Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-07-26T14:03:09Z

Denzo: /* More on Clooney and Wahlberg */

== This should be merged ==

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with [[deceit]], the [[occult]], etc. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the ''characters they play'' a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in ''The Bunker'' he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:
:''"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"''
That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, ''but it's still pollution''. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully ''reduce'' the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and ''certainly'' among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --[[User:9820|9820]] 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which ''broke'' those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

:The quotes were put back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::Why? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Explain carbon offsetting [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::Carbon offsetting is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.
::Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life ''and death'' of a tree shows that the net change in CO2 ''must'' be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.
::I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.
::Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.
::If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Again, that's a straw man. No where was I advocating Kyoto. Rather, the principles behind Kyoto. Kyoto is deeply flawed, but at least it ''tries'' to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than let it all go to heck. Thank god that we've got a great generation of atmospheric scientists coming up who might be able o solve the catastrophe being left to them. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your global warming inuendo is a straw man, as these same scientists, like every like-minded scientist in the decade before, will talk about every excuse under the sun that causes global warming except the sun itself. And by the way, Stryker...your edits prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite what you said about yourself above, you are not a conservative by any means possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Couple of points/comments ==

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There ''are'' good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.
*Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
*The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
*If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
*Finally, a suggestion: could [[Greenpeace]]'s insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source ([[nuclear energy]]) be considered hypocritical?

:In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

=="Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"==

[[National Review]] had an article on Peter Schewizer's [http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0385513496 book], "''Do As I Say( Not As I Do)''", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on [[Nancy Pelosi]]'s union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like [[Michael Moore]], [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Hillery Clinton]], [[Al Franken]], [[Ted Kennedy]], etc. You might want to check out this [http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp article]. Hope this helps, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled ''Pants on Fire''. Feel free to add in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie ''Three Kings'' where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --[[User:Bucklesman|Bucklesman]] 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The whole Cloony point is absolutely ridicilous and retarded. For Gods sake, he was in a film - Films are not reality! Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 10:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-26T08:22:17Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

==Johnny Appleseed==
Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. [[User:ChairmanMeow|ChairmanMeow]] 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. [[User:Amahony|Amahony]] 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the critical point that is missing here is that Wikipedia is '''not''' an American institution. It is a '''global''' one. Thousands of the English articles are not written by Americans. Why else would there be such comprehensive information about cricket? It has no need to represent America, nor should it. Any argument that Wikipedia should reflect America is evidence of severe tunnel vision and likely xenophobia. [[User:RWest]] 15:34, 24 July 2007.

Wikipedia is not 6 times more liberal than Conservapedia. The actual number is exactly 2Pi or about 6.28. I thought it might be 6.66, but that would be too much to hope. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers definitely have a liberal bias. I remember The New York Times stating once that a certain celebrity (who shall remain nameless) was pregn*nt. I would have much preferred a picture of the celebrity with a stork superimposed. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:06, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.
::Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans ''is more important'' than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that ''really'' the Conservative perspective?
:::In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ''...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."'' with the full list ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works''? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

==Chip Berlet==
I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cberlet contribs]). [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism]). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism New Anti-semitism] he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the [http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm Communist Party of India] (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
::I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Globalize?==
May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.[[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whinny Article ==

Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.{{Unsigned|MrDubya|MrDubya }}

*Ahhh, shut up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:41, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Notice how cranky Karajou and TK made it a quiet evening, Philip? 6 hours of quiet. If you are still around in another couple of hours, the user might need another time out, I am thinking..... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

: TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. [[User:Humunculous|Humunculous]] 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 18, 21, 22, 37 ==

Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer Wikipedia content disclaimer] which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.

number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#_note-3] to show that some people have doubted his existence.

number 22 seems to be outdated, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803 the current revision when I checked] says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to <nowiki>[Christianity]</nowiki>"

number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.

I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. [[User:Aristotle|Aristotle]] 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:

:: Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.

:: Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.

:: Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.

:: Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.

: Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: But Johnson credited [[Christ]]. The [[liberals]] controlling [[Wikipedia]] apparently don't want to admit that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== D. James Kennedy ==

Recently added to his Wiki article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy here]) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:

:1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State [http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special],
:2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" [http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=4],
:3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
:4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments [http://www.coralridgehour.com/coralridgehour.asp?page=topicmessage&id=777], and
:5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of ''four'' items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=intelligent+design] - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=creation].
That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).

And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.)
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

: I'll add this to the next update the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The [[liberals]] at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Midge Potts ==

A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midge_Potts#Status_of_Potts.27_gender_alteration_and_pronouns here] with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.

