Talk:Main Page/archive15

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is probably the worst wiki I have ever seen.

You allow no neutrality. You lock articles to make sure they stay the same. I can not edit homosexuality to change the bullsh*t that's in there. GayMan 17:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

If you're not happy with how things are run here, feel free to start your own "Homopedia" or something.--Conservateur 17:31, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

So then you admit that this wiki is not neutral. Nice comment by the way, mature and helpful and relevant etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wow (talk)

I wouldn't take what an editor with a red link to his name says as necessarily representing Conservapedia, but yes, this Wiki aims to be accurate and fair, not neutral. Philip J. Rayment 18:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Rayment, your consistent hypocrisy across this messageboard is quite frankly jaw-dropping. Are you seriously claiming that neutrality is not the hallmark of an unbiased article? I find it bizarre that anyone would claim that an opinionated point of view makes for a fair and accurate article. I thought this website was created as an alternative to Wikipedia because it was 'too biased'... and from what i've read here you seem to be saying that Conservapedia is biased, and therefore 'accurate and fair'. If that's the case, what's Conservapedia's problem with Wikipedia?
signed, noform
Constant hypocrisy? Perhaps you could point out a specific example? Or withdraw the accusation.
Did I say "neutrality is not the hallmark of an unbiased article"? I don't believe that I did.
No, as I understand it (and I didn't start it), this web-site was not created as an alternative to Wikipedia "because it was 'too biased'", but because it had liberal and anti-American biases. I'm not saying that Conservapedia is "accurate and fair" because it is biased. I'm saying that it has a bias towards conservatism (among other things), and tries to be truthful, accurate, and fair. You seem to be implying that if one is biased (regardless of the bias), one cannot be truthful, accurate, or fair? How is that?
Philip J. Rayment 06:41, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I didn't see any specific suggestions, but I did see an instance of hate speech, which is itself a form of blatant bias.

Liberals often pretend they have something important to say, but then lapse into name-calling, profanity, or other tricks to change the subject. What is missing from the homosexuality article? Please suggest it here - or, preferably, at talk:Homosexuality. --Ed Poor Talk 19:25, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Critics and Sicko

The main page currently states that critics pan Michael Moores new film Sicko. But isn't that an bit of an overstatement especially when the link is to only one review. For example Metacritic [1] a site that collects reviews from all over rates Sicko quite high after 36 reviews from various news papers etc. So it could actually be said, that the opposite of the main page news seams to be true, critics have liked the document. HeikkiL 20:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Rotten Tomatoes has it as a 91% positive rating from 116 critics. Most movies would kill to get "panned" that bad by critics! But remember the front page is not for facts, just for propoganda. Boomcoach 16:19, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

"Your boarding pass, please?"... kind of a tacky caption to a story about terrorism. God be with those who were hurt or killed in that tragedy.-Phoenix

Yes, God be with the innocent victims of terrorism. But we're not going to be politically correct in describing terrorism.--Aschlafly 15:07, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness, but moreso good taste. NonXtianConservative 15:34, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

That was my point, Nonx. Feel free in insulting as many terrorist ****s as you want. But please don't demean the victims with crass jokes about death.-Phoenix 16:36, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree - it doesn't do the site any favours to have that sort of comment. On a separate note, there were TWO car bombs defused in London. Could someone update please? Ferret 18:19, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
OK, fine, now it's 2 car bombs defused in London. That makes the point all the stronger.
I was just trying to be helpful in regard to the number of cars. Ferret 00:33, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
The objection above to "Your boarding pass, please?" is political rather than a matter of taste. The photo caption is an appropriate commentary on how airports and governments deal with terrorism ... and why this is failing. Time to correct the policies, not pretend to be more concerned about "good taste."--Aschlafly 23:42, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
How can anyone think that the caption makes any kind of useful political commentary? It's just insulting to all victims of terrorism. For shame.FredRidr 00:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)


Where does it say in the linked article that the man who tried to steal the Fox reporter's microphone was a "fairness doctrine activist?" --PF Fox 15:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

