 2008</ref> In 1992, the Guinean government issued a decree entrusting a part of the Nature Reserve to an international mining consortium and the launching of a mining project. The reserve was placed on the list of World Heritage in Danger the same year.<ref>''Justification for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, 1992: Report of the 16th Session of the Committee'' [http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom92.htm#nimba UNESCO]. Accessed 16 January 2008</ref>

==External links==
*[http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/155 UNESCO] Site entry. Accessed 16 January 2008

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:World Heritage Sites]]
[[Category:Africa]]

Starfish

2008-02-05T03:28:37Z

Order: improved

Starfish are not [[fish]] and should really be called sea stars. They are Echinoderms, meaning ‘spiny skinned animals’ of the class ''Asteroidea'', in which there are around 1500 species.<ref>http://www.vsf.cape.com/~jdale/science/science.htm</ref> [[Fossil]] starfish resembling today’s have been found dating back 450 million years. Some species of starfish always have five rays, but some always have more – sunflower stars can have over 20 - and some species are variable.

They are related to [[sea slugs]] and [[sea cucumbers]], <ref> http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may98/892688355.Zo.r.html </ref> but unlike those creatures asteroids aren’t edible by humans. In fact, they aren’t edible to many creatures – their spiny skin and awkward shape makes them distasteful to most. They also have tiny structures like pincers, called ''pedicellariae'', that are probably used for defense as well as capturing small particles of food. They are found all over the world, and at all depths of the sea, though they tend to favor rocky shallows. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0311542/starfish.htm#Info</ref>

==Eating==

Starfish eat almost anything that cannot easily escape, but mainly [[bivalves]]. They eat these by using their tube feet as suction cups to prise a small gap in the bivalve’s shell, and then reverting their own stomach through their mouth opening and extending it into the shell, using their digestive juices to liquefy the creature inside and then sucking it in. Starfish help the intertidal [[ecosystem]] stay in balance by eating mussels, which would otherwise push other organisms out. <ref> http://oceanlink.island.net/ask/echino.html </ref> The crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci), which feeds on [[coral]], is decimating [[coral reefs]] off the [[Philippines]] and [[Australia]].

==Nervous system==

A starfish doesn’t have a front end; any side of a starfish is as likely to be the front as any other side. They also don’t have [[ears]] or image-forming [[eyes]], though they do have [[eyespots]] on the end of each arm containing a red pigment that changes chemically in the presence of light and are thought to influence the starfish's behavior. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1169/is_2002_Feb-March/ai_89436290</ref>

Starfish don’t have a central [[brain]]. A radial [[nerve]] runs down each ray, and connects with the other radial nerves through ganglia that form a ring in the center of the starfish. Because the starfish’s mouth is in the center of the underneath of its body, this is called the circumoral nerve ring. It does not control the rays though, merely facilitates communication between them. Any radial nerve can take control of the body of the starfish by signaling the others to co-ordinate movement in the direction of the ray it runs down. However, as well as locating food and mates, starfish can learn to associate different textures of seabed or levels of light with food, and as well as distinguishing between odors can learn to ignore those not associated with food even if they smell like food.<ref> http://www.vsf.cape.com/~jdale/science/science.htm </ref>

==Chemoreception==

Like a lot of other marine creatures, a starfish’s primary sense is [[chemoreception]]. Leading rays tend to raise their tips and wave their tube feet around. They use their tube feet to sense the concentration of chemicals, comparing the intensity of the information between rays and moving accordingly to reach the source of the odor, so it would be true to say that they have multiple noses in their feet. Because starfish are too primitive to have consciousness, their sleeping and waking cycles can only be determined by different firing rates of nerves in response to changes in light intensity. They feed in response to odours from [[prey]]. <ref> http://www.vsf.cape.com/~jdale/science/science.htm </ref>

==Locomotion==

Hundreds of tube [[feet]] cover the underside of a starfish, and have multiple uses. As well as chemoreception, and respiration, the starfish uses them for walking, for gripping prey, and for attaching to rocks. Each tube foot has a bulb at the top called the [[ampulla]]. When the ampulla contracts, it squeezes water down the tube foot, which extends. When it relaxes, it sucks water back up, which retracts the tube. Each tube foot lifts up and swings forward, plants itself on the ground and pushes back, rather like a leg. The tube feet and the ampullae are connected by the starfish’s hydraulic water [[vascular system]], which takes in water through a body called a madreporite, which filters out particles, and circulates it throughout the starfish’s body. The tip of each foot can form a suction cup, which the starfish can use to grip enough to walk up vertical surfaces. The tube feet move in waves, and enable starfish to move at speeds of between 30 and 120 centimeters a minute, depending on [[species]]. <ref>http://www.vsf.cape.com/~jdale/science/science.htm</ref>

==Respiration==

Starfish breathe through their feet. The starfish’s tube feet are made of very thin tissue, so gases can move through them easily. Their tube feet and ''papulae'' (the tiny pimples all over the body surface) transport [[oxygen]] from seawater to the tissues and pass [[carbon dioxide]] from the tissues to the seawater. The papulae have tiny [[cilia]] (hair-like structures) on the outside and the inside, which waft seawater over the tissues. <ref> http://oceanlink.island.net/ask/echino.html </ref>

==Reproduction==

Most starfish species have two sexes, but you can’t tell that from the outside – you have to catch them spawning. They have ten [[gonad]]s, two in each arm, that look like a bunch of grapes. When they are full of [[sperm]] or [[eggs]], they almost fill the arms. Each gonad has a duct at the base of the arm, usually opening on the [[oral]] side. In a few species the eggs are fertilized and develop within the female (especially in colder water) but they are mainly fertilized externally. The male releases his sperm into the water if he detects the eggs of a female in the water, and the female releases her eggs if she detects sperm.

Starfish gather in groups when they are ready to [[spawn]], to increase their chances of [[fertilization]]. They probably use environmental signals such as day length to know the right time of year. Females can release up to 2.5 million eggs at a time. The [[larvae]] swim freely, propelled through the water by the cilia covering them. Eventually they grow arms and a sucker, sink to the bottom and stick to a rock, after which they metamorphose into adult starfish. Larvae, unlike adults, are [[bilateral]].<ref>http://www.vsf.cape.com/~jdale/science/science.htm</ref>

==Regeneration==

Most starfish can regenerate a lost arm, but most of the central disc has to remain for this to happen. Single arms will usually die, unless they are from a species called ''Linckia'', which can regenerate a new individual from one arm, because they keep so much of the vital organs in each arm. This species is sometimes called the comet star because you can see an animal with one large arm, a tiny body and four tiny arms, looking like a [[comet]]. <ref> http://oceanlink.island.net/ask/echino.html </ref>

==Digestion==

Starfish eat almost anything that cannot easily escape, but mainly [[bivalves]]. They eat these by using their tube feet as suction cups to prise a small gap in the bivalve’s shell, and then reverting their own stomach through their mouth opening and extending it into the shell, using their digestive juices to liquefy the creature inside and then wafting the liquefied juices into its mouth with its tube feet. This enables a starfish to hunt much larger prey than it could actually fit into its mouth. Starfish help the intertidal [[ecosystem]] stay in balance by eating mussels, which would otherwise push other organisms out. <ref> http://oceanlink.island.net/ask/echino.html </ref> The crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci), which feeds on [[coral]], is decimating [[coral reefs]] off the [[Philippines]] and [[Australia]].

Starfish have a [[mouth]] in the middle of their underside (the ‘oral’ side) and an [[anus]] on their upper surface (the ‘aboral’ side). The mouth connects to the first of two stomachs – the cardiac stomach – which connects to the pyloric stomach. This connects to the anus and also to a pyloric [[cecum]], which extends into each ray. The cardiac stomach and the pyloric ceca produce digestive juices. Digested material is absorbed into the body through the pyloric ceca.<ref>http://www.vsf.cape.com/~jdale/science/science.htm</ref>

==Use in scientific research==

In 1882 Russian zoologist [[Ilya Metchnikov]] discovered the concept of [[immunity]] – how human beings survive in a world filled with dangerous microorganisms - when he poked a starfish with a thorn and watched the defensive inflammatory actions of its body as it used cells to engulf and destroy foreign [[pathogen]]s. He won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this work in 1908.<ref> http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/020305.html</ref>

==Starfish in popular culture==

Madeleine L’Engle used starfish regeneration as an image of the ethics of studying the abuse of the natural world, on a fictional island called Gaea, in her 1965 novel The Arm of the Starfish. <ref> The Arm of the Starfish, L’Engle </ref>

Starfish have been used as a metaphor by countless good causes who picked up a story from Loren Eiseley’s book ''The Star Thrower'', in which thousands of starfish are washed ashore and a child starts throwing them back in the water so they don’t die. Her mother tells her it will make no difference, and the child looks at the starfish it is holding and says, ‘It will make a difference to this one.’ <ref> http://www.domini.com/about-domini/The-Starfi/ </ref>

A passive sexual partner is sometimes described as a starfish because they ‘just lie there.’ Similarly, the phrase ‘chocolate starfish’ is slang for the anus. <ref> http://www.fact-index.com/s/se/sexual_slang.html</ref>

The best friend of beloved children’s TV cartoon character SpongeBob Squarepants, with whom he often holds hands, is a pink starfish named Patrick. The duo have become popular among gay men, and as such have been attacked by the prominent Christian evangelical organization Focus on the Family as part of a conspiracy trying to impose a pro-homosexual agenda on children. <ref>http://www.nospank.net/eisner.htm</ref>