For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the [[Armenian Genocide]] or [[Premillennialism]], and the [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.

Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)[[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you misstate how Wikipedia works. Admins with special authority at Wikipedia review every edit and revert vandalism quickly. The instances cited here were approved by the Wikipedia authorities.

: None of the instances cited here are mere oversights, or random vandalism. They are examples of the bias in Wikipedia editors and admins in presenting factual claims to the public. Just look at how long the cited bias existed before someone heard about Conservapedia's criticism and then made a change in response to criticism here.

: Wikipedia allows and even encourages gossip, which we prohibit here. Wikipedia's use of gossip on Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, as numerous examples in this list illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, to assume that every single edit is immediately checked over (sit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges here] and watch how quickly they go by) is unrealistic. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, none of the examples in this list are vandalism. I don't think Wikipedia blocked any editor for these edits and typically multiple admins and editors saw and allowed these edits over an extended period of time. In the first example (Human Life International), the edit was by an IP address (unregistered user) to a controversial entry. That edit sticks out like a sore thumb even among a list of hundreds of recent edits. Yet it was allowed and I don't think the IP address has even been blocked for it.

::: If a Wikipedia admin speaking for Wikipedia says that one of these examples was vandalism and corrective action was taken (e.g., blocking the person responsible, posting an alert of some kind, locking the page, etc.), then I'll note that accordingly here. But that hasn't happened. More examples will be posted today. Lord willing, Wikipedia will do something to stop the injustice eventually.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Costello ==

I have to take issue with the statement about Jerry Costello. The ''exact quote'' from Wikipedia, as of July 8: "He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from the American Conservative Union and the John Birch Society." They are merely stating the facts, no? Did they say he was a ''member'' of the JBS? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: It may also be a fact that the American Communist Party endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Should that be in Kerry's entry? Of course not. Inserting that into his entry would only be designed to smear him. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. There's really no reason for Wikipedia to mention it, especially in a very short article. It could only be designed to make him look bad. Also, did the communists endorse John Kerry? Just wondering. [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 16:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: For the curious, the answer to your question could be provided in the entry on the American Communist Party, not the entry on John Kerry. But I doubt Wikipedia would smear Kerry like that anyway. The injustice is the campaign at Wikipedia to smear conservatives, and vulnerable people. Wikipedia is a bully, an unrestrained mob. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Call me dense, but I just read the CP article on the [[John Birch Society]], and I don't see how it's a smear to associate someone with them (whether warrented or not). Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-UN, pro-Constitution, pro Founding Fathers... it might be a little libertarian for some CP users, but not a smear. So could someone elighten this poor soul? :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: I won't call you dense, but the point is not whether a highly informed and fair-minded reader would be affected by this smear, but whether an uninformed reader might be. Obviously the intent behind Wikipedia's guilt-by-association is to smear the victims in the eyes of the general public. Obviously the Wikipedia's false claims of association with JBS are designed to smear the victims with guilt-by-association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's just it though; I ''am'' in uninformed, and I don't get how this is a smear. If Costello didn't actually get their support then sure, it's an untruth. I just don't understand how calling a conservative a libertarian is a smear, unless there's some sinister side to this organization which both CP ''and'' WP left out. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the Wikipedia entry about the John Birch Society? It says that the "Society had been marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s." Read on, as the Wikipedia entry gets much worse. And then Wikipedia smears Costello, who has absolutely no connection with the organization, with the appearance of being connected with it. Wikipedia's insertion of JBS into Costello's entry is obviously designed to smear Costello. If you want to continue to deny it, then go ahead, but you would only lose credibility by doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm definitely not saying that the statement is appropriate, but it is not a [[lie]]. However irrelevant it may be, it is still factual. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that Wikipedia's smear of Costello is not a lie. But it is still an unjustified smear. Ditto for Wikipedia's smear of Fred Schwarz. The objection to the use of guilt-by-association is not that it is a lie, but that it is an unjustified smear.

