Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs) at 22:12, 21 July 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Unprotected by User:Ed Poor


Religious affiliation of Wikipedians

I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--Java7837 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by Wahrheit, but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph does include agnostics, and how does 515 outnumber mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? Philip J. Rayment 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. Philip J. Rayment 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

"Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]"

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. Qc 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." MrGrieves 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508.

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qgobo (talk)

Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--TomMoore 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. Qgobo 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Faith is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--Aschlafly 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --KimSell 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qgobo (talk)
That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--Aschlafly 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.
I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest faith {non- atheists} group on it).
Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - Qgobo 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They all have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of faith. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--Aschlafly 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

People for the American Way

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? Blinkadyblink 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--Aschlafly 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. Barikada 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Why some of these problems don't count

Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Margheritapizza (talk)

No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the Wikipedia police, even though Wikipedia has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--Aschlafly 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. Rellik 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

WP: Sexist?

Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... Barikada 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)


I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. Deweyman 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. Deweyman 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. Deweyman 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--Aschlafly 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is "Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988." Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". Deweyman 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. Mwaetht 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT) P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?

How is No. 33 an ad hominem argument? An ad hominem argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Smoking example

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? DanH 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page


Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? TheNobleSith 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? TheNobleSith 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

My Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia goes part way to answering your questions. Philip J. Rayment 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. TheNobleSith 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article about Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And numerous editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my Wikipedia user page for more detail. Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does not mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". TheNobleSith 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly about Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is not neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be fair, but it's hardly neutral. Philip J. Rayment 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. TheNobleSith 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of liberal style: overreliance on hearsay.--Aschlafly 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--Mathewson 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things with an open mind. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., Exobiology. Rest assured I was not relying on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--Aschlafly 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--Mathewson 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. TheNobleSith 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of liberal falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of liberal style somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.
Further attempts at liberal last wordism on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--Aschlafly 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --Gulik5 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with Wikipedia. See point 11 in Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia. Insist on last wordism on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--Aschlafly 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. TheNobleSith 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Maths, anyone?

"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.


--Tommy 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--Aschlafly 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It should be made clear what "reject evolution" means, or this debate is kind of pointless. I'm also not sure why the 'religious' comment and the link are relevant. I think the key to that objection what the first percentage, indicating that 0.0014% of scientists definitely "reject evolution". By the way, it should actually be 0.14%; 700 / 500,000 = 0.0014, but you must multiply by 100 to get the percentage. Either way, the figure is small. Aschafly is correct that assuming that all other scientists (the remaining 99.84%) "support evolution" (which doesn't mean any more than "reject evolution" does) is not necessarily valid, but as a student who knows and has spoken at length with many scientists and professors on a variety of issues, I would consider it fair to assume that most scientists have some conviction about the correctness and utility of our current theories on evolution. It is not nearly so black-and-white an issue as simply "supporting" or "rejecting" evolution. Is this covered in one of the points on this article? This probably should be changed on Wikipedia, if only because it sounds to me like this poll was conducted in improperly simplified terms. I'll look for it. Oneforlogic 10:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I've looked into this reference on Wikipedia, in their Level of support for evolution article in the Scientific support section. Due to the subtleties involved in this debate, I would still like to know more about how the poll discussed there was conducted. I did find a lively debate over the validity of using this poll in the article in the article's 3rd and most recent talk page archive. There did not appear to be a consensus. If it makes any of you feel better, consider the context of this poll and remember that it was conducted in 1987 and appears to have used blunt, oversimplified questions. It's more of a historical reference than a current item now. Either way, the debate goes on.

By the way, I'm curious to know if any of you can direct me to any papers published in peer-reviewed journals that presented data or explained experiments whose results clearly supported Intelligent Design. I've read about ID supporters' thought experiments and probability-based arguments, but I don't know anything about their supporting data or experimental evidence. If any of you know where I can find papers on this data and evidence, let me know. Oneforlogic 11:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Obvious bias in liberal page

Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for Liberal, there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as Liberal celebrity obsession or Liberal Myths), while the same section for Conservative has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--Blabberno 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Administrator names? Huh?

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate what it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with how its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't create) the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a liberal Socialist secular-progressive who once referred to Christianity as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). LinusWilson 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --Steve 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:
  • criticizing anti-intellectual user names
  • criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance
That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--Aschlafly 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
Huh?--Faizaguo 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Peter Singer

New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at Egd 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Quotes such as Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person were removed as being POV
Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [1] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --Ed Poor Talk 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Question of Logic

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world.

To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think this community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. Zebu1911 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Creation "myth"

Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cal05000 (talk)

Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its liberal agenda.--Aschlafly 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? Rellik 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. Hpesoj 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the liberals on Wikipedia want to connote about creation. See Webster definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)
Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. Rellik 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity when used in a scholarly sense. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's liberal and atheistic bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to creation but not to evolution.--Aschlafly 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the primary definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:
  • "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." ([2])
  • "an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts" ([3])
  • "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon" ([4])
  • "ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior" ([5])
In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. Hpesoj 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--Aschlafly 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the primary definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.
The other main definition of "myth" seems to be "false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief" (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).
I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. Hpesoj 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it does fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). Philip J. Rayment 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it? AdenJ 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. Rellik 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
If the page is about religious creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
And the only link to evolution per se is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
Philip J. Rayment 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point. AdenJ 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. Philip J. Rayment 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried per se (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse. AdenJ 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

My criticism was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". Philip J. Rayment 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:

  • "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
  • "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
  • "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
  • "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"

Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. Egd 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--Aschlafly 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. Philip J. Rayment 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I just removed a 'bias' example regarding the Wikipedia article "Creation myth" because it talks about myths from all sorts of religions and cultures. Daphnea 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)


Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? Wandering 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce placement bias by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--Aschlafly 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

#12: Ron Paul smear

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -Crimson30 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a liberal, Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--Aschlafly 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? Wandering 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.
But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--Aschlafly 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. Wandering 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
"Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--Aschlafly 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. Wandering 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Points #1, #4

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. Wandering 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Defamatory material in American Family Association article

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing public displays of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. Jinxmchue 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. Jinxmchue 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the American Family Association article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the American Family Association. [6] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--Aschlafly 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. StatsMsn 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, Wikipedia simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the American Family Association. The Wikipedia entry even resorts to smearing the American Family Association for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how Wikipedia does not criticize John Scopes and the ACLU for defending the racist textbook at issue in the Scopes trial.--Aschlafly 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. StatsMsn 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The anti-conservatives running Wikipedia will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. StatsMsn 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. Jinxmchue 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. StatsMsn 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. Jinxmchue 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. StatsMsn 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the American Family Association despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the homosexual agenda rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--Aschlafly 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. Jinxmchue 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
My cynicism was well-founded. Jinxmchue 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist", "irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernie1241 (talk)

Your 40-year-old gossip is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by liberals and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--Aschlafly 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Reversion explained

The recent edits by User:Dnotice had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--Aschlafly 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? Dnotice 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--Aschlafly 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. Dnotice 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? Dnotice 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--Aschlafly 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? StatsMsn 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--Aschlafly 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
You didn't answer his question. Dnotice 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... Dnotice 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--Aschlafly 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of quote-mining as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. Dnotice 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"

Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. StatsFan 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--Aschlafly 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? StatsFan 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--Aschlafly 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Belfast Agreement

Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [7], [8], [9]. WaltherPPK 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. WilliamH 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. Bugler 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [10]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. WaltherPPK 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) WilliamH 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. WaltherPPK 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" by more than a 3:1 ratio. It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--Aschlafly 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. WaltherPPK 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--Aschlafly 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. WaltherPPK 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. WilliamH 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? WaltherPPK 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. Jalapeno 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. WaltherPPK 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.
By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in Bias in Wikipedia illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) Dnotice 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know nothing about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. WaltherPPK 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.
Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same Bias in Wikipedia and end your liberal denial. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on last wordism now.--Aschlafly 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the preferred term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's not named "Good Friday Agreement" is for religious reasons. WaltherPPK 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)


Here's the document itself, which shows that technically, its title is The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement. (All other names are therefore colloquial terms). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [11], [12], [13], [14], or this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday". A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. WaltherPPK 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move Camp David Accords to Constitution Day Agreement or Saint Lambert Agreement? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --Rutm 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? Dnotice 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument may be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

Philip J. Rayment 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally avoided in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement very clearly lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [15]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. WaltherPPK 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label was chosen for religious reasons.
3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.
There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--Aschlafly 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. Londonderry#Nomenclature) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has separate articles on Belfast Agreement and Good Friday Agreement -- what should we make of that! Jalapeno 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--Aschlafly 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -CSGuy 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--Aschlafly 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the official title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--Aschlafly 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only correct way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is more correctly named than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by this, the official Irish Government PDF version of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. WaltherPPK 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--Aschlafly 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by more than a 235:1 ratio, so I think the answer is obviously not, no. WaltherPPK 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--Aschlafly 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended in your comment above - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. WaltherPPK 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--Aschlafly 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at WaltherPPK for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... Dnotice 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? Philip J. Rayment 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia "bias"

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's sourced. The fact that you disagree doesn't constitute bias.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tennant (talk)

Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--Aschlafly 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. Wandering 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. SugarCup 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --Tennant 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from every article. --Tennant 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a lower standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? Daphnea 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Isn't this article biased as well?

Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--Faizaguo 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

How does claiming that something is biased constitute bias? Philip J. Rayment 23:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years

The phony quote in question is as follows:

The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'

This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

Phillip E. Johnson
Teach the Controversy
Wedge strategy

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005
Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005
Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus here and here. According to Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. Jinxmchue 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama's selection as editor

This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person might be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. Daphnea 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Michael Moore

"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? Daphnea 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. Jinxmchue 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
It's bias to push this point up front. We don't describe Richard Nixon as "liar and felon" every time we talk about him. Daphnea 15:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Analysis of Claims

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed Oneforlogic 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Current Issue 1: SDI

Wow, you guys are good at this. Slow down on the new claims a little so I can keep up. I'll study the SDI article later. Oneforlogic 19:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Current Issue 2: Controversy Sections

The articles provided as examples are definitely organized differently. If any Conservapedia editor is sufficiently knowledgeable about Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Jane Fonda and would like to take the time to reorganize the material in the Wikipedia articles, go for it. I'm afraid I don't know enough about any of them and don't have enough free time to reorganize the articles myself. I also don't think this is really a case of serious systematic bias; I'd need to see more examples before I'd be convinced. It may also be relevant to note that Wikipedia guidelines discourage use of "Controversy" sections, and that those sections in both the Limbaugh and Malkin articles had been flagged to be reorganized or otherwise improved. Oneforlogic 21:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You describe a futile exercise, as many of us here have tried to edit out some of the liberal bias in Wikipedia. The mob there simply reinstates the bias and even seems to enjoy doing so.--Aschlafly 21:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure you've been studying this longer than I have, but I have not yet encountered this angry liberal mob you describe. I have, just like all of you, had some of my edits falsely described as vandalism or removed without reason, but I have always discussed any changes to my work that seemed inappropriate and have often gotten useful feedback. Most of the people that care about an article enough to quickly revert edits they find disagreeable seem, in my experience, willing to discuss those edits. Oneforlogic 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Issue 3: GA status of Wikipedia's Conservapedia article

I would not have nominated this article to be listed as a good article. You were correct that the new cite on that statement did not explicitly state that Conservapedia contains factual errors. I have since revised the statement to more closely reflect what the article does say, which is still harshly critical of Conservapedia.

Update: I've been going back and forth on this with a few other editors. Most of the other editors agree that we need very explicit sources to claim that Conservapedia has factual errors. I am now convinced that we have three, and I have attached all of them to the 'factual errors' claim in the introduction. I still don't think the first cite on that claim supports it, but the editor that insists on including it hasn't responded to my discussion thread for a couple days. I do now believe that the claim is sufficiently verified. Oneforlogic 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

"Oneforlogic", you lack logic here and show your own bias. The "factual errors" claim is an obvious smear and the citations both utterly fail to support the claim and are absurdly biased themselves. You seem to think it's OK to cite a heavily biased source to justify a smear. It isn't, obviously. Conservapedia has no more "factual errors" than any other wiki. If you persist in asserting this harmful smear, then I'm unlikely to bother reviewing any of your other arguments further. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

"Both" citations? Which ones were you looking at? Both occurrences of the factual inacuracy claim now have 4 citations: one (#8, the Guardian article) that I believe does not directly address factual errors but is favored by another editor (and does mention that liberals engage in factual relativism as often as conservatives, which I consider generally true), and three that, while they address other issues and are obviously not supportive of Conservapedia, do directly discuss factual issues. I'm certainly not arguing in any way that Wikipedia is error-free, or even particularly more accurate than Conservapedia; I'm looking specifically at the claim made by previous editors to Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia that Conservapedia has factual errors. I currently consider this a sufficiently verified claim.