A recent book called ''The Starfish and the Spider'' uses starfish as a metaphor for decentralized organizations. Traditional organizations are like spiders – cut off the head and they die. Especially since the arrival of the internet, the power of starfish organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous, P2P groups, eBay or Al Quaeda – individual groups linked loosely by a common ideology and ease of communication – has boomed. It’s not a totally new concept, and has much in line with earlier movements such as that for [[women’s rights]] or the [[abolition of slavery]], but some large companies like Toyota are seizing on these principles.<ref> http://www.starfishandspider.com/index.php?title=About_the_Book</ref>

[[Project Starfish]] was a series of experiments carried out by the US in 1962, which were condemned by the Queen’s Astronomer, Sir Martin Ryle. The US detonated several nuclear explosions in the ionosphere that seriously disturbed the lower [[Van Allen Belt]], and thus disturbed the earth’s magnetic field and released ionizing radiation into the atmosphere. The USSR soon followed suit, and the electron fluxes in the lower Van Allen belt have yet to return to their normal state. They could take several hundred years to recover. <ref> Encyclopaedia Britannica </ref>

Sigmund Freud loved his trip to Blackpool, and wrote in chapter 7 of ''The Interpretation of Dreams'' about a dream based on a memory of his visit, when while he was paddling on the beach a little girl asked if he had found a starfish and if it was still alive. Freud replied ‘Yes, he is alive’ and was then embarrassed at his linguistic mistake and repeated the sentence correctly.<ref> ''The Interpretation of Dreams'', Sigmund Freud </ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Echinoderms]]

Fluorine

2008-02-05T03:05:58Z

Order: more additions

{{Element | name=Fluorine | symbol=F | anumber=9 | amass=19.0 amu | noe=9 | class=Halogen | cstructure=Cubic | color=Green | date=1886 | discname=[[Joseph Henri Moissan]] | origname=From the Latin word ''fluo'' (flow) | uses=Refrigerants | obtained=Mineral fluorite}}

'''Fluorine''' is the lightest member of the [[halogen]] elements, or Group VIIa of the periodic table. It is also most reactive chemical element. Flourine is so dangerous that it must be stored in steel containers, and even then it reacts with the steel. Fortunately the layer of flouride that is formed is unreactive, and prevents it from reacting further. It is a component of many drugs, and its [[radioisotope]] is used in functional brain imaging and bone scans. Under ordinary conditions, fluorine is a [[gas]] with a pale yellow color. <ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034677 ''Fluorine'']</ref>

==References==
<references />

Polymer

2008-02-05T03:04:49Z

Order: copyedit

A '''polymer''' is any of numerous natural and synthetic compounds of usually high molecular weight consisting of up to millions of repeated linked units, each a relatively light and simple molecule.

==Formation==
Polymers are formed through the reaction of base units called [[monomer|monomers]]. These units will join together to form chains of thousands or even millions of recursions. Polymerization tends to occur under intense heat and pressure required to supply the [[activation energy]] for the reaction, this can be monitored and changed to affect the final properties of the polymer. The products or monomers can also be altered, a polymer consisting of more than one type of base unit is called a copolymer.

===Steps of Basic Polymerization===
There are three steps in the formation of a polymer.

''Initiation''

A chemical (called the initiator) is added to a substance containing the monomers. It activates one of the monomers (in many cases when alkenes are used the double [[bond]] is split producing two free [[electrons]] which can react with other molecules) allowing polymerization to occur. It is important to note that the initiator is not a catalyst as in most cases it is absorbed into the final product. Common initiators include organic peroxides (used to produce LDPE).

''Propagation''

The active monomer activates another unit (eg by causing its double bond to split), as there are now four free electrons a covalent bond can form between the two units and two electrons (one on each atom) will be left to combine with other units. This process continues and the chain grows in size with every unit added. During propagation side branching can occur, in which monomers start a secondary chain leading off the first. These chains can affect the properties of the end polymer, and can be controlled depending on the conditions in which polymerization occurs.

''Termination''

This is when propagation of a chain or a section of the chain is halted because of a reaction with a unit which does not produce a free electron (and hence cannot react with other units). An example of a terminator is oxygen, which will form a covalent bond with the chain but will not have any free electrons to continue reacting.

===Reactions Involved in Basic Polymerization===
The basic chemistry involved in polymerization can be concised in the reactions that take place. The main types of polymerization reactions are:

''Addition Polymerization''

In this case two units "add" together to form a combined unit without any byproducts (i.e. loss of atoms). This is the most common process in industrial polymerization, and is most commonly applied to alkene monomer units. In this case the [[double bond]] within the alkene unit is opened up, resulting in two free electrons which can then react with other units to form a chain.

''Condensation Polymerization''

In this process two monomers react and form a larger unit and a byproduct. A common condensation reaction occurring in nature is the reaction between glucose units to produce the polymer [[cellulose]], the two monomers are fermented with yeast and combine to form the larger chain, expelling a water molecule in the reaction (C6H12O6 + C6H12O6 - C12H22O11 + H2O, as the number of each type of atom is the same the law of conservation of mass is adhered to).

===Additives===
Once the polymer has been formed additives can be mixed in to change its properties.

*''Plastifiers'' - Soften the plastic or fiber produced
*''Fillers'' - Reinforce a particular property of the polymer (eg boiling point, hardness)
*''Stabilizers'' - Protect the polymer against oxidation, UV decomposition etc
*''Pigments'' - Color the polymer (commonly used in plastics)

===Extraction of Polymer After Formation===
Once the polymer is formed it needs to be extracted from the container in which it was made. In many cases this is simplified because the polymer will be in a liquid form (due to the intense heat). This can be achieved through several processes.

*''Cold Drawing'' - Individual fibers are drawn from the vessel and wrapped around a rod. This is not used extensively in industry as it is a slow process (similar to winding thread around a thimble).
*''Extrusion'' - The polymer in liquid form is forced through a nozzle, resulting in thin threads being formed. This process is common in the formation of synthetic fibers (eg rayon).
*''Moulding'' - The liquid polymer is set into a particular shape and left to cool. This is used when clearly defined shapes are required (eg in making microscopic tools the polymer can be poured into a cast and left to solidify, where it will then form the exact shape).
*''Calendering'' - The polymer is rolled into sheets where the chains are compacted against each other to give the impression of a solid object, this is the practice commonly used to produce plastics.

==Examples of Polymers and Their Uses==
Polymers are commonly used both in synthetic threads and in plastics (where they can be either thermosetting polymers which have high cross branching - side branches actually connecting the chains - and will keep their shape during heating, or thermoplastics which have low cross branching and can be reshaped by applying heat). Common polymers and their uses are:

===LDPE===
Low Density Polyethylene, made from the polymerization of monomer ethylene or ethene units. An organic peroxide is used as the catalyst, and high temperates and pressure is used resulting in extensive side branching off the chain (about one chain every 50 monomer units). Because of these chains the polymer fibers are unable to be compacted against each other resulting in lower density and increased flexibility. LDPE is commonly used in cellophane.

===HDPE===
High Density Polyethylene, undergoes the same process as LDPE except lower temperatures are used and a Zeiger Natta catalyst is added (this has a large surface area on which polymerization occurs, reducing possibility of side branching). The chains of HDPE can be more closely packed together, resulting in higher density and a more rigid structure. HDPE is used extensively in the modern world, including lunch boxes, computer cases etc

===Vinyl Chloride===
Polychloroethylene, aka vinyl chloride, contains a chlorine atom which has substituted a hydrogen atom (in a substitution reaction one atom replaces another). This chlorine atom has a higher atomic mass, increasing the density of the polymer and increasing its durability in use. The polymer will decompose under intense heat to form hydrochloric acid (reaction between hydrogen and chlorine atom) which is a fire retardant, causing vinyl chloride to see applications in the building sector.

===Polystyrene===
Polyphenylethylene, also known as polyethylbenzene or polystyrene. In its natural state is very hard and brittle, the phenyl group (C6H5 replacing a hydrogen atom) increases hardness (due to increased [[dispersion forces]]) but decreases density. However, gas can be blown through the liquid polymer during its formation to produce a foam, which is an excellent insulator (the phenyl group does not conduct heat very well) allowing it extensive application in disposable cups.

==Future of Polymers==
The base unit for most industrial polymers is ethylene or an alkene [[allotrope]], these in turn are commonly extracted from crude oil either directly (through [[fractional distillation]] or through [[cracking]] of the larger carbon chains. Oil reserves are being depleted, and may last anywhere between 20 and 50 years. Although the petrochemical industry (the market producing polymers) only uses 5% of the fossil fuels extracted it will still be affected by the decreasing supplies, and as such scientists are looking to alternative produces which can be used to produce polymers. The alternative most intensely researched is the possibility of biopolymers, carbon chains obtained from organic sources (eg trees and plants such as sugarcane). These would have the benefit of being renewable (able to be replaced in a few years, compared to the millions of years needed to reform crude oil), biocompatible (able to be used in the human body, could see new applications of plastics in the medical sector) and biodegradable (a major problem with current plastics is that they don't break down and can remain in landfill for hundreds of thousands of years). However, current biopolymers tend not to be as durable as their industrial counterparts, and they are less economically viable (large areas of land, fertilizer and energy are required to produce and extract the monomer units). That said, with increasing advances in technology biopolymers may become the norm, and new possibilities may open up the the field of polymer chemistry.

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Fluorine

2008-02-05T03:02:17Z

Order: addition

{{Element | name=Fluorine | symbol=F | anumber=9 | amass=19.0 amu | noe=9 | class=Halogen | cstructure=Cubic | color=Green | date=1886 | discname=[[Joseph Henri Moissan]] | origname=From the Latin word ''fluo'' (flow) | uses=Refrigerants | obtained=Mineral fluorite}}

'''Fluorine''' is the lightest member of the [[halogen]] elements, or Group VIIa of the periodic table. It is also most reactive chemical element. Flourine is so dangerous that it must be stored in steel containers, and even then it reacts with the steel. Fortunately the layer of flouride that is formed is unreactive, and prevents it from reacting further. Under ordinary conditions, fluorine is a [[gas]] with a pale yellow color. <ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034677 ''Fluorine'']</ref>

==References==
<references />

Infrared radiation

2008-02-05T02:52:29Z

Order: copyedit

'''Infrared radiation''' or "black light" is [[electromagnetic radiation]] in the [[infrared]] portion of the [[electromagnetic spectrum]]. It consists of light which has a longer wavelength than the human eye can detect (that is, above 8,000 [[angstrom]]s) ''Infra'', meaning ''below'' in Latin, is used because the [[frequency|frequencies]] of the infrared are below those of the red color. Infrared is used in communications by [[optical fiber]]s (wavelength 1550 nm), in lamps to keep food warm, in military detection equipment (for example because the heat of the human body can be perceived as an infrared radiation around 10 µms).

==See also==
*[[microwaves]]

[[category:physics]]

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-05T02:50:15Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.''": That is not what is noted. What is noted is that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
::::::: "''...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.''": Really? Newton, to pick one example, did both.
::::::: "''...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.''": Yeah? This is not borne out by your following examples.
::::::: "''Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.''": The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a ''more'' "literal interpretation" of the Bible. But this was not the case. The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the ''non-Christian'' teachings of Aristotle.
::::::: "''Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.''": No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
::::::: "''So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.''": I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
::::::: My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to. But I was not talking particularly about America ''today'', and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Artistole might be pre-christian, but he won out over alterntaive Greek philosophers, because his views were thought to be most compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Aristoteles defenders weren't adherents of Greek religions, but Christians too. The establishment, also in science, was Christian, too.
::::::::And indeed there were those that did both, read the bible and did research. But even with Newton, who had good and bad ideas, it is obvious that his great contributions were those that he derived from observations of nature.
::::::::I still don't see that I had any of their philosophies wrong. Their were naturalists, and not literalists. If you however agree with the sentiment that "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" in science, then we got to an agreement.
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: "''Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time.''": What do you mean by that?
::::::::::: "''But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations.''": Yeah? I think that's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.
::::::::::: "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''": On the contrary, it seems that Galileo didn't think that experimental proof was necessary, and refused to explain his evidence to others. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::::::::::: "''Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention ...''": ''Principle'', not ''invention''.
::::::::::: "''First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it.''": You again commit the fallacy of conflating the Creator God with "a deity". I never said that it was because of "a deity", but because of God. To elaborate, it was because of the Christian understanding of the nature of God, not simply because of "a deity". This was the reason that Greek science didn't take off: they thought that the gods might change the laws of nature on a whim, so there was no point in studying them. But Christianity, because of it's understanding of God, saw things differently, which is ''acknowledged by the experts'' as being one of the main reasons why Christianity gave rise to science.
::::::::::: "''...without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change...''": And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change.
::::::::::: "''But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century.''": Wrong. That is, you are wrong to say that this is the way I frame the idea. This is the documented reason that science started in a Christian worldview. Despite all the comments that I've made to the contrary, and despite your own acknowledgements, you still seem to be acting as though this is something that I and I alone believe and promote, whereas all I'm doing is relating the conclusions and evidence of others. I don't know what you're talking about with John Paul XXI, but given your inability to grasp other ideas, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
::::::::::: "''The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex?''": The idea of irreducible complexity is that some things could not have arisen by chance, and this is based on ''evidence''. That it happens to be compatible with the idea of a creator may be an uncomfortable fact for your point of view, but it's not the basis of the argument.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.
::::::::::::Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.
:::::::::::: "And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.
::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
::::::::::::No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: "''Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. ... Exactly what I told you before.''": I don't recall you saying that, and if you did, I don't recall disagreeing. But you did say "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''" which does suggest something rather different.
::::::::::::: "''...that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.''": That doesn't follow from your example. That is, nobody is going to be correct on every last point, so quoting one person with a different view (and I'm taking your word for that) does not mean that Christianity has no or little predictive value.
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws.''": Thanks for taking no notice of the distinction I pointed out between "a deity" and "God".
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea.''": Well, given the lack of notice you took between "a deity" and "God", I think I have a point. Not to mention...
::::::::::::: "''To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277.''": But I didn't say that. I didn't say that God ''couldn't'', but that because of His nature, he ''wouldn't''. And it was your reference to the Pope that caused me to question your ability to grasp an idea, so this appears to justify me doing so ''in that very case''!
::::::::::::: "''No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance".''": Yet chance is all you have left if you reject purpose and design. Mutations are chance events, and natural selection selects for environments that come about by chance.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::I told you right in the beginning that Galileo accompanied his finding with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. And he did point at his telescope, the article that you quoted yourself mentions explicitly that he showed dignitaries telescopes. And it also mentioned that he refused to give proof for some of his more outlandish claims, maybe because he didn't have it. But at no point did he offer pieces of scripture as replacement for observations. He then offered nothing, and acted condescending towards his peers.
::::::::::::::That god doesn't do it because of his nature, was one of the forbidden statements. You still would have been a heretic.
::::::::::::::If one person supports an idea because of his Christian roots, and another rejects it because of the same roots, then those roots do not matter. No matter who would have won the argument, you could claim that it would be because of the Christian root either way, and therefore this claim is vacuous.
::::::::::::::I use deity and god as synonyms, because that is what they are.
::::::::::::::So you play your little game with the different meanings of "chance" again. Environments do not come about by random chance, and after selection it isn't randomly distributed either. I am happy to take you along this argument again. Nobody claims what you claim to happen by chance. But why do you have such a hard time to admit that you take recourse to the heavens, rather than try to explain why it isn't random? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

== Cdesign proponentsists ==

I would like to include mention of [[Cdesign proponentsists]] in the paragraph about the Dover case as an argument linking creationism and ID. I can not edit the page to do this, so will someone with authority please review and include it. --[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)
: I've unlocked the article, but I don't think that the term deserves mention in the article. It's little more than irrelevant trivia. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-05T01:06:26Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.''": That is not what is noted. What is noted is that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
::::::: "''...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.''": Really? Newton, to pick one example, did both.
::::::: "''...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.''": Yeah? This is not borne out by your following examples.
::::::: "''Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.''": The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a ''more'' "literal interpretation" of the Bible. But this was not the case. The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the ''non-Christian'' teachings of Aristotle.
::::::: "''Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.''": No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
::::::: "''So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.''": I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
::::::: My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to. But I was not talking particularly about America ''today'', and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Artistole might be pre-christian, but he won out over alterntaive Greek philosophers, because his views were thought to be most compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Aristoteles defenders weren't adherents of Greek religions, but Christians too. The establishment, also in science, was Christian, too.
::::::::And indeed there were those that did both, read the bible and did research. But even with Newton, who had good and bad ideas, it is obvious that his great contributions were those that he derived from observations of nature.
::::::::I still don't see that I had any of their philosophies wrong. Their were naturalists, and not literalists. If you however agree with the sentiment that "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" in science, then we got to an agreement.
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: "''Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time.''": What do you mean by that?
::::::::::: "''But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations.''": Yeah? I think that's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.
::::::::::: "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''": On the contrary, it seems that Galileo didn't think that experimental proof was necessary, and refused to explain his evidence to others. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::::::::::: "''Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention ...''": ''Principle'', not ''invention''.
::::::::::: "''First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it.''": You again commit the fallacy of conflating the Creator God with "a deity". I never said that it was because of "a deity", but because of God. To elaborate, it was because of the Christian understanding of the nature of God, not simply because of "a deity". This was the reason that Greek science didn't take off: they thought that the gods might change the laws of nature on a whim, so there was no point in studying them. But Christianity, because of it's understanding of God, saw things differently, which is ''acknowledged by the experts'' as being one of the main reasons why Christianity gave rise to science.
::::::::::: "''...without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change...''": And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change.
::::::::::: "''But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century.''": Wrong. That is, you are wrong to say that this is the way I frame the idea. This is the documented reason that science started in a Christian worldview. Despite all the comments that I've made to the contrary, and despite your own acknowledgements, you still seem to be acting as though this is something that I and I alone believe and promote, whereas all I'm doing is relating the conclusions and evidence of others. I don't know what you're talking about with John Paul XXI, but given your inability to grasp other ideas, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
::::::::::: "''The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex?''": The idea of irreducible complexity is that some things could not have arisen by chance, and this is based on ''evidence''. That it happens to be compatible with the idea of a creator may be an uncomfortable fact for your point of view, but it's not the basis of the argument.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.
::::::::::::Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.
:::::::::::: "And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.
::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
::::::::::::No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: "''Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. ... Exactly what I told you before.''": I don't recall you saying that, and if you did, I don't recall disagreeing. But you did say "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''" which does suggest something rather different.
::::::::::::: "''...that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.''": That doesn't follow from your example. That is, nobody is going to be correct on every last point, so quoting one person with a different view (and I'm taking your word for that) does not mean that Christianity has no or little predictive value.
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws.''": Thanks for taking no notice of the distinction I pointed out between "a deity" and "God".
::::::::::::: "''Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea.''": Well, given the lack of notice you took between "a deity" and "God", I think I have a point. Not to mention...
::::::::::::: "''To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277.''": But I didn't say that. I didn't say that God ''couldn't'', but that because of His nature, he ''wouldn't''. And it was your reference to the Pope that caused me to question your ability to grasp an idea, so this appears to justify me doing so ''in that very case''!
::::::::::::: "''No scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance".''": Yet chance is all you have left if you reject purpose and design. Mutations are chance events, and natural selection selects for environments that come about by chance.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::I told you right in the beginning that Galileo accompanied his finding with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. And he did point at his telescope, the article that you quoted yourself mentions explicitly that he showed dignitaries telescopes. And it also mentioned that he refused to give proof for some of his more outlandish claims, maybe because he didn't have it. But at no point did he offer pieces of scripture as replacement for observations. He then offered nothing, or acted condescending towards his peers.
::::::::::::::That god doesn't do it because of his nature, was one of the forbidden statements. You still would have been a heretic.
::::::::::::::If one person supports an idea because of his Christian roots, and another rejects it because of the same root, the those roots do not matter. No matter who would have won the argument you could claim that it would be because of the Christian root, and there for this claim is vacuous.
::::::::::::::I use deity and god as synonyms, because that is what they are.
::::::::::::::So you play your little game with the different meaning of chance again. Environments do not come about by random chance, and after selection it isn't randomly distributed either. I am happy to take you along this argument again. Nobody claims what you claim this happens by chance. But why do you have such a hard time to admit that you take recourse to the heavens, rather than try to explain why it isn't random? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

== Cdesign proponentsists ==

I would like to include mention of [[Cdesign proponentsists]] in the paragraph about the Dover case as an argument linking creationism and ID. I can not edit the page to do this, so will someone with authority please review and include it. --[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-04T07:25:29Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-04T04:24:56Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.''": That is not what is noted. What is noted is that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
::::::: "''...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.''": Really? Newton, to pick one example, did both.
::::::: "''...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.''": Yeah? This is not borne out by your following examples.
::::::: "''Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.''": The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a ''more'' "literal interpretation" of the Bible. But this was not the case. The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the ''non-Christian'' teachings of Aristotle.
::::::: "''Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.''": No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
::::::: "''So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.''": I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
::::::: My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to. But I was not talking particularly about America ''today'', and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Artistole might be pre-christian, but he won out over alterntaive Greek philosophers, because his views were thought to be most compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Aristoteles defenders weren't adherents of Greek religions, but Christians too. The establishment, also in science, was Christian, too.
::::::::And indeed there were those that did both, read the bible and did research. But even with Newton, who had good and bad ideas, it is obvious that his great contributions were those that he derived from observations of nature.
::::::::I still don't see that I had any of their philosophies wrong. Their were naturalists, and not literalists. If you however agree with the sentiment that "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" in science, then we got to an agreement.
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: "''Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time.''": What do you mean by that?
::::::::::: "''But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations.''": Yeah? I think that's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.
::::::::::: "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''": On the contrary, it seems that Galileo didn't think that experimental proof was necessary, and refused to explain his evidence to others. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::::::::::: "''Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention ...''": ''Principle'', not ''invention''.
::::::::::: "''First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it.''": You again commit the fallacy of conflating the Creator God with "a deity". I never said that it was because of "a deity", but because of God. To elaborate, it was because of the Christian understanding of the nature of God, not simply because of "a deity". This was the reason that Greek science didn't take off: they thought that the gods might change the laws of nature on a whim, so there was no point in studying them. But Christianity, because of it's understanding of God, saw things differently, which is ''acknowledged by the experts'' as being one of the main reasons why Christianity gave rise to science.
::::::::::: "''...without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change...''": And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change.
::::::::::: "''But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century.''": Wrong. That is, you are wrong to say that this is the way I frame the idea. This is the documented reason that science started in a Christian worldview. Despite all the comments that I've made to the contrary, and despite your own acknowledgements, you still seem to be acting as though this is something that I and I alone believe and promote, whereas all I'm doing is relating the conclusions and evidence of others. I don't know what you're talking about with John Paul XXI, but given your inability to grasp other ideas, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
::::::::::: "''The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex?''": The idea of irreducible complexity is that some things could not have arisen by chance, and this is based on ''evidence''. That it happens to be compatible with the idea of a creator may be an uncomfortable fact for your point of view, but it's not the basis of the argument.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.
::::::::::::Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.
:::::::::::: "And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.
::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
::::::::::::No, scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-04T04:19:45Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.''": That is not what is noted. What is noted is that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
::::::: "''...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.''": Really? Newton, to pick one example, did both.
::::::: "''...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.''": Yeah? This is not borne out by your following examples.
::::::: "''Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.''": The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a ''more'' "literal interpretation" of the Bible. But this was not the case. The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the ''non-Christian'' teachings of Aristotle.
::::::: "''Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.''": No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
::::::: "''So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.''": I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
::::::: My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to. But I was not talking particularly about America ''today'', and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Artistole might be pre-christian, but he won out over alterntaive Greek philosophers, because his views were thought to be most compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Aristoteles defenders weren't adherents of Greek religions, but Christians too. The establishment, also in science, was Christian, too.
::::::::And indeed there were those that did both, read the bible and did research. But even with Newton, who had good and bad ideas, it is obvious that his great contributions were those that he derived from observations of nature.
::::::::I still don't see that I had any of their philosophies wrong. Their were naturalists, and not literalists. If you however agree with the sentiment that "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" in science, then we got to an agreement.
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: "''Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time.''": What do you mean by that?
::::::::::: "''But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations.''": Yeah? I think that's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.
::::::::::: "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''": On the contrary, it seems that Galileo didn't think that experimental proof was necessary, and refused to explain his evidence to others. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::::::::::: "''Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention ...''": ''Principle'', not ''invention''.
::::::::::: "''First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it.''": You again commit the fallacy of conflating the Creator God with "a deity". I never said that it was because of "a deity", but because of God. To elaborate, it was because of the Christian understanding of the nature of God, not simply because of "a deity". This was the reason that Greek science didn't take off: they thought that the gods might change the laws of nature on a whim, so there was no point in studying them. But Christianity, because of it's understanding of God, saw things differently, which is ''acknowledged by the experts'' as being one of the main reasons why Christianity gave rise to science.
::::::::::: "''...without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change...''": And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change.
::::::::::: "''But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century.''": Wrong. That is, you are wrong to say that this is the way I frame the idea. This is the documented reason that science started in a Christian worldview. Despite all the comments that I've made to the contrary, and despite your own acknowledgements, you still seem to be acting as though this is something that I and I alone believe and promote, whereas all I'm doing is relating the conclusions and evidence of others. I don't know what you're talking about with John Paul XXI, but given your inability to grasp other ideas, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
::::::::::: "''The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex?''": The idea of irreducible complexity is that some things could not have arisen by chance, and this is based on ''evidence''. That it happens to be compatible with the idea of a creator may be an uncomfortable fact for your point of view, but it's not the basis of the argument.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.
::::::::::::Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, if someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position.
:::::::::::: "And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.
::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.
::::::::::::No, scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance". But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-03T23:31:45Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-03T23:20:23Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.''": That is not what is noted. What is noted is that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
::::::: "''...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.''": Really? Newton, to pick one example, did both.
::::::: "''...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.''": Yeah? This is not borne out by your following examples.
::::::: "''Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.''": The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a ''more'' "literal interpretation" of the Bible. But this was not the case. The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the ''non-Christian'' teachings of Aristotle.
::::::: "''Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.''": No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
::::::: "''So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.''": I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
::::::: My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to. But I was not talking particularly about America ''today'', and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Artistole might be pre-christian, but he won out over alterntaive Greek philosophers, because his views were thought to be most compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Aristoteles defenders weren't adherents of Greek religions, but Christians too. The establishment, also in science, was Christian, too.
::::::::And indeed there were those that did both, read the bible and did research. But even with Newton, who had good and bad ideas, it is obvious that his great contributions were those that he derived from observations of nature.
::::::::I still don't see that I had any of their philosophies wrong. Their were naturalists, and not literalists. If you however agree with the sentiment that "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" in science, then we got to an agreement.
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bile, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-03T14:04:57Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

Pharmacy

2008-02-03T06:30:08Z

Order:

A '''pharmacy''' is a store that sells prescription [[drugs]]. In the U.S pharmacies are commonly called drugstores. The word ''pharmacy'' derives fromthe Greek pharmakeia, via the Old French ''farmacie'', and Medieval Latin ''pharmacia'', which means "use of drugs or medicines". This word derives from ''pharmakeus'' which means "preparer of drugs," which refers to ''pharmakon'' "drug, poison, philter, charm, spell, enchantment."

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-03T06:29:15Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

Pharmacy

2008-02-03T06:26:30Z

Order: created

A '''pharmacy''' is a store that sells prescription [[drugs]]. In the U.S pharmacies are commonly called drugstores. The word ''pharmacy'' derives fromthe Greek pharmakeia, via the Old French farmacie, and Medieval Latin pharmacia, which means "use of drugs or medicines". This word derives from pharmakeus "preparer of drugs," which refers topharmakon "drug, poison, philter, charm, spell, enchantment."