::::: The Wikipedia smears of Dave Dravecky and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are baseless and also out-of-date. Repetition of defamation is no better than the original defamation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Math Error ==

I know this is pointless, because it's just gonna be burried.... but simple math will tell you that 99.84% of 50000 would be 49,200 People, leaving room for 800 dissenters.... Therefore, the 700 that support still leaves another 100... Now, it's probably true that more than 100 scientists beleive in evolution, but you can't claim bias off of guesswork [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow your argument here. Obviously when several hundred people sign a paper, that does not imply that millions who didn't sign it somehow disagree and are on the other side. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, it doesn't, but it doesn't imply that they are for it either. It simply states that they either have no opinion (doubtful) for that they choose not to enter debate. When using statistics as reasoning for an argument, you can't assume a positive or negative from data that isn't there. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, failure to sign a petition does NOT imply a lack of opinion. It simply means the person did not sign the petition. The reason could be anything from too busy to "agree but don't want my name on a petition." Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's exactly what I said... either no opinion (doubtful) or choose not to enter the debate... However, as I said, statistics are effective in debate only when they're used exactly as reported. Therefore, according to the available data, Wikipedia is correct. Obviously, common sense tells that there are more scientists who support creationism, but only the available data can be used to make a logical point [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:For the record, 98.4% of 50,000 is 49,200. 99.84% of 50,000 is 49,920 leaving just 80 dissenters. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Golf ==

Again, this will be ignored, but I looked at the Zach Johnson page, and found that it only contains one quote from him (about his getting better). However, if you look at TIger Wood's page, which is about 2 or 3 times as long, it doesn't contain any full quotes and only one "half quote" about the desert golf course. Furthermore, none of the master's pages have any quotes from winners or other placers [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: What's your point? Zach Johnson won the upset of the year, if not the decade, which he expressly attributed it to his faith in Christ. Of course that should not be censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::My point is that no censorship exists.... None of the golfers have personal quotes on the masters pages, and most golfers don't even have quotes on their own pages.... On top of that, I see no past version of the page where his religious quotes were included but removed.... If you think there's a problem with the page, at least try editing it before coming over here and screaming bias... Just put the quotes in and get a reason for the deletion (if it occurs) Then you have a legit case for censorship.... As it stands, I see none [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sections for criticisms/controversies more often in articles for right-wing organizations than in left-wing ==

One can pick any of the well-known conservative groups from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_organizations_in_the_United_States this Wiki category list] and more often than not, you will find sections for criticism and controversies. Do the same for well-known liberal groups, such as "gay rights" groups on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_rights_organizations this list] (since Wiki doesn't have a "Liberal organizations of the United States" cat), and you'll find it difficult to find any sections for criticisms and controversies. Additionally, if you do find these sections on articles for liberal groups, they are much, much smaller than what you typically find for conservative groups. More examples of this bias can be found using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States this mixed category list] of political organizations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly right! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Take a step back==

I'm not trying to hide anything here: I'm from Wikipedia, and I don't like what you guys do here. If this is largely ignored, I won't be suprised or offended, but I have a question...

If Wikipedia is so biased, why run away from it, leaving it the way it is, to create your own version? Wouldn't it be infinitely more productive to help in the pursuit of a free encyclopedia by fixing the problems you see instead of seceding and forming your own faction?

Essentially, you see Wikipedia as full of liberals and have two choices:
 1. Fix the bias you see;
 2. Leave Wikipedia flawed and create your own flawed encyclopedia.

I mean, pages on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time with offensive, pointless, or unwanted material, and when people like me see it, we remove it and move on. We don't hole up elsewhere and complain about it. Reading some of these accusations of bias, I think to myself: why not fix it? I'm sorry liberal politicians have so little criticism; go find some! I'm sorry we ignored Johnny Appleseed's Christian whatever, add it!

It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boss1000 here]. - [[User:Boss1000|Boss1000]] 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.

:In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. ''As the histories will show'', Boss Man, if you care to look.

:And in ''other'' point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about ''that'', mate.

:So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!

:And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Very well put, TerryH. I might add that many Wikipedia defenders will hide behind "vandalism" to explain its [[liberal]] bias. But the 50+ examples of bias are not vandalism.

Wikipedia is a smear factory, a high-tech lynch mob. In addition to destroying people with smears and lies, Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. Wikipedia boosts its traffic for its for-profit search engine by promoting gossip and obscenity. It is worse than the National Enquirer. No thanks, I don't want anything to do with it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Adding my own two bob's worth, when Wikipedia's {{wp|Intelligent_design}} article was proposed for Featured Article status (or something like that), I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet ''many'' people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned. I even had another Wikipedian, a scientist, e-mail me and say that he disagreed with pretty well everything I stood for (regarding religion, evolution, etc.), yet he agreed with me that the article was biased, but that he had given up trying to fight the bloc of anti-ID people protecting the article. That's just one example of several that I could quote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

--

Adding to Aschflays useless comments which are unsubstantiated, why do you feel you need to change everything by creating a new deeply flawed with hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes? {{unsigned|Denzo}}
:I invite you to rewrite your comment in a less abusive manner and without the spelling and syntax mistakes of that sentence, let alone the unsubstantiated charges. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

My apologies, but what did I do wrong exactly? I'm dyslexic and to be honest I think a very good job of reaching a good level of grammer despite my limitations.