If there must be an agenda or conspiracy behind my actions here, it is this: I want to improve Wikipedia in whatever small ways I can as an individual editor, and I want to come to understand the conflict between conservatives and liberals better. I don't consider myself either, and you'd find that my political inclinations really don't line up consistently with either general ideology. If you're interested in any particular examples, let me know and I can post a few on my user page here. Oneforlogic 21:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Sir, you call yourself "Oneforlogic", but you haven't even quoted my concise reply in a logical matter. Read it again, and then read your quote of "'both' citations." Hopefully you can see yourself the flaw in your analysis of my straightforward reply.
The broader point is this: Wikipedia's biased smear of Conservapedia is unsupported by the citations and contrary to logic, yet you now defend it primarily because another editor at Wikipedia wants it to stay. Alas, that is the essence of liberal bias on Wikipedia. Wikipedia bias is not a conspiracy; it's bullying by liberals until others simply give in because they don't care to oppose it. Needless to say, Conservapedia editors are cut from a different cloth: we do care about the truth and we don't allow here the smears, half-truths, and gossip that plague Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 22:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
If I may ask, the page on Barack Obama starts off with the claim that he wasn't born in Hawaii ( is a scan of his birth certificate), claims that he is islamic and makes use of a number of smears, half truths, and repeating of gossip. If it is as important as you say that these things are not allowed on Conservapedia, who should we see about getting the page unlocked and rewritten in an honest and truthful manner? --Rutm 22:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
"Rutm", your comment is off-topic because the issue here is Wikipedia bias and Conservapedia accuracy. Our entry about Obama is accurate and your comment is misleading in claiming that our Obama entry is otherwise. Proper questions have been raised by an objective Israeli news service about the authenticity and type of Obama's birth certificate (why is the certificate number blotted out, for example, which would reflect the time the certificate was issued?). Also, "Rutm", as I've indicated before, your insulting name is getting tiresome. Request a change to your real first name and last initial or your account will be blocked, and you can push your liberal POV on Wikipedia instead.--Aschlafly 09:38, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Excuse me for being unable to reply more quickly, Aschafly, as someone seems to have blocked my normal account. So you meant “both” as in “the citations fail to meet both objectives” instead of “both citations fail to meet the objectives”. You know as well as I do that these are equally valid interpretations. My apologies for being such a liberal idiot that I picked the wrong one.
So, to be clear, instead of having an honest and open discussion of the other editor’s views and thoughts on his work, you would have me arbitrarily remove it without discussing it? That is completely contrary to the purpose of a wiki-based project. The wiki format only really works if people collaborate and discuss their differences, openly and publicly. You’ve made it clear that you are not comfortable with any working conditions in which you exercise less than complete control. I even offered to defend your side in this issue and you still brand me as your enemy by locking out my account.
I really did hope to learn about conservatives and their conflicts with liberals here. And, in a way, I guess I still did. I already knew that radical liberals could be hostile and repressive toward people with views they disagree with, now I know that radical conservatives are just as bad. It’s kind of ironic that in that way, at least, the two extremes are exactly alike. Signed, Oneforlogic, aka OneAgainstRepression 13:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, another idea, since you probably still need convincing on my good intentions, let's talk about an interesting caveat in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Contrary to popular opinion, WP:NPOV indicates that all majority or large minority views on an issue should be presented in the relevant article, preferably in proportion to their level of support. It does not state that only neutral views should be presented. I imagine you had already read such policies carefully, but it's good to remember for context. So, to prove my goodwill, do you know of a source that supports Conservapedia's factual accuracy? If you do, post a link on my talk page and I will add mention of it to the Wikipedia article and defend the source if/when it is removed. Oneforlogic 22:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Issue 4: Liberal Criticism

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

Issue 5: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

Issue 6: Censorship

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

Issue 7: Smearing Conservapedia

Wikipedia’s article on Conservapedia appears to have been discussed and improved a lot in recent months, and I would consider the current version (13:49, 24 June 2008) to be at least decently written and sourced. Wikipedia’s article no longer cites that particular New York Times source. There are, indeed, a great many sources that criticize Conservapedia as biased or just plain humorous, and I have not yet found any sources of serious support for Conservapedia. If any of you know of such a source, it may be worth adding to Wikipedia’s article. You may be technically correct that criticisms of Conservapedia’s factual accuracy, specifically, are rare, but that would only be because so many of the critical articles out there just skip straight to denouncing Conservapedia as a joke and don’t really seriously analyze it. Whether this is fair and proper or not is a separate debate. Oneforlogic 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Issue 8: Homosexual Agenda

The Wikipedia article on Robert Maplethorpe does mention criticism of his “sexually-charged photographs of black men” and the “racial undertones of [his] imagery”; this article could benefit from being expanded generally, and a reference to the biographer cited here could be a useful addition. The Wikipedia article on the American Family Association’s section on the group’s anti-Semitism now has many citations, most of which seem to legitimately support their claims. It is possible that some of these are recent additions.

