Difference between revisions of "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (German-American)
(German-American: reply)
Line 511: Line 511:
::: The term creates confusion about citizenship.  There's no denying that.  It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]].  But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::: The term creates confusion about citizenship.  There's no denying that.  It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]].  But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US.  Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US.  Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction.  American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American.  As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others.  Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
==What's Wrong With Bias?==
==What's Wrong With Bias?==

Revision as of 01:54, December 29, 2007

! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

"Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D."

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A restriction of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.Archibald 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
  • A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.Archibald 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"
Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced politically correct speech and nothing more. I never heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a pagan writer openly hostile to the Christian basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a neologism. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of multiculturalism and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. Parrothead 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
" 'C.E.' is a neologism." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.Shocktherapy 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

New #1 - WP's CP entry

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --Jenkins 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of liberal education and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --Ed Poor Talk 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --Jenkins 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.
I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.
Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for Wikipedia, so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.
Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of Wikipedia's defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."
This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. RWest 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear Conservapedia with a falsehood in front of Wikipedia's liberal audience. You are right that Wikipedia has featured that defamation for many months.--Aschlafly 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --Jenkins 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Bow out if you like, but Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --Jenkins 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." Wikipedia lies about Conservapedia, and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life!Alloco1 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Although this is the wrong place to bring this up, 'Alloco1' is right - the wikipedia page for 'Jesus H. Christ' mentions that the phrase is considered blasphemy.

Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-MichaelS 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the Bible is. Did you bother to read the teachings of Jesus Christ, and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find one single historical incident that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake on Malta and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of God.

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of Jesus Christ after His execution--even while the lions were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([1]) recently stated that conventional medicine is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal cancer. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had no confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved cures through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend Scripture.

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--TerryHTalk 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:

  1. What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
  2. The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
  3. Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, res ipsa loquitor.-MichaelS 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

  1. A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when Jesus Christ Himself returns to earth to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that Osama bin Laden wants to set up, because God--in the Person of Christ--would be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
  2. In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime (Revelation 13 )--in all its secular inglory--are to parachute into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir Winston Churchill.
  3. Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", abortion, and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie," compels the military to allow open homosexuals to serve therein, et cetera ad nauseam.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to me of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is incapable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley.--TerryHTalk 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science can go horribly wrong, but religion does go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:

  1. Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
  2. Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
  3. Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
  4. Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
  5. Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-MichaelS 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, let MichaelS be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

  1. I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. What observed fact? The facts that I have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. Piltdown Man, anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read Richard Dawkins' books.
I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. Order 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
  1. The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually had the privilege of having God in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp. With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, Jesus Christ provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not set ourselves apart from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under Moses did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a drug fix.
  2. Yes, indeed, the Bible does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that Napoleon Bonaparte once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the United States of America has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, George W. Bush, let them think again. A leader is coming who will make Adolf Hitler look like a beginner, and Nero look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against Rome--it was a memorandum of things to come.
  3. Of course the Bible explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
  4. As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of abortion on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for cancer that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that MichaelS's confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.

Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-MichaelS 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)


Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on Homosexuality. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. Parrothead 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-MichaelS 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the Christianity Portal shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this entire wiki. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of homosexual and gay and subtracting the quotient of homosexual gay and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans Christian Andersen, Enola Gay), but you get the point. PostoStudanto 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, Gay should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to happiness and homosexuality as well as things like Enola Gay. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to strange and homosexuality, again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a politically correct "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. Parrothead 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in the second sentence and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
"and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual" ?!? No, men who have sex with men is the very definition of homosexuality. I think what you mean here is it includes men who don't wrap themselves in the dominant "gay culture", to wit: rainbow flags, gay pride parades, drag shows, calling each other 'honey', feminine mannerisms and lispy speech, over the top campy attitude, obsession with divas, preference for Abba and the Pet Shop Boys over, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hank Williams Jr., strong propensity toward mocking Christianity and treating it as something ridiculous, and obsessive identity politics and political correctness. Doesn't matter. If a man is having sex with another man he is, by definition, a homosexual. Parrothead 07:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before The Lord! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by Wikipedia politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't homosexual". This is a typical part of the homosexual agenda, to spread confusion about the subject.

A "homosexual act" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born kleptomaniac", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in kleptomania), you should be locked up in an insane asylum. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a prison. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic sharia law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by sexual identity, or sexual orientation or sexual preference, the fact remains that homosexual behavior is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --Ed Poor Talk 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...
The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:
  1. Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
  2. Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
  3. Some terms, such as Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Please note that I did not mean should be locked up to be taken literally. Someday, when I'm running for Senate, this quote will be used against me. *sigh* I should have said bears the guilt instead. --Ed Poor Talk 20:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Glad to hear you say that. Remember, locking up homosexuals has been tried before. I can think of one notorious example.Maestro 23:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

No Entry for liberal

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. Jelx 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --Ed Poor Talk 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.Monkey998 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)

What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--IDuan 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia

I am the developer of the Ubuntu Christian Edition which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

Ubuntu Forums Discussion
[Locked AfD Discussion]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--Mhancoc7 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, will do!--Mhancoc7 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

What is Ubuntu
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing.
What is Ubuntu Christian Edition
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support.
What does Ubuntu mean?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’.