Also, speaking of 'Liberal bias' I am after seeing the Che Guevara article that he is a Liberal activist! There is such a thing of 'factual bias' trying to make something to suit your argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise Che wasn't a Liberal. He was a socialist with close ties with the Chinese regime. This is but one example of the complete hypocrysy of this site and the entire ideology you represent. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 06:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Taking your last point first, admittedly I don't have half a brain (mine is complete), but I wouldn't recognise that he wasn't a liberal, simply because I know next to nothing about him.
:But on to (slightly) more substantial points, the errors in your previous message are as follow (I've listed them all, but normally wouldn't mention most of these if they were the only error). I also accept that dyslexia may account for at least some of these:
:* "Aschflays" (a user name) is correctly spelt "ASchlafly" (I admit that I still have to look that one up most of the time).
:* "grammer" is correctly spelt "gramm'''a'''r".
:* "Aschflays useless comments" is being abusive; you could have written that more politely.
:* "...creating a deeply flawed with hundreds..." A deeply-flawed what? You've forgotten the noun that the adjectival phrase is supposed to be modifying.
:* What does "everything" refer to in "change everything"? I might ask about the evidence for the "hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes", but I guess first I'd like to know what it is that you omitted that is supposed to have all these mistakes.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, its a bit rich when I go on about grammar mistakes. That taken into account, my original point still stands, pedantary aside. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 07:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:You still haven't explained what is "deeply flawed". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fine:

<blockquote>
Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children
</blockquote>

Having spent a lot of time on wiki, and having looked up the reproductive articles, there is no pornography. Unless you consider educational diagrams pornography.

Oh right, you guys probably want to change science class because it refers to reproductive organs! I forgot! [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Denzo|Denzo]], answer me this: Since when do articles explaining in detail, ''with'' photographs, how ostensible adults (and, perhaps, teen-agers) can play "adult" kidnap games, qualify as "educational diagrams," or a fit subject for "science class"? Not to mention that the articles in question are lifted straight out of another Wiki that is ''devoted'' to that sort of sick, perverted game, and to teaching its readers how to play it!

:We weren't talking about the reproductive articles--but we ''do'' observe that the very subject of human reproductive science has of late been the subject of vandalism, with a view to the introduction of pornography. We ''also'' observe that education in that area is subject to frightful abuse, and therefore deem it best handled in the home, from parent to child.

:If you have a problem with that, then I suggest that you find another wiki--or establish one, since after all the MediaWiki software is [[free software]] and as such available free of charge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to mind it when they teach about plants reproductive organs. Not human ones though, its better to be ignorant than informed after all. Either we agree with educating children or we don't.
[[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:23, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Denzo, you still didn't explain ''what'' is "deeply flawed". Are you referring to Conservapedia itself? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. You cannot cancel a wrong and hope to make a right when you yourself go about it a wrong way. The aim is to make this place somewhere with a conservative bias. Would you prefer your children read something with any bias? I know I'd want my children to read the facts, and then make up their mind. Other people have deliberately placed bias for children to read - either it be the protocols of the learned elders of zion in Saudi Arabia or Hitlers textbooks downgrading the Jews to mere mathematical aliens. Do you realise you share a precedent with some of the most horrible regimes of the modern era? [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I would expect my children to read something with a bias, because a bias is unavoidable in many cases. But that doesn't prevent them reading the facts. You seem to think that facts and bias are mutually exclusive, but this is not necessarily so. In many cases it is impossible to present ''all'' the facts (they might even be infinite), and just the selection of which facts are presented is subject to bias. I have said before elsewhere that we have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. Do you think we should have that bias, or not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think you shouldn't. Take the homosexuality for starters. We need to decide what logic we use - the Scientific method or your pretty logic that allows you to discriminate when you feel like it - If its the former then you simply cannot, simply cannot even begin to comprehend how stupid it is to have homosexuality denounced on religious grounds.

I would rather my child read the facts about homosexuality - why people do it and what it is - rather than they read about the Bible's view. I don't care what the Bible's view and neither do the majority of the world. There are other examples, but the main reasons I decided to leave here:

*A constant unwarranted attack on the Democrats, which besides your name makes you out to be partisans.
*Che Guevara being termed as 'