541
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 15:23, January 18, 2008
, 15:23, January 18, 2008Sudden Jihad Syndrome
::::::: 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)
::::::: 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)
::::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:05, 18 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)