That is pretty funny. The "fairness doctrine" angle was actually a sarcastic comment by someone from Motorola, nothing to do with the thief. Keep in mind though, that according to CP, sarcasm is a liberal deceit, so therefore the Motorola spokesman is a liberal deciever, so it is therefore acceptable to make up the front page headline, as a counter-deceit tactic. To paraphrase Saint Augustine, "A lie told to further the work of Conservapedia is not a sin." Boomcoach 16:27, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
I think "thief" is incorrect, this was a violent crime of persons, a physical assualt, not a property crime. As to "activist," we've already toned it down from "terrorist," what more do you want? RobS 18:06, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
So grabbing a microphone from a reporter doing a piece on the iPhone is terrorism? I would have though "thief", or simply "idiot" would have been the proper term, but then I am not an expert on anti-Apple terrorism. Oh well, someone realized that the article had nothing to do with pro-Conservative propoganda, so it is no longer on the front page. Boomcoach 21:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
What more could I want? The language "toned down" so that it actually reflects the story it links to. Again Rob -- What evidence do you have that the thief was a "fairness doctrine activist?" --PF Fox 10:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Silly Boomcoach and PF Fox! RobS never has facts! Have you not read his other writings? FOr a trip to the surreal, ask him about the "Great Ordeal." For even more fun, ask him to prove it!--1455221 14:12, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

LOL, now the "assault" is back on the front page, as a "liberal assault". No claim is too idiotic or false that CP won't keep pumping it, it appears. Boomcoach 23:20, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, the website doesn't say it was a liberal, and it's wrong to assume that he was liberal because it was Fox News. Also, the Motorola comment was made up. Looking through that website, I realized the author(s?) add in their own snarky satire at the end of otherwise valid and reliable articles.--Smedricksman24 23:56, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Folks, I spoke with the crew today about this. And guess what? It wasn't a conservative attacking Fox News. Try fooling someone else. You're just spinning your wheels trying to fool us here.--Aschlafly 23:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Schlafly, I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm just trying to make the front page, the first thing new users see, obey the Second CP Commandment. The source does not say it was a liberal. The front page, therefore, unless it cites another news source, should not say it was.--Smedricksman24 23:56, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
The guy screamed profanity and stole the mike from Fox News and ran away, until a member of the Fox News crew tackled him. It's evident to me that he didn't respect private property in this instance, or morality, or Fox News. Do you seriously think this guy voted for Ronald Reagan???
Perhaps this is another instance where a liberal doesn't doubt the truth of what is said, but wants to deny something that is true but difficult to prove. We've been around the track on that before.--Aschlafly 00:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Regardless of what I think here, anyone who wants this website to abide by it's first commandment should speak up. It's not verifiable.--Smedricksman24 00:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
You're right: our entry for liberal was incomplete. I have added these important elements of liberal:
  • support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
  • opposition to full private property rights
Now the use of the word liberal on the front page is verifiable. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, but now liberal is even more unverified. Aschlafly, you've built a nice little house of cards. Except the base isn't steady. The rules are never enforced here, except to make the dissenters go away.--Smedricksman24 00:45, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
No, Smedricksman24, the problem is that you'll never be satisfied unless this site becomes more liberal. It's not going to. The definition here of liberal is the best on the internet, and it is all verifiable. In fact, I'll verify the change I just made for you right now. Of course that won't make you happy either.--Aschlafly 01:10, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't there some commandment about "bearing false witness?" Or does it not apply when you're "bearing false witness" against liberals? The fact is, you have not one shred of evidence that the person who stole the microphone in that incident was a liberal, and citing your own prejudices about liberals does not qualify as "evidence." I'm reminded of a southerner I knew who, when he heard about a case of rape, just assumed the perp must have been black, using roughly the same reasoning you've offered here. Let's hope no innocent liberal ever has to stand trial with you on a jury. You'll just assume they're guilty because of their politics. --PF Fox 01:15, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, right. Here we have the standard liberal canard, trying to call a conservative a racist. Should I add that as another trademark liberal trait? Maybe it's too obvious to add. Maybe you can go over to Wikipedia and try to claim some more people are racists, as was done to Thad Cochran there. See Bias in Wikipedia.
It's amazing how liberals refuse to admit their politics, and try to pretend they are something else. We admit we are conservatives here. Why can't liberals do likewise?--Aschlafly 01:25, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
It doesn't seem that liberals are very welcomed here. I mean, if you look at the block log, several users in the past 24 hours have been banned or blocked for "liberalness." So, it makes perfect sense that a liberal wouldn't admit to it on this wiki.
If you mean in reality as well, that answer is simple as well: liberal has been transformed into a dirty word. It's taboo to be called liberal, whereas conservative doesn't have nearly the bagged or negative connotations. Stryker 01:33, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Not, to nitpick and antagonize, Aschlafly, but I've gotta say, I prefer the Merriam Webster definition. It's much more liberal (and complete) in its inclusions. My goal here is not to spread my own point of view, regardless of what it is. I'm a high school student, and I hate that my teachers refuse to accept Wikipedia (or Conservapedia) as credible sources. My goal here (and on Wiki) is to make more reliable resources. I object to the news article because it's not what the cite says. I know that Conservapedia isn't going to voice my opinions (chiefly agnosticism) and I know that it would be completely fruitless for me to try to do that. I may be a (gasp) public school student, and still in high school, but please don't underestimate my intelligence. I'm not pigheaded enough to think that by mere persistence will this website become a blog for me or anyone.--Smedricksman24 01:28, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, you're making an assumption many Northerners do, that all Southerners are conservatives. PF Fox's anecdote never specified the political ideology of the Southerner. Nor did it ever claim that there was a single conservative racist. It was an analogy, intending to show you your own bias.--Smedricksman24 01:34, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
It drew an analogy between a conservative (me) and a racist. That's the oldest trick in the liberal book. It doesn't fool anyone any more.
Why won't you and PF Fox admit that you're liberal? Are you embarrassed by it? Or do you think you're going to trick people here? You aren't going to.--Aschlafly 01:48, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Where, exactly, have I hidden that fact? Yes, I'm a liberal, and I don't make a habit of snatching items out of people's hands on the street or committing other such crimes. Nor, for that matter, do I go around assuming that people who do this are conservatives.