Regarding the alleged “homosexual agenda” in general: I believe that both sides are handling this issue badly. The anger and indignation on both sides become harder and harder to calm as the conflict goes on. There are always moderate solutions to be found if both sides are willing to look for them and negotiate with each other. Being "anti-gay" and "anti-Christian" are both pointless positions; the average viewpoint of society will, inevitably, end up somewhere between the extremes.

I'll continue to add more as I have time to do so.


I look forward to your feedback. Oneforlogic 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

There were some notable incidents in the media

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. RobertBobkins 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, Rachel Marsden, there were some stuff about this in one online newspaper. She had an affair with Jimbo Wales and so he let her have her way in her biography. Then when news about this got out, Jimbo broke up with her on-wiki, instead of telling her in person and she found out indirectly. So she then sold Jimbo's clothes he left at her apartment on ebay. One shirt even had a peculiar white stain on it. I forgot if Jimbo Wales also is still married, but I think he is. RobertBobkins 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

This article is examples of bias in Wikipedia. I think you want the Wikipedia article. Philip J. Rayment 23:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Six times

I'm sorry, but this is funny. One of the accusations of bias is that Wikipedia states "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." However further down the same page I find "twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.".

The latter calculation is of such astonishing naivity, and so laughable in it's lack of rigor, that it is totally unsurprising that Wikipedia ridicules it. If we allow statements like this we deserve to be the object of derision. Daphnea 15:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)


Hi Aschlafly. I notice you just undid some changes I made to this page to reflect a) a logical inconsistency and b) something that was no longer true of Wikipedia. Would you like to explain what the problem was with my edits? Daphnea 16:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Barak Obama

I removed some stuff about Barak Obama being selected as Harvard Law Editor on racial grounds. There was no reference to back it up, so it is not verifiable according to the Conservapedia commandments. The only reference described the affirmative action system of selection, but did not say that Obama benefitted from it (the description makes it clear that only about 20% of people selected are on the basis of affirmative action). Daphnea 09:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Title of the article

I was reading the manual of style, and it says "Titles should be in lowercase except for proper nouns". Shouldn't "bias" be lowercased? Daphnea 13:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Expelled" the only WP movie article which includes the phrase "nominal dollars"

Parenthetical statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph here. I Googled "nominal dollars" for WP articles here and found that the only movie that shows up is Expelled. My complaint against the use of the phrase has been met with lackluster defenses. Jinxmchue 00:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

So I went ahead and added the same phrase into the top 5 documentary films' articles on WP just to see what would happen. Two of the edits remain untouched. Two have been relegated to the status of being turned into bottom-of-the-page reference note. The last one resulted in a disagreement between other editors whether or not the phrase could be applied to such a new movie (An Inconvenient Truth), with the deletion of the phrase winning out so far. Let the record show that Expelled is newer than An Inconvenient Truth. Jinxmchue 00:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Wikidrama due to anti-ID bias

A request for arbitration regarding the behavior of an anti-ID editor here, which resulted in his threat to leave, his leaving and then his immediate return and the other anti-ID editor named leaving. In fact, lots of the anti-ID editors are involved. I believe it's all an extension of this. As long as ID is treated as it is on Wikipedia, this will continue to be a perfect storm of contempt, bias and controversy. Jinxmchue 02:25, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Should out-n-out fraud be considered bias in Wikipedia?

Or maybe just to common. That story of the fired WP editor,,2933,257340,00.html , Fox News, Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed, March 8, 2007</ref> --jp 14:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Kind of old. Jinxmchue 14:40, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

WP "Quote-mining" article nothing more than an anti-Creationism hit piece

Check it out here. Also see the discussion page here. Lots of claims of this supposedly being a "well-documented" practice among Creationists, but little if any evidence of that is provided. Try to edit the article to reflect this fact and the evolutionist cabal is quick to revert it under false pretenses. Jinxmchue 15:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Username "ChristianityMeansFreedom" judged to be "profane, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate"

Holy cow! I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it for my own eyes.

Block message on user page

Admin noticeboard history

The guy's edits weren't even that horrible. Certainly not vandalism. They might have taken some time to discuss the edits with the user, but they judged the user name to be offensive. Right. Jinxmchue 00:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)