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-03T06:15:34Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a Christian was equivalent to being a European. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence out side of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, lets face it those who were literalist always lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who offered when his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-03T06:15:16Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

== Added material about Dover Trial ==

Here is what I added: "However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] "

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, ID is definately not Creationism. This link proves my point: [http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/cdesign_propone.html cdesign proponentsists] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 11:50, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category change ==

Please change the category:religion to category:Chrisitianity. It is a better, more specific category. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:I don't have a ''strong'' objection to this, but it's not only Christians who are creationists, even though they are likely the vast majority of them. Probably some Jews, and certainly some Muslims, are also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:33, 4 January 2008 (EST)
::Then please change to Category:Abrahamic Religions. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)
::: Okay, done. Until/unless someone objects (and depending on their rationale). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks. I'm trying to go through and create better categories; at the moment, [[:Category:Religion]] is overstuffed with content that should be in subcategories (e.g., a 12th century Catholic saint). [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:40, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==Social effects of Creationist ideas==
Analogous to the section on the Evolution page, I propose we have a list of examples where being "God's Chosen People" has been used as the basis for genocide, wars, torture, and other such tomfoolery. I suggest the Crusades as a starting point. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: It would be an empty section, as none of those things are due to believing in creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
: Actually, it would be an empty section if you were trying to include ''negative'' effects. Positive effects would be plenty, including introducing [[natural science#Beginnings|science]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::Excellent! Now that you've realised that slapping unrelated ideas onto a certain idea you dislike in an effort to discredit you is very, very stupid, how about we work on removing the "Evolution is responsible for racism!!!111!! AND THE NAZIS!!!!" junk from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::: Huh? That is nothing like what I said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Well, you can forget about doing anything to the evolution article. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED HERE! --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
:::: P.S. Philip, hilarious comment about "introducing science". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::: Not hilarious at all. It's a fact. Did you read the link? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::The link only offers opinion, educated opinion maybe, but still opinion, not fact. Sure, many scientific institutions had their roots in monasteries, order, and religious institutions, but science did often better when it was freed from oversight by the church, such as the free cities in Italy show, or the more secular Netherlands.[[User:Order|Order]] 08:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::On Wikipedia, this would be a violation of their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Point POINT] guideline. I really, really do not think you want to go down that road here. You're already treading on thin ice as it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

::::Keep in mind, [[Wikipedia]] has a [[liberal bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Order, of course it is only opinion, as this is not something that is empirically testable, but it is, as you said, ''educated'' (or perhaps we could say ''expert'') opinion, and opinion ''based on evidence''. And what it is talking about is the influence of ''Christianity'', not the ''church''. Perhaps some/the religious ''institutions'' did limit it in cases, but that is different to saying that ''Christianity'' limited it. Historically, the most Christian nation on Earth has been America, the same country that has produced more scientists than the ''rest of the world put together'', I believe. The point being that there is plenty of evidence (albeit not absolute proof, which is impossible anyway) for the claim, and it is really only the unwillingness of most atheists and agnostics to acknowledge this that leads to it being questioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a Christian was equivalent to being a European. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence out side of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, lets face it those who were literalist always lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who offered when his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
:::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time, but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-02T13:23:03Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

Talk:Creationism

2008-02-02T13:16:27Z

Order: /* Social effects of Creationist ideas */

John Edwards

2008-01-31T01:19:20Z

Order: /* 2008 Presidential Candidacy */

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

----

'''John Edwards''', is a prominent [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections. He is known for his advocacy of [[Populism|populist]] policies.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, [[South Carolina]] on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, [[North Carolina]], and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury [[trial lawyer]] in [[Tennessee]] and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. Critics ascribe Edwards personal fortune as having been amasssed preying on malpractice victims and using [[junk science]] to win large settlements. <ref>Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9. </ref> [[Michael Medved]] said "Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators...There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation....lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy ...building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?" <ref>[http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Blog/issue9 For Presidents Day: Our Most Under-rated Chief Executive], Michael Medved, February 20, 2007.</ref> The deal Edwards pocketed the most from was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

Social commentator [[Ann Coulter]] quoted an article from the ''[[New York Times]]'' about Edwards behavior in the courtroom with this description, "He's the trial lawyer who pretended in court to channel the spirit of a handicapped [[fetus]] in front of illiterate jurors to scam tens of millions of dollars off of innocent doctors. According to ''The New York Times'', Edwards told one jury: "

{{Cquote|She speaks to you through me ... And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>}}

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one 6 year term, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for President. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

===2004 Vice-Presidential Candidacy===

Democratic National Committee insider [[Bob Shrum]] reported in his book ''No Excuses'' about the 2004 loss of Kerry/Edwards. In the book Shrum told of private Kerry-Edwards discussions when Democratic Presidential Nominee [[John Kerry]] was considering Edwards for the Vice-Presidential slot;

{{Cquote|(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.}}

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

===2008 Presidential Candidacy===

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref> In the spring of 2007, Edwards was ridiculed for getting $400 haircuts and charging his political campaign for them. He later said that he reimbursed his campaign $800.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>

On [[Memorial Day]] 2007 Edwards was accused of using the National Holiday to "trash the sacrifice, honor and glory of American soldiers."
<ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/john_edwards_criticized_for_en.php John Edwards criticized for 'trashing' troops on Memorial Day], Jim Brown, ''OneNewsNow.com'', May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May26/0,4670,EdwardsInterview,00.html Edwards Defends Stepped-Up War Opposition], By Mike Glover, Associated Press, May 26, 2007. </ref>

The ''New York Times'' reported Edwards created a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, according to tax filings. The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin In Aiding Poor Edwards Built Bridge to 2008], Leslie Waynem ''New York Times'', June 22, 2007.</ref>

John Edwards ended his run to become the Democratic candidate fot the 2008 presidential election after the [[Florida]] primaries on January 29, 2008, when he became a distant third to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]]. It was the third primary in arow where he ended third, and he dropped out before Super Tuesday, when voters in twenty-two states allocating about 45 per cent of the delegates.

===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans. Critics cite the hypocrisy of Edwards call for "affordable health care," when it is [[malpractice]] attorneys that use junk science to win big awards such as himself that have made the cost of health care beyond the reach of the poor.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

Critics also cite Edwards lack of government experience. One often heard criticism is that, other than the fact he has a full head of hair, there is little else to qualify him as a candidate.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

===Attacks on Ann Coulter===

In August 2007, John Edwards viciously attacked social commentator [[Ann Coulter]], calling her a "she-devil" <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/edwards-calls-c.html Edwards Calls Coulter 'She-Devil'], ''ABC News'', August 17, 2007.</ref>

Recently, ABC’s [[Chris Cuomo]] ambushed Ann Coulter with a personal attack on her and the [[GOP]] by asking,

{{Cquote|But to begin with the tough words, some tough words for you by the three top candidates in response to what you had said, some were calling it a homosexual slur, you said it was a taunt. They all came out when you were talking about John Edwards and said, 'This was wrong. We must deny it." Fair criticism of you or a shift towards the tolerant among the GOP? <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13750 Ann Coulter Discusses John Edwards, Bill Maher, and the ‘F-word’ on ‘GMA’], Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters, June 26, 2007.</ref>}}

Coulter responded,

{{Cquote|No, no. There were, I was denounced all over. All over. I think the one that hurt the most was, was from I'mALittleGirlInAPinkPartyDress.com… Very upsetting…Though about the same time [[Bill Maher]] said - and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word...But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was ''not'' joking and saying he wished [[Dick Cheney]] had been killed in a [[terrorist]] attack -- so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>}}

In March 2007, Coulter was attacked after saying,

{{Cquote|Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm -- so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards.}}

Six days after the ''[[New York Times]]'' published an article about the questionable practices of Edwards non-profit group which allegedly had been founded with the stated aim to fight poverty but had in fact been used by staffers for travel and campaign work, [[Elizabeth Edwards]] in what was obviously an effort to detract from the revelations attacked Ann Coulter on [[Chris Matthews]] HARDBALL. Matthews, a former Democratic presidential speech writer for [[Jimmy Carter]], with a reputation for constantly interrupting guests in mid-sentence, never once interrupted Elizabeth Edwards. Coulter was not informed before hand by Matthews and staff she would be appearing with the candidates wife. Mrs. Edwards said,

{{Cquote|I'm the mother of that boy who died. These young people behind you are the age of my children. You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues,}}

referring to an article Coulter wrote in 2003 about various Democratic Presidential candidates who had exploited family tragedies for partisan political purposes:

{{Cquote|[[Al Gore]] famously inaugurated the family tragedy routine at the 1992 Democratic National Convention...to recount the story of his son being hit by a car. At the 1996 convention, Gore told a tear-jerker about his sister's long, painful death from lung cancer. ...[[Gephardt]] has taken to spinning out a long, pitiful tale of his son's near-death three decades ago. ...Mrs. Gephardt weeps anew as her husband tells the same gut-wrenching story over and over again. ...John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.

Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on ''Good Morning America,'' in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."

If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points.

I wouldn't want John Edwards to be president, but I think even [[Karl Rove]] would be willing to stipulate that the death of a son is a terrible thing. <ref>[http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=20031119 The Party of ideas], Ann Coulter, 11/19/2003.</ref>}}

President [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[Barbara Bush]] suffered the loss of a child sibling in 1953; there is no record whatsoever of the Bush family using the death of a child to gain sympathy in any of the Presidential elections G.H.W. Bush was involved in, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, or [[G.W. Bush]] in 2000 or 2004, yet [[liberal]] authors have exploited the tragedy to attack, slander, and impugn the entire Bush family, Bush Sr., Barbara Bush, and G.W. Bush. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/7106.html Bush on the Couch]
By Justin Frank, 2004. Retrieved from the History News Network 29 June 2007.</ref>

The staged event netted Edwards sorely lagging campaign $450,000 from 2300 donors using cropped, out of context video snippets within 24 hours. <ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/06/29/compromise-looms-in-private-equity-fight/ Edwards and McCain Battle to stay in 2008 top tier], John Harwood, ''Wall Street Journal'' Washinton Wire, June 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13791 ABC Links Edwards/Coulter Call to '08 Fundraising Deadline, NBC Distorts Coulter], Brad Wilmouth, Newsbusters, June 28, 2007.</ref>

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/John Edwards|Articles about '''John Edwards''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Edwards, John}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Joe Biden

2008-01-30T23:23:22Z

Order: /* Presidential Campaign */

[[Image:06 biden.gif|thumbnail|right|200px|]]
'''Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.''' (born 20 November 1942) is the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the 110th Congress.
He is the senior U.S. Senator from [[Delaware]] and a member of the [[Democratic]] Party.