You use precisely the same kind of reasoning racists use. If you don't like having that pointed out, don't post pieces in which you assume someone must be "liberal" simply because they've committed a crime. --PF Fox 11:47, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

So you finally admit that you're a liberal. But you don't explain why you withheld that for so long. And note that Smedricksman24, your ally in this discussion, hasn't admitted it yet.
You then resort to the most desperate liberal argument of all, trying to compare your opponent to a racist. Pathetic.--Aschlafly 12:07, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
I had thought that fact was obvious. And again, Mr. Schlafly, when you use the same reasoning racists use, I intend to point it out. If that upsets you, too bad. --PF Fox 12:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Pathetic liberal claims don't upset me. You can discredit yourself all you like here. Try to make as many absurd comparisons to racism as you possible can.--Aschlafly 12:18, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

You really can't defend your silly and malicious claim that the guy who snatched the mic was a "liberal" can you? --PF Fox 12:21, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Still trying to push your viewpoint as to who or who isn't guilty of "thought crimes"? Could you be a proud member of the "thought police", Pam? Karajou 13:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Simply arguing with you qualfies me as a member of the "thought police?" How? --PF Fox 13:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
You need to read your own blog, Pam. You set yourself up as judge and jury as to who is a member of the thought police, and by coming here in hopes you can control the outcome of any given argument makes you just as guilty. Have a nice day. Karajou 13:29, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

LOL! I don't come here to "control the outcome of any given argument," K. I come here to gather material on the sheer malice that drives much of what is posted on Conservapedia. (I don't like posting accusations without providing some sort of evidence, you see.) This particular exchange has been a treasure trove. --PF Fox 13:43, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

And you also posted false edits while you were here, haven't you? Karajou 14:40, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
What "false edits" were those? I never knowingly posted anything untrue on this website. Those additions I made to articles were factual and cited. --PF Fox 14:49, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry it took me a while to get back. Good Job, Andy! Phyllis Diller would be proud that you figured out who the analogy was comparing. BUT, it did not call you a racist. I can draw an allusion between myself and Tennessee Williams; We're both Pisces. Does that mean that my sister had a lobotomy? Does that mean I'm gay? No. It means we're both Pisces. I feel no need to tell you where I fall on the political spectrum. And, if I gave you my political compass coordinates, or told you that I was anything but a liberal, would you not just accuse of me of "liberal deceit"? I'm savvy enough to know wat appens to liberals on this site.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].
Regardless of what the "Blocks and Locks" pages says.--Smedricksman24 15:28, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
See, User:Smedricksman24 still won't admit he's a liberal.--Aschlafly 15:31, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

