Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Neutrality"
(Which way is the bias?) |
(to Mtur) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
: If it is not neutral, could it at least declare which way its bias is leaning? American conservative (social? economic?) with a inerrant biblical standing. This was a criticism of wikipedia, and if it is not corrected here then this site cannot be any better than the site that is criticized. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | : If it is not neutral, could it at least declare which way its bias is leaning? American conservative (social? economic?) with a inerrant biblical standing. This was a criticism of wikipedia, and if it is not corrected here then this site cannot be any better than the site that is criticized. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::You tell me, I'm not senior staff. Just a newly minted first-level supervisor. It's in favor of American English and is certainly being "nice" to YECism. Can you point to an article which endorses the inerrency of the Bible? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:07, April 2, 2007
This a proposed policy or guideline. It is not official, and does not have wide acceptance. Please regard it as tentative and formative.
An encyclopedia which merits trust and respect will avoid taking sides on many or most controversies. When matters of fact or interpretation are in doubt, it will list all pertinent information and viewpoints, but avoiding drawing a conclusion.
On certain core issues, a conservative encyclopedia must take a stand. Matters of morality and ethics are paramount among these. A healthy respect for religion, particularly religious views held by large numbers of Americans, is also in order.
Ergo, Conervapedia will not, cannot, be 100% neutral on all subjects by necessity. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
- If it is not neutral, could it at least declare which way its bias is leaning? American conservative (social? economic?) with a inerrant biblical standing. This was a criticism of wikipedia, and if it is not corrected here then this site cannot be any better than the site that is criticized. --Mtur 18:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
- You tell me, I'm not senior staff. Just a newly minted first-level supervisor. It's in favor of American English and is certainly being "nice" to YECism. Can you point to an article which endorses the inerrency of the Bible? --Ed Poor 19:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)