Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Neutrality"

Revision as of 23:17, 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)

One need only look for conservative's edits. Every time he links to AiG it is about the truth is in the Bible and any science that contradicts that is wrong. I bet you can't do an article on radiocarbon dating with sources from[1] [2] [3] without getting some AiG references that claim those methods are wrong because they give a date older than 4004 BC. --Mtur 19:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)