Biden declared his candidacy for [[President]] on January 31, 2007 after months of prior discussions, but later withdrew after the [[Iowa Caucus]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref>. He is a self-described northeast [[liberal]].

==United States Senate==
Biden took office on January 3, 1973, at age 30, becoming the fifth-youngest U.S. Senator in United States history. He was later reelected five times. Biden calls himself pro-choice and opposed president [[George W. Bush]]'s two nominees to the U.S. Supreme court. However, he has voted in support of banning partial birth abortions and was given a 36% rating from the pro-[[abortion]] group [[NARAL]], indicating a mixed voting record. In 1998 he voted for a Balanced-budget constitutional amendment and the GOP budget. Biden is a strong opponent of 2nd-amendment rights. He was rated F by the National Rifle Association. Biden has also voted to give Social Security benefits and citizenship to illegal aliens.

On the [[War in Iraq]], Senator Biden is to the right of his fellow Democratic opponents for the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. He voted for the war in 2002, but is now a war critic. He has voted against setting a timetable for troop withdrawal and is against cutting off funding for the troops on the ground. However, he opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 troops to [[Iraq]] in January 2007. Biden is a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which he chaired from 1987 until 1995 and served as ranking minority member from 1981 until 1987 and again from 1995 until 1997. He almost never supports a supreme court nominee who's not in his party and presided over two of the more contentious [[U.S. Supreme Court]] confirmation hearings ever, [[Robert Bork]] in 1987 and [[Clarence Thomas]] in 1991. Biden is also long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, currently the chairman.

==Plagiarism controversy==
Controversy helped derail Biden's candidacy for the U.S. presidency in the 1988 Presidential campaign. He was found to have plagiarized a speech from British Labour Party (UK) leader [[Neil Kinnock]]. The plagiarism was considered all the more serious, because it included details of Kinnock's life which were not true in Biden's case.

==Controversial comments==
Joe Biden has been the subject of many controversial comments that many claim to be racist.
*Indian-Americans
While speaking to a group of Indian-Americans in Delaware, Biden stated, "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." His comment was caught on C-SPAN.

*"My state was a slave state"
In August of 2006, Biden was on Fox News Sunday and said "You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state.

*[[Barack Obama]]
Talking about his fellow Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama he said, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

== Presidential Campaign ==

Joseph Biden entered the race for the 2008 election to the White House on January 31, 2007. His first steps at going into the presidential campaign were overshadowed by his comments about other candidates. He ran on his foreign policy experience and credentials. On November 15, 2007, during the CNN presidential debate "This is not about experience. It's not about change. It's about action. Who among us is going to be able to, on Day 1, step in and end the war?". Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race on January 3, after coming 5th in the Iowa caucus, receiving only 1% of the votes.

==See also==
*[[2008 Presidential Election]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://biden.senate.gov/ Official Site]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm Biden On the Issues]
*[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000444/ Voting Record]
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000444, Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.joebiden.com/ Presidential Race Site]

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Joe Biden

2008-01-30T23:21:32Z

Order: /* Controversial comments */

[[Image:06 biden.gif|thumbnail|right|200px|]]
'''Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.''' (born 20 November 1942) is the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the 110th Congress.
He is the senior U.S. Senator from [[Delaware]] and a member of the [[Democratic]] Party.

Biden declared his candidacy for [[President]] on January 31, 2007 after months of prior discussions, but later withdrew after the [[Iowa Caucus]] <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/chris-dodd-abandons-presidential-campaign-after-poor-showing-in-iowa/ </ref>. He is a self-described northeast [[liberal]].

==United States Senate==
Biden took office on January 3, 1973, at age 30, becoming the fifth-youngest U.S. Senator in United States history. He was later reelected five times. Biden calls himself pro-choice and opposed president [[George W. Bush]]'s two nominees to the U.S. Supreme court. However, he has voted in support of banning partial birth abortions and was given a 36% rating from the pro-[[abortion]] group [[NARAL]], indicating a mixed voting record. In 1998 he voted for a Balanced-budget constitutional amendment and the GOP budget. Biden is a strong opponent of 2nd-amendment rights. He was rated F by the National Rifle Association. Biden has also voted to give Social Security benefits and citizenship to illegal aliens.

On the [[War in Iraq]], Senator Biden is to the right of his fellow Democratic opponents for the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. He voted for the war in 2002, but is now a war critic. He has voted against setting a timetable for troop withdrawal and is against cutting off funding for the troops on the ground. However, he opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 troops to [[Iraq]] in January 2007. Biden is a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which he chaired from 1987 until 1995 and served as ranking minority member from 1981 until 1987 and again from 1995 until 1997. He almost never supports a supreme court nominee who's not in his party and presided over two of the more contentious [[U.S. Supreme Court]] confirmation hearings ever, [[Robert Bork]] in 1987 and [[Clarence Thomas]] in 1991. Biden is also long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, currently the chairman.

==Plagiarism controversy==
Controversy helped derail Biden's candidacy for the U.S. presidency in the 1988 Presidential campaign. He was found to have plagiarized a speech from British Labour Party (UK) leader [[Neil Kinnock]]. The plagiarism was considered all the more serious, because it included details of Kinnock's life which were not true in Biden's case.

==Controversial comments==
Joe Biden has been the subject of many controversial comments that many claim to be racist.
*Indian-Americans
While speaking to a group of Indian-Americans in Delaware, Biden stated, "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." His comment was caught on C-SPAN.

*"My state was a slave state"
In August of 2006, Biden was on Fox News Sunday and said "You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state.

*[[Barack Obama]]
Talking about his fellow Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama he said, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

== Presidential Campaign ==

Joseph Biden entered the race for the 2008 election to the White House in January 2007. He ran on his foreign policy experience and credentials. On November 15, 2007, during the CNN presidential debate "This is not about experience. It's not about change. It's about action. Who among us is going to be able to, on Day 1, step in and end the war?". Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race on January 3, after coming 5th in the Iowa caucus, receiving only 1% of the votes.

==See also==
*[[2008 Presidential Election]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://biden.senate.gov/ Official Site]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm Biden On the Issues]
*[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000444/ Voting Record]
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000444, Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.joebiden.com/ Presidential Race Site]

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Gunaphobia

2008-01-30T23:19:12Z

Order:

'''Gunaphobia''' is a neologistic colloquialism defined as an irrational fear of the [[Second Amendment]] and citizens exercising their perceived rights under such. '''Hoplophobia''' is the properly derived and more common word for the fear of guns would. ''Hoplo'' is the Greek word for weapon or armoured, whereas ''phobia'' refers to fear.

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-30T23:14:49Z

Order: /* Uhm, percentages */

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



== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::First "I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::: If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes ''both'' practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: ''Of course'' it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong ''according to the God who made them'' does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing ''intrinsic'' or ''inherent'' about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of ''the One who has the authority to set the rules''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/765][http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/397] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
::::::::::::: First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
::::::::::::: Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
::::::::::::: Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
::::::::::::: But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: What didn't stop them was their culture, the ''wrong'' theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
:::::::::::::: You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act ''because atheists don't believe in any god'', but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, ''because it is not the true God that he is blaming''. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
:::::::::::::: Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the ''true'' Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share ''your'' belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is ''in principle'' unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
:::::::::::::: Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf].
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
::::::::::::: How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
:::::::::::::You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
:::::::::::::I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"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.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Dunno, but it is a beautifully coherent metaphor. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime.
Thus Conservapedia was born. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: "Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another [[liberal]], right? Oh how [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed [[McCarthy|Aschlafly]]! --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Bahaha is this meant to be funny? I hope so because Aschlalfy cracks me up.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== #46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise ==

I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).

For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.

WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.

I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:I know what you mean. I've had to add things like "in America" to a lot of the legal pages... and an "in English" to the [[vowels]] page. Ethnocentricity? Nahhh. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: You may be interested in my reply to another editor on this general topic [[Conservapedia talk:About#You're missing a trick|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Possible new entry ==

In the Wikipedia entry for T.H. Huxley, the following sentence can be found: Persistent types sat rather uncomfortably next to Darwin's more fluid ideas; despite his intelligence, it took him a surprisingly long time to appreciate some of the implications of evolution. (See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H._Huxley#Vertebrate_palaeontology ) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't insert [[liberal bias]] into the content page. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Didn't seem terribly biased to me. After all, Conservapedia has, in the past (But fixed by yours truly) had sources posted that did nothing to confirm the relevant subject matter. Example being the [[Video games]] article, first paragraph. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:: Mistakes are not bias. The Wikipedia hatchet job on its entry for Conservapedia is not the result of mistakes, but of bias. That is obvious enough, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you say so, sir. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility in the Star, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?
:: You told us that you yourself were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::Why are people still insisting that the "extrapolation and credibility" statement remain in the first place? Either change the tense to the past, or remove it completely. Wikipedia does not use those words, and hasn't for the past 4-5 months. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:45, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::::The first half of the entry is outdated, and the second is plain incorrect. Anybody, who looks at either the Wikipedia article or the Star article will see that in a glance. They probably conclude that CP is sloppy about their entries, and not exactly trustworthy. The current entry should obviously change, since it outdated and wrong. If it is true that Andy is the source of the criticism in the article, and not the journalist, then the WP article is indeed giving the wrong impression. If the journalist is the source for the criticism then this entire item is somewhat pointless. Andy should get the benefit of the doubt when he claims that he was the source for the criticism, but given that he tries to change the subject, rather than answer it, feeds suspicions that he tries to duck this simple question, maybe because he wants to come back on his earlier statements that he was the source of the criticism. It becomes a bit dubious. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:44, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Uhm, percentages==

