Changes

Here is what our [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article states:  "Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, describes deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

Here is what our [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article states:  "Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, describes deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

With the above being stated it is clear that Wikipedia does '''NOT''' describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." like our article claims.  The Wikipedia article in question is for an entry called '''"deceit(album)"''' that is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29  Here is what the article on "deceit (album)" actually states: "The '''Trouser Press Record Guide''' called the album "austere, brilliant and indescribable."  So Wikipedia clearly said Trouser Press called an album "austere, brilliant, and indescribable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29]  Wikipedia is different from Trouser Press.  Trouser Press described the album as "austere, brilliant,, and indescribable."  Wikipedia did not.  Why do we have to have an unclear statement in our encyclopedia?  Would Britannica (which I don't even consider to be a great encyclopedia)  keep something like this in their encyclopedia that is unclear and not true.  I don't think so.  Why do people have to go to Wikipedia to see that Trouser Press describes the album this way?  

With the above being stated it is clear that Wikipedia does '''NOT''' describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." like our article claims.  The Wikipedia article in question is for an entry called '''"deceit(album)"''' that is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29  Here is what the article on "deceit (album)" actually states: "The '''Trouser Press Record Guide''' called the album "austere, brilliant and indescribable."  So Wikipedia clearly said Trouser Press called the album in question "austere, brilliant, and indescribable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29]  Wikipedia is different from Trouser Press.  Trouser Press described the album as "austere, brilliant,, and indescribable."  Wikipedia did not.  Why do we have to have an unclear statement in our encyclopedia?  Would Britannica (which I don't even consider to be a great encyclopedia)  keep something like this in their encyclopedia that is unclear and not true.  I don't think so.  Why do people have to go to Wikipedia to see that Trouser Press describes the album this way?  

It is my hope given that I showed conclusive proof that our entry is wrong and since the conservapedia commandments state that everything you post in a article must be verifiable and true that this sentence would be removed.  Clearly, there is no reason to keep it as is. The statement is both unclear and untrue.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

It is my hope given that I showed conclusive proof that our entry is wrong and since the conservapedia commandments state that everything you post in a article must be verifiable and true that this sentence would be removed.  Clearly, there is no reason to keep it as is. The statement is both unclear and untrue.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I clarified my previous post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I clarified my previous post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)