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--Mhancoc7 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in ubuntu. I'm intrigued.--Aschlafly 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--TerryHTalk 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?). Feebasfactor 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like here. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found here. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to GLAAD the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. SkipJohnson 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his user page, he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. PostoStudanto 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
You are saying that he gave money to further the homosexual agenda and he is somehow conservative? SkipJohnson 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even one issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... Feebasfactor 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. SkipJohnson 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox conservative. Feebasfactor 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) Feebasfactor 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

possible bias

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps" --TedM 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that's typical liberal bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--Aschlafly 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by KalleF

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps and they meet the definition of a concentration camp if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. Rhino7628 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --Jenkins 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. Rhino7628 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles (Atheism, Homosexuality, Theory of Evolution, etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like placement bias) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --Jenkins 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Outdated info

Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?KalleF 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --Jenkins 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.Shocktherapy 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.Alloco1 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Richard Dawkins' edit

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about 1 1/2 hours with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his one previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? PostoStudanto 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
And there is a factual error in the entry: It did not take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: Talk page
That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have User:Stephenblack editing Stephen Black and First Stone Ministries ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite delighted about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --Jenkins 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

grammatical note

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to Michael Moore, who's official website..." should read "whose official website." Greg 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

And Committe should be Committee. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

"Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did."

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is worse than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?Shocktherapy 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. Feebasfactor 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia removed the smear against the Democrat, the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--Aschlafly 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. Feebasfactor 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about Richard Dawkins, where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is more wrong if it is true!--Aschlafly 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? Feebasfactor 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see Wikipedia using guilt-by-association to smear liberals. Instead, the biased Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association to smear conservatives only.--Aschlafly 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

#82 is out-dated/incorrect

It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one was deleted shortly thereafter. See this link. нмŵוτнτ 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Someone please make this change this. нмŵוτнτ 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was deleted on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per this discussion. Feebasfactor 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). Feebasfactor 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. Feebasfactor 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Factual corrections on Henry Liddell

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The edit that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--Aschlafly 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs

I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong liberal bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed (see graph). This should be incorporated into the article. нмŵוτнτ 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? HelpJazz 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general U.S. public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--Aschlafly 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a liberal bias? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately liberal? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? Feebasfactor 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--Bayes 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. нмŵוτнτ 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. нмŵוτнτ 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Why does this matter?

I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.Morgoth 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--Aschlafly 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. Gofyylb 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places

I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [2]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? Feebasfactor 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Aha, here it is: [3] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... Feebasfactor 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on Wikipedia. That's quicker than the time it took Wikipedia to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--Aschlafly 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the liberal "mistakes" on Wikipedia are very, very slow in being corrected.--Aschlafly 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. Feebasfactor 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

#2 (Prodigal Son)

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The disambiguation page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part. --LutherBifteck 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of Wikipedia entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.
Wikipedia has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the Prodigal Son was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the Prodigal Son was correct when written.--Aschlafly 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Seigenthaler controversy

WP's Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the New Yorker retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [4]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? Rob Smith 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Technical correction: According to the Wikipedia Oversight documentation the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)
I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. Rob Smith 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)


Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose." - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. Gofyylb 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Belfast / Good Friday Agreement

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement". It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, "The Agreement".

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the Northern Ireland Bill which implemented the Agreement.

The official website of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled "The Agreement" and includes an annex entitled, "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --Setanta 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia betrays itself [5] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian bigotry. Rob Smith 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

#4 Justice Byron White Error

Is this bias? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often liberal smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--Aschlafly 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that conclusively contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)
Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous liberal smears, such many identified in the content page here: Bias in Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)
This is the talk page for that article. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Dawkins again

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? Order 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)


I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in the article - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--IDuan 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

You still don't "get it" about the bias of gossip in Wikipedia. #84 is example of Wikipedia fomenting false gossip. Wikipedia pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--Aschlafly 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--IDuan 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)


This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. Wisdom89 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)


This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. Wisdom89 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

But Wikipedia does have an entry on deceit, using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if Wikipedia omitted the entry entirely.--Aschlafly 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers Wisdom89 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Now you make a different argument. In fact, Wikipedia only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. Wikipedia used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--Aschlafly 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[6] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an apparent hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[7] Jinxmchue 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--Aschlafly 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)


I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, and then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages while attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --TrueGrit 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)


Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about Al Gore on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some magical button that I could press in which I could add content to or delete erroneous content from Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. Cheesehead 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. Karajou 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)
The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.
Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. Wisdom89 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)
You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. "ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all" Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. Karajou 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. Wisdom89 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Cheesehead, try to understand what gossip and liberal bias are before denying that they permeate Wikipedia entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by Wikipedia, and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)


The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [8][9]. Order 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to Thomas Nast. But Wikipedia, in its bias for phony globalism, pushes it.--Aschlafly 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. Wisdom89 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? User1601 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)
The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to Thomas Nast. But Wikipedia with its anti-American and globalist bias, pushes the confusing term.--Aschlafly 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [10], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [11], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [12]. Order 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)
No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the liberal direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on Google before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--Aschlafly 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)

What's Wrong With Bias?

If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?User1601 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)

A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)
User1601, Wikipedia is not "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit Wikipedia to correct its bias are futile - in response, the liberal mob and bullies who run Wikipedia will restore the bias or even make it worse!--Aschlafly 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.