767
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 17:20, April 5, 2007
, 17:20, April 5, 2007→More bias
::::I can ''kinda'' understand that you forbid sarcasm on YOUR Talk page, but last time I checked, opinions were explicitly allowed on Talk pages in general, and sarcasm was not classified "not family-friendly" yet... Or did I miss some sort of "Do not use sarcasm" rule? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I can ''kinda'' understand that you forbid sarcasm on YOUR Talk page, but last time I checked, opinions were explicitly allowed on Talk pages in general, and sarcasm was not classified "not family-friendly" yet... Or did I miss some sort of "Do not use sarcasm" rule? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Chinaman is an example of the poison of [[political correctness]]. Diane Ravitch, a scholar, historian, author and Dept. of Education director under Clinton and Bush, has documented how easy it is for special interest groups (read as liberal whacko's) to get words banned by pressuring small groups of educators in large states like California. Her book "The Language Police" explains how a tiny minority can get textbooks and reference books altered to frame a political mindset which is not reflective of the majority of Americans. In other words, yes. Your source is biased. A quote from an online dictionary doesn't mean that a word is offensive. It means that liberal pressure groups are redefining some words to frame their world view. Not everyone agrees with your world view and traditionalists are revolting against your world view. Newsflash: some people think that there's nothing the matter with being an Irishman and there is nothing the matter with being a Chinaman. I'm sorry about your ignorance if you think Chinamen aren't good enough to rate up there with Northwestern Europeans like Welshmen and Scotsmen.
That said, I am willing to concede that I will never convince you (or anyone else) to think anything other than what you already think. The problem is if we as a language culture start a policy of banning words or thoughts because those words are considered offensive by some people then many useful terms and expressions will disappear due to ignorance. Thus in a fair (and not liberally biased) encyclopedia, it's important to report that some people are offended by a term, expression or idea. However, it's equally important to report when and if the perceived offense is considered baseless by traditionalists.
The perfect example of this is the outrage a few years back when a congressman used the word "niggardly". A lot of people were offended. They weren't offended because he said something wrong. They were offended because they were ignorant of of the distinction between "niggardly" and "niggerly".
Therefore, it's an encyclopedia's mission to educate people. It's not an encyclopedia's duty to coddle people because their feelings are hurt when they read or hear a term. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)