And you're STILL unable to offer any evidence that the guy who grabbed the mic was a liberal. --PF Fox 15:50, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

See, User:Asclafly still wont admit hes done anything wrong. Andy, if you refuse to focus on the debate, and instead attack my character, (not that I consider liberal an insult, but Andy seems to synopsizes it with evil-doer) then you're not much of a debater. Ad hominem arguments don't fly with most people, see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smedricksman24 (talk)
Note: For my efforts on this page, I've been threatened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smedricksman24 (talk)

(reset indent) Strike two. Either make a positive contribution or leave. Thanks. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:05, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

conservapedia front page news ticker

Just casting my eye over the news headlines on your front page.. You've got a story about Democrat presidential candidate, Governor Richardson, requiring "the state to grow and distribute Marijuana". No mention of the fact it's MEDICAL Marijuana. That's nothing but a pathetic smear. A straight down lie of omission. Telling lies? You know, sinful? Who ever writes that is a hypocrite of the first order. Shame on you and shame on anyone who can't see this whole enterprise is nothing but a hateful retreat from reality for those with the most impoverished spirits imaginable.

And what's that about the Glasgow bombing (I'm in Glasgow btw)? And the French?? That just makes no sense what so ever! You're a loony mate.

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

Stick around and you will understand better what you read in the newspaper. By the way, no one grows "medical marijuana". The plant is marijuana, plain and simple. How it is used has nothing to do with what is grown. And, I might add, "medical marijuana" is a fiction just as much as "medical cocaine" would be.--Aschlafly 23:45, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Actually, cocaine does have medical purposes. It's used as a blood vessel constrictor for instance, and is used during surgery. Maestro 00:39, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
That's a bit ironic, considering that cocaine was originally marketed as a medicine [10] and in fact is still used that way [11] [12] and heroin, like other opiates, is still of course widely used in hospitals.--Britinme 08:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Surely medicine itself is a fiction? Only faith and prayer alone can heal us. BritCon 07:56, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Nice try, "Brit____", but the point remains: no one grows "medical marijuana." Do you think you've ever seen a "medical marijuana" plant? How can you tell the difference between a growing "medical marijuana" plant and an ordinary one???? Godspeed to our misguided friends from across the pond. Let's hope one day conservatism catches hold in Britain again, before it's too late.--Aschlafly 19:42, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
And the difference between a poppy grown for morphine from one grown for heroin would be.. what exactly?
The power of [prayer as a medicine]? Tummymaster
Marijuana is not used to make morphine.
The movement for "medical" marijuana didn't start until the legalize-drug crowd failed in its attempts to legalize it for everyone. So the approach now is to legalize it for everyone ... who has a note from a doctor. Not everyone is fooled by that approach.--Aschlafly 22:08, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Its supposedly very easy to get a doctor to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes. Some news station a few years ago did a piece about it, and one of the guys got a note for marijuana for back pains.--Elamdri 23:57, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Right. So many people where getting marijuana through this phony loophole that even Jerry Brown, one of the most liberal politicians in the country, chased the marijuana cooperatives out of Oakland when he was mayor. Even he got fed up with the racket.--Aschlafly 23:59, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
As people who believe in personal responsibility surely we should have no objection to people using marijuana for medical purposes if they so desire. It is not used to get stoned but usually for pain relief. We have no objection to a glass of wine with a meal. Those who lack personal responsibility abuse it to get drunk. BritCon 09:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is addictive, and most usage is to get stoned and self-destruct. The "medical" part is deceit by the legalize-drug crowd. We're not fooled, thank you.--Aschlafly 20:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
As was the original form of morphine. Cocaine was used as a medical anesthetic until pocaine was able to be synthesized. I would also encourage you to look at Marinol. The question then is should marijuana be considered equivalent to Marinol, which would reduce costs in treating anorexia, side effects of chemotherapy and AIDS drugs, and spasms from multiple sclerosis. Many drugs are abused - that does not mean that the drug has no benefits and should not be prescribed - especially in situations where it reduces the medical costs compared to synthetic forms. Alternatively, are you suggesting that every drug that can or has been abused should not be allowed to be used in a medical situation? --Mtur 21:11, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, where is the evidence that marijuana is addictive? The body cannot become dependent on THC. [1] [2]
Alcohol is addictive, and much usage is to get drunk (stoned) and self-destruct. According to this "the United States [has] the highest number of alcoholics in the West, but the country also pays a dear price for their actions: alcohol is a factor in a third of all rapes, in a quarter of all assaults, and in half of all homicides". According the this there are 15 milllion alcoholics in the US. Should we treat alcohol the same as Marijuana? BritCon 09:13, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I haven't been buying into this discussion, but if you are interested in my opinion on that question, it's yes. Philip J. Rayment 10:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
In California, all you have to do is forge bring a doctors note and wince convincingly. Geo.Complain! 12:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
So is the Conservative position that a dangerous drug like alcohol should be prohibited? In some states, all you have to do is forge provide age ID and act convincingly, though some alcohol pushers don't care to check ID anyway and are quite content to endulge in FREE market economics. BritCon 15:22, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to get the opinion of someone dying of AIDS or cancer on whether they'd like a natural, fairly cheap drug that gives a sense of good feeling and increases the appitite. Anyone? Maestro 00:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not dying of AIDS or cancer, but if you'd like my opinion, and assuming you are referring to alcohol, I have no problem with using alcohol for (genuine) medicinal purposes if that is the most appropriate substance for the job. I believe that the American Medical Association over 50 years ago declared that alcohol was not required for medicinal purposes, but I assume that they were not talking about circumstances where other treatments might not be available for some reason (e.g. isolated locations). Philip J. Rayment 00:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