97? I don't mean to bring math into this, but how many Wikipedia articles are there, exactly? Something on the order of 2,200,000 (English version alone)? I think it speaks to that websites wealth of integrity that a RESPONSE website, whose own motto, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is clearly (alright, it MIGHT take TWO braincells to decrypt) a slight towards its larger, more heavily-trafficked cousin (twice removed, thrice reverted), can only find 97 faults. There's practically nothing here that alleges WIDESPREAD, rampant uncontrollable lying on Wikipedia. There is are few fleeting references to over-hyped John Birch Society affilitations, which is kind of like saying Wikipedia misrepresents a congessmans's Kevin Bacon Number. This website, while heavily enjoyed, appreciated, and useful to many people (myself included!), doesn't have to read like some Bizarro-world. And, for now, it does. [[User:Repub236|Repub236]] 13:36, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Perhaps 75% of Wikipedia is pure junk: unsuccessful rock bands, obscure liberal journalists, unheard-of towns, Hollywood trivia, obscenity-related entries, public high schools, etc. Of the remaining 25%, much of it is biased, incomplete, erroneous, etc. But we're not going to spend all our time identifying the thousands of problems. When something on Wikipedia is particularly flagrant, we've identified it to the extent we spend time on this.

: I wonder if your "percentages" analysis would apply to, say, the percentage of time that a president lies? No, I don't think a comment like, "he only lies 1% of the time" would be acceptable to anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::Are your numbers based on an analysis of a random sample of Wikipedia articles? It has been suggested that we should do this, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. A reference that gives a bit more background information on these numbers would be very much appreciated. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::Wikipedia ''does'' break down the articles into categories, which are aligned and categorized into various "projects". It would very easy to slice that baby open and count the rings. Sorry, anti-choicers; I meant baby in the ecstatic figurative way:) By the way, a President who only lies '''1%''' of the time? Let him out of the duffel bag and behind a podium!!! [[User:Repub236|Repub236]] 17:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::Sure, you could do it this way. You could also use the random article feature and do a study on a thus obtained sample. Either way, it is definitely possible, and has been suggested for a long time. Apparently somebody has done this, given that Andy uses the outcomes of such a study, but it would be nice if he would provide a reference for the rest of us. We could then tell how the study was conducted, rather than guess. It would be easy to do it, but why do it, if it has already been done. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:14, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-30T22:21:36Z

Order: /* Uhm, percentages */

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



== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::First "I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::: If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes ''both'' practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: ''Of course'' it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong ''according to the God who made them'' does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing ''intrinsic'' or ''inherent'' about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of ''the One who has the authority to set the rules''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/765][http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/397] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
::::::::::::: First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
::::::::::::: Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
::::::::::::: Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
::::::::::::: But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: What didn't stop them was their culture, the ''wrong'' theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
:::::::::::::: You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act ''because atheists don't believe in any god'', but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, ''because it is not the true God that he is blaming''. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
:::::::::::::: Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the ''true'' Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share ''your'' belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is ''in principle'' unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
:::::::::::::: Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf].
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
::::::::::::: How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
:::::::::::::You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
:::::::::::::I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"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.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Dunno, but it is a beautifully coherent metaphor. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime.
Thus Conservapedia was born. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: "Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another [[liberal]], right? Oh how [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed [[McCarthy|Aschlafly]]! --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Bahaha is this meant to be funny? I hope so because Aschlalfy cracks me up.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== #46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise ==

I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).

For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.

WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.

I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:I know what you mean. I've had to add things like "in America" to a lot of the legal pages... and an "in English" to the [[vowels]] page. Ethnocentricity? Nahhh. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: You may be interested in my reply to another editor on this general topic [[Conservapedia talk:About#You're missing a trick|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Possible new entry ==

In the Wikipedia entry for T.H. Huxley, the following sentence can be found: Persistent types sat rather uncomfortably next to Darwin's more fluid ideas; despite his intelligence, it took him a surprisingly long time to appreciate some of the implications of evolution. (See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H._Huxley#Vertebrate_palaeontology ) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't insert [[liberal bias]] into the content page. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Didn't seem terribly biased to me. After all, Conservapedia has, in the past (But fixed by yours truly) had sources posted that did nothing to confirm the relevant subject matter. Example being the [[Video games]] article, first paragraph. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:: Mistakes are not bias. The Wikipedia hatchet job on its entry for Conservapedia is not the result of mistakes, but of bias. That is obvious enough, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you say so, sir. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility in the Star, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?
:: You told us that you yourself were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::Why are people still insisting that the "extrapolation and credibility" statement remain in the first place? Either change the tense to the past, or remove it completely. Wikipedia does not use those words, and hasn't for the past 4-5 months. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:45, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::::The first half of the entry is outdated, and the second is plain incorrect. Anybody, who looks at either the Wikipedia article or the Star article will see that in a glance. They probably conclude that CP is sloppy about their entries, and not exactly trustworthy. The current entry should obviously change, since it outdated and wrong. If it is true that Andy is the source of the criticism in the article, and not the journalist, then the WP article is indeed giving the wrong impression. If the journalist is the source for the criticism then this entire item is somewhat pointless. Andy should get the benefit of the doubt when he claims that he was the source for the criticism, but given that he tries to change the subject, rather than answer it, feeds suspicions that he tries to duck this simple question, maybe because he wants to come back on his earlier statements that he was the source of the criticism. It becomes a bit dubious. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:44, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Uhm, percentages==

97? I don't mean to bring math into this, but how many Wikipedia articles are there, exactly? Something on the order of 2,200,000 (English version alone)? I think it speaks to that websites wealth of integrity that a RESPONSE website, whose own motto, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is clearly (alright, it MIGHT take TWO braincells to decrypt) a slight towards its larger, more heavily-trafficked cousin (twice removed, thrice reverted), can only find 97 faults. There's practically nothing here that alleges WIDESPREAD, rampant uncontrollable lying on Wikipedia. There is are few fleeting references to over-hyped John Birch Society affilitations, which is kind of like saying Wikipedia misrepresents a congessmans's Kevin Bacon Number. This website, while heavily enjoyed, appreciated, and useful to many people (myself included!), doesn't have to read like some Bizarro-world. And, for now, it does. [[User:Repub236|Repub236]] 13:36, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Perhaps 75% of Wikipedia is pure junk: unsuccessful rock bands, obscure liberal journalists, unheard-of towns, Hollywood trivia, obscenity-related entries, public high schools, etc. Of the remaining 25%, much of it is biased, incomplete, erroneous, etc. But we're not going to spend all our time identifying the thousands of problems. When something on Wikipedia is particularly flagrant, we've identified it to the extent we spend time on this.

: I wonder if your "percentages" analysis would apply to, say, the percentage of time that a president lies? No, I don't think a comment like, "he only lies 1% of the time" would be acceptable to anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::Are your numbers based on an analysis of a random sample of Wikipedia articles? It has been suggested that we should do this, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. A reference that gives a bit more background information on these numbers would be very much appreciated. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-28T11:44:04Z

Order: /* Reversion explained */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-27T15:11:21Z

Order: /* Reversion explained */

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



== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::First "I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::: If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes ''both'' practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: ''Of course'' it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong ''according to the God who made them'' does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing ''intrinsic'' or ''inherent'' about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of ''the One who has the authority to set the rules''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/765][http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/397] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
::::::::::::: First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
::::::::::::: Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
::::::::::::: Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
::::::::::::: But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: What didn't stop them was their culture, the ''wrong'' theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
:::::::::::::: You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act ''because atheists don't believe in any god'', but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, ''because it is not the true God that he is blaming''. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
:::::::::::::: Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the ''true'' Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share ''your'' belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is ''in principle'' unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
:::::::::::::: Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf].
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
::::::::::::: How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
:::::::::::::You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
:::::::::::::I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"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.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Dunno, but it is a beautifully coherent metaphor. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime.
Thus Conservapedia was born. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: "Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another [[liberal]], right? Oh how [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed [[McCarthy|Aschlafly]]! --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== #46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise ==

I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).

For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.

WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.

I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:I know what you mean. I've had to add things like "in America" to a lot of the legal pages... and an "in English" to the [[vowels]] page. Ethnocentricity? Nahhh. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: You may be interested in my reply to another editor on this general topic [[Conservapedia talk:About#You're missing a trick|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Possible new entry ==

In the Wikipedia entry for T.H. Huxley, the following sentence can be found: Persistent types sat rather uncomfortably next to Darwin's more fluid ideas; despite his intelligence, it took him a surprisingly long time to appreciate some of the implications of evolution. (See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H._Huxley#Vertebrate_palaeontology ) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't insert [[liberal bias]] into the content page. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Didn't seem terribly biased to me. After all, Conservapedia has, in the past (But fixed by yours truly) had sources posted that did nothing to confirm the relevant subject matter. Example being the [[Video games]] article, first paragraph. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:: Mistakes are not bias. The Wikipedia hatchet job on its entry for Conservapedia is not the result of mistakes, but of bias. That is obvious enough, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you say so, sir. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility in the Star, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?
:: You told us that you yourself were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-27T14:39:45Z

Order: /* Reversion explained */

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



== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::First "I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::: If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes ''both'' practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: ''Of course'' it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong ''according to the God who made them'' does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing ''intrinsic'' or ''inherent'' about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of ''the One who has the authority to set the rules''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/765][http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/397] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
::::::::::::: First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
::::::::::::: Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
::::::::::::: Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
::::::::::::: But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: What didn't stop them was their culture, the ''wrong'' theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
:::::::::::::: You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act ''because atheists don't believe in any god'', but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, ''because it is not the true God that he is blaming''. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
:::::::::::::: Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the ''true'' Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share ''your'' belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is ''in principle'' unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
:::::::::::::: Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf].
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
::::::::::::: How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
:::::::::::::You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
:::::::::::::I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"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.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Dunno, but it is a beautifully coherent metaphor. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime.
Thus Conservapedia was born. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: "Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another [[liberal]], right? Oh how [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed [[McCarthy|Aschlafly]]! --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== #46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise ==

I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).

