Talk:Liberal creep

References

Any chance the second example could be referenced? The commandments and trustworthiness of this encyclopedia demand a reference for such a sweeping claim.--Jimmy 20:34, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

1. Be more specific: which claim do you mean?
2. Be more respectful: it is not for newcomers such as yourself to issue demands - or to interpret the rules.
3. This is a warning - make helpful comments and contributions, or be elsewhere. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:37, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

When he left, Bill Clinton had never been president, therefore that claim is useless. --TrueValues 20:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed: I am talking about all of the unreferenced claims made in the second example. Please accept my apologies if I wasn't being specific enough by asking if the completely unreferenced second example could be referenced. I was being perfectly respectful; please don't read more into my comments than what is actually there. I was not making any demands; I was merely pointing out the commandments demand references for every claim. According to the guidelines, it is entirely permissible and helpful to make requests for references by using the^{[Citation Needed]} tag. If you are saying the guidelines are in error or there is a problem with my interpretation of them, please let me know. I consider myself an experienced user of this encyclopedia based on the number of edits and length of time posting articles.

True: I was asking about the second example, any chance it could be referenced? The statement about Reagan doesn't state he had the highest approval ratings prior to the election of George H W Bush. Now if you want to make that claim and provide the reference, I will not object. Yet is will be a distortion of history not to include Clinton's higher rating and this is supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, not a blog that distorts the truth.--Jimmy 20:51, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course a source could be found for it. But instead of complaining about it and putting a fact tag on it, you should contribute by finding that source, as opposed to taking the liberal view that "someone else will do it". --TrueValues 20:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Very well put. It took only 2-3 minutes to find a citation for the second example and Jimmy could have done likewise, rather than try to use a fact tag to make a (misguided) ideological point.--Aschlafly 21:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

True: If you are so certain that the references for the multitude of claims that are made in the second example are true, then way don't you actually provide them since you are the one making the claims? I don't have the time to do research for others, especially research for alleged facts that I think are of a dubious nature. I have enough time trying to reference the claims I make in my own article edits only to have them deleted because they are liberal fluff.

Mr. Schlafly: Your assertion about Wikipedia's entry on Newton is utterly false. It is located here. [1] All you have to do is click on the link in the main article titled "Isaac Newton's religious views". Could this reference please be dropped for the sake of accuracy? --Jimmy 21:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Not "utterly false" - the most you could possibly say is that our criticism of Wikipedia is overstated. But I just read their Isaac Newton and "religious views" articles.

The former summarizes the latter by branding Newton a heretic, rather than calling him a fundamentalist. Moreover it conceals Newton's religious motivation for exploring physical science. At least they might have added this quote:

• ...he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." [2]

I suggest you stop debating and start doing some research and writing. Pointing out your error here has been largely a waste of time. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly: You stated Wikipedia was in error because they didn't mention Newton's fundamentalism, yet they used the exact same words and reference that the Conservapedia article used. Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." John H. Tiner. Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, ISBN 0-91513406-3. Care to explain this discrepancy? If Wikipedia is concealing Newton's motivation, then why is this line attributed to him? "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." It is contained in the "Isaac Newton's religious views" article.

Ed: My error? Where? All I did was make a perfectly reasonable request for citations and look at all the flack I am getting. Mr. Schlafly makes an error yet you have nothing to say to him. I am contributing to this encyclopedia by researching and writing, look at my contributions page. Please stop making unfounded accusations. If the people of this article would actually provide valid references to this article, I would be able to spend a lot more time making quality contributions to the NASA article instead of trying to get people to provide the references they should have researched to begin with.--Jimmy 21:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)