One thing we're overlooking is that desperately sick people will use whatever it takes to make them feel better. If Joe Chemo wants a couple of tokes to help keep his dinner down, would you rather he got it from the government, or paid money to some scumbag drug dealer? The whole point of medicinal marijuna is as a medicine, not a cheap high. That's why you can't buy morphine or codine on the street, even though they are legitimate medicines. Maestro 10:31, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

July 1

  • Canada Day; Happy Birthday, Canada!
  • 1916 - Battle of the Somme begins
  • 1991 - Warsaw Pact ended
  • 1994 - Yasser Arafat returns to Gaza after 27 year exile
  • 1997 - Britain returns Hong Kong to Chinese

File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Great stuff, Fox. Thanks and will post now. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:29, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

This is a really dumb idea for a wiki

Wikipedia strives for a non biased view point. It represents all prominent views on an issue. This, however, strives to be as biased as possible, evidently. The name itself suggests this. I mean, I would go on but if this needs explaining then I think reasoning is beyond you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wow (talk)

It must not be totally biased or else this comment wouldn't be permitted to be here, even if it was being allowed to remain to give an impression of tolerance to criticism. In a way this site is good because it gives 'people' a place to type this stuff, and I hate to say it for being insulting (but then there'd be no reason to post this at all since everything can be taken as an insult if you look at it right) but it keeps wikipedia a bit filtered from the endless and impossible-to-win 'battle'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ImaginaryCIIR (talk)
While Wikipedia supposedly strives for a non-biased viewpoint, it fails to achieve that, and allows biased viewpoints to predominate in some areas. It does not represent all prominent views on an issue fairly. This site admits its (conservative) bias, but nevertheless strives to be accurate and fair. Philip J. Rayment 18:55, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
The above editor "Wow" (what a silly name) scores 0 on the scale for openmindedness, unfortunately. See Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness.
Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. If that's what Mr. "Wow" wants in an informational resource, then so be it. But if you want information that is censored from Wikipedia, and if you want to be challenged, then Conservapedia is the place for you.--Aschlafly 19:37, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry Andy. But whenever you use the 6 times number, you just show that you show an utmost disrespect for statistics, and you know it. And you continue to use it, although you know better as a former engineer. User:Order July 3 5:40 (AEST)