For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.

WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.

I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:I know what you mean. I've had to add things like "in America" to a lot of the legal pages... and an "in English" to the [[vowels]] page. Ethnocentricity? Nahhh. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: You may be interested in my reply to another editor on this general topic [[Conservapedia talk:About#You're missing a trick|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Possible new entry ==

In the Wikipedia entry for T.H. Huxley, the following sentence can be found: Persistent types sat rather uncomfortably next to Darwin's more fluid ideas; despite his intelligence, it took him a surprisingly long time to appreciate some of the implications of evolution. (See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H._Huxley#Vertebrate_palaeontology ) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't insert [[liberal bias]] into the content page. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Didn't seem terribly biased to me. After all, Conservapedia has, in the past (But fixed by yours truly) had sources posted that did nothing to confirm the relevant subject matter. Example being the [[Video games]] article, first paragraph. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:: Mistakes are not bias. The Wikipedia hatchet job on its entry for Conservapedia is not the result of mistakes, but of bias. That is obvious enough, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you say so, sir. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility in the Star, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?
:: You told us that it was your were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-27T14:32:42Z

Order: /* Reversion explained */

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



== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::First "I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::: If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes ''both'' practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: ''Of course'' it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong ''according to the God who made them'' does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing ''intrinsic'' or ''inherent'' about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of ''the One who has the authority to set the rules''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/765][http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/397] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
::::::::::::: First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
::::::::::::: Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
::::::::::::: Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
::::::::::::: But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: What didn't stop them was their culture, the ''wrong'' theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
:::::::::::::: You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act ''because atheists don't believe in any god'', but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, ''because it is not the true God that he is blaming''. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
:::::::::::::: Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the ''true'' Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share ''your'' belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is ''in principle'' unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
:::::::::::::: Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf].
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
::::::::::::: How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
:::::::::::::You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
:::::::::::::I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"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.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Dunno, but it is a beautifully coherent metaphor. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime.
Thus Conservapedia was born. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: "Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another [[liberal]], right? Oh how [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed [[McCarthy|Aschlafly]]! --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== #46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise ==

I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).

For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.

WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.

I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:I know what you mean. I've had to add things like "in America" to a lot of the legal pages... and an "in English" to the [[vowels]] page. Ethnocentricity? Nahhh. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: You may be interested in my reply to another editor on this general topic [[Conservapedia talk:About#You're missing a trick|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Possible new entry ==

In the Wikipedia entry for T.H. Huxley, the following sentence can be found: Persistent types sat rather uncomfortably next to Darwin's more fluid ideas; despite his intelligence, it took him a surprisingly long time to appreciate some of the implications of evolution. (See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H._Huxley#Vertebrate_palaeontology ) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't insert [[liberal bias]] into the content page. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Didn't seem terribly biased to me. After all, Conservapedia has, in the past (But fixed by yours truly) had sources posted that did nothing to confirm the relevant subject matter. Example being the [[Video games]] article, first paragraph. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:: Mistakes are not bias. The Wikipedia hatchet job on its entry for Conservapedia is not the result of mistakes, but of bias. That is obvious enough, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you say so, sir. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?
:: You told us that it was your were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-27T14:29:24Z

Order: /* Reversion explained */

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



== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:The bastards, having fun... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::First "I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::: If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can ''decide'' that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently ''wrong''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes ''both'' practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: ''Of course'' it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong ''according to the God who made them'' does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing ''intrinsic'' or ''inherent'' about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of ''the One who has the authority to set the rules''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::::: Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/765][http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/397] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
::::::::::::: First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
::::::::::::: Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
::::::::::::: Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
::::::::::::: But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. [[User:Order|Order]] 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: What didn't stop them was their culture, the ''wrong'' theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
:::::::::::::: You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act ''because atheists don't believe in any god'', but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, ''because it is not the true God that he is blaming''. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
:::::::::::::: Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the ''true'' Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share ''your'' belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is ''in principle'' unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
:::::::::::::: Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932/] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_26-28.pdf].
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
::::::::::::: How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
:::::::::::::You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
:::::::::::::I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
:::::::::::::In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
:::::::::::::To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: How we understand ''is'' a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
:::::::::::::: If courts ask if a defender's actions are ''right'', by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
:::::::::::::: I said that ''Christians'' have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did ''because of their Christian beliefs'', not because they were Europeans.
:::::::::::::: The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any ''intrinsic'' worth except in the sense of what they are worth ''to others'', i.e. everything's worth is due to something ''outside'' the thing or person. Saying that people have ''intrinsic'' worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you ''worth'' something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
::::::::::::: No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
::::::::::::: So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::"''Yes, I only treat people morally because of God.''" Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"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.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]
:That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually ''shouldn't'' see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
::Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:::I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.

:::: If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== #6: Axiom of Choice ==

The [[Axiom of Choice]] may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== A simple solution to grievances ==

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

: No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia ''enforces'' its bias. Edits that remove [[liberal]] bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove [[liberal]] bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--[[User:Falcifer|Falcifer]] 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== The main premise of Wikipedia.==

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

: Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: So does democracy. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::: No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::: And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at [[Wikipedia]] -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. [[Ron Paul]]'s page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.

:::::: On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Dunno, but it is a beautifully coherent metaphor. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime.
Thus Conservapedia was born. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

: "Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another [[liberal]], right? Oh how [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed [[McCarthy|Aschlafly]]! --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== Sudden Jihad Syndrome ==

{{cquote|Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.}}
Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is ''true'' in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he ''once'' got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics ''and'' stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS ''at all'' to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make '''every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it''':
{{cquote|Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"}}
Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for ''our'' article, by the way. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== #46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise ==

I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).

For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.

WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.

I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:I know what you mean. I've had to add things like "in America" to a lot of the legal pages... and an "in English" to the [[vowels]] page. Ethnocentricity? Nahhh. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: You may be interested in my reply to another editor on this general topic [[Conservapedia talk:About#You're missing a trick|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)

== Possible new entry ==

In the Wikipedia entry for T.H. Huxley, the following sentence can be found: Persistent types sat rather uncomfortably next to Darwin's more fluid ideas; despite his intelligence, it took him a surprisingly long time to appreciate some of the implications of evolution. (See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.H._Huxley#Vertebrate_palaeontology ) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't insert [[liberal bias]] into the content page. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Didn't seem terribly biased to me. After all, Conservapedia has, in the past (But fixed by yours truly) had sources posted that did nothing to confirm the relevant subject matter. Example being the [[Video games]] article, first paragraph. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:: Mistakes are not bias. The Wikipedia hatchet job on its entry for Conservapedia is not the result of mistakes, but of bias. That is obvious enough, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you say so, sir. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368263 Here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=368501 here]. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." [[User:Order|Order]] 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own edit now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?
:: You told us that it was your were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-27T10:58:49Z

Order: Hope this formulation is more acceptable

'''The following is a growing list of examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], silly [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. [[Wikipedia]] has been called the ''[[National Enquirer]] of the [[Internet]]''''':<ref>"And in that respect Wikipedia is no better than the National Enquirer. We don't quote the National Enquirer on television (unless [it's] for a documentary on aliens or some other conspiracy theory) so why would we do for Wikipedia?" [http://conservativeeccentric.blogspot.com/2007/05/wussification-of-wikipedia.html]</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked January 9th and remained locked indefinitely. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&action=history]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claims that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# [[Mathematicians]] on [[Wikipedia]] distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial [[Axiom of Choice]] and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_last_theorem</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] is nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] lies to exaggerate the credentials of [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], falsely claiming that Dawkins "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins</ref> In fact, [[Oxford]] recently confirmed that the "Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Richard_Dawkins</ref>
# The [[Good Friday Agreement]] is called precisely that by the [[BBC]],<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/events/good_friday.stm</ref> the vast majority of sites on [[Google]], politicians and the public. But [[Wikipedia]], dominated by an "anti-Christian bias, does not like [[Christian]] names and it redirects that term to the less familiar "Belfast Agreement."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[Intelligent Design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy in favor of edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say little about extrapolation or credibility; one of the articles only references 'unscientific' in connection with [[Andrew_Schlafly|Andrew Schlafly's]] statement that it is unscientific. The articles instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee Chairman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28math_prodigy%29&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many [[disease]]s associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the homosexuality community, the higher incidences of [[domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] atheists give significantly less to charity than American [[Theism|theists]] on a [[Per Capita|per capita]] basis.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> Wikipedia's article on atheism also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref><ref>[[Talk:Main Page]]</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. Check out Wikipedia's entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies!
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, such that no liberals would equate to zero liberal bias. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for liberals to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of liberal Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_%28San_Francisco%29</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "Student Successes Defy Urban Trends," San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref> The Israel News Agency reports:
#: No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants."
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# 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 distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> 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 [[Theory of Evolution|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 has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 1.8 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 omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# 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 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 Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[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 ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> 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 allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<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 royalty, 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:
#: "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."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# 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."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In an example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept].
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
----

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[category:wiki]]