My God, are you actively trying to be obtuse and unreasonable, are you genuinely unaware, or is this some sort of brainwashed-doublethink. Either way it's pretty scary. If this site admits to being biased, then it can not attempt to be accurate or fair. The mere definitions of these words prove this... What an idiotic page(Quantifying Openmindedness). And what does that have to do with anything, anyway? Or atleast, in what way did you gather my lack of "openmindedness"? In what way does Conservapedia challenge one? How moreso than Wikipedia? From my experiences on both I have found Wikipedians to be much more intelligent then those active here. But I suppose that is a moot point as you will say it's because of our mutual liberal bias... And feel free to ban me again for pointing out how stupid you all are, I have plenty of i.p. addresses and emails —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orwell (talk)

Well, bully for you that you have plenty of i.p. addresses and emails. Waste all your time on them if you like. But when you post here, sign your postings. And say something substantive rather than simply namecalling. By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?--Aschlafly 00:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT) +
Why sign when it is attributed to me anyway? There is no choice for anonymity on this site. You even have to register to edit. My post was pretty substantive, I think. You're right; I shouldn't have called people names, though. What do you mean by my score? Also, someone on the talk page had the valid point that those questions are skewed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orwell (talk)
We have a bias towards truth and accuracy, and towards being fair, rather than being neutral regarding truth, accuracy, and fairness. Is there a problem with that? (And neither of us are God, so we would appreciate you not addressing us that way! :-)   ) Philip J. Rayment 01:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
But if one strove for truth and accuracy and fairness, there would be no need for a bias. It would simply be objective. previous unsigned comment added by User:Orwell 14:46, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
*butts in shamelessly* I think y'all are devolving into a semantic dispute. "A bias towards truth and accuracy" rather than "neutral regarding truth, accuracy" etc... is another way of saying that the site strives for truth and accuracy. The problem is, "bias" has a pejorative connotation to some people, but bias isn't inherently bad. (And no, before somebody says it, this isn't a back-door argument in favor of Wikipedia bias.) Does that help at all? Aziraphale 16:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT) <- biased towards cheeseburgers
Thanks, Aziraphale, you are correct. In a sense, we are all biased, but it's just a matter of which is the best bias to be biased with. We acknowledge that we are biased towards truth, accuracy, and various other things, which many of us tend to lump under labels such as "conservative". Many others, rather than acknowledging bias in different directions, smugly claim to be unbiased. Philip J. Rayment 06:26, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

":Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. If that's what Mr. "Wow" wants in an informational resource, then so be it." Dear Aschlafly! This statement perfectly sums up the American conservatives. Here's the thing - how liberal Wikipedia is compared to the American public has no importance. Wikipedia has a global roll as an information source, and with global I refer to the fact that there are other countries on this planet, and those countries have inhabitants that your pompous ass always seems to neglect. In the same way your country bullies the rest of the world, the conservatives bully the part of your own population that doesn't share your point of view. Your intolerance is a joke to us in Europe watching your country imploding under the weight of your inconsistency and bias. Wikipedia is not a liberal propaganda machine, and when something can't be proved to be right they make that very clear, unlike you who are so used to altering facts that you can't even tell right from wrong anymore. I respect a conservative point of view dear Aschlafly, but I do not respect these methods, and I am certain that if the conservatives didn't act like sociopaths much of the time spent with pointless bickering between liberals and conservatives could be spend dealing with actual issues instead. America is not all that great. I pity you fools for telling yourselves that even now, when the whole world has turned or is turning it's back on you for what you do to your own people, and to the Iraqis. Shame on you. /Felicia

A liberal "shame on you"!!! Oh please. Spare us the feigned liberal indignation. America is doing just fine, thank you, and if European liberals find that amusing then I'm glad you're easily amused. Just please don't ask America to bail Europe out from the inevitable difficulties that result from liberal policies. I wish the best for Europe, but fear the worst.--Aschlafly 20:33, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Your intolerance is a joke to us in Europe watching your country imploding under the weight of your inconsistency and bias.. You'd better make that only Western Europe. Bohdan 20:44, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
  1. Excerpts from the Roques report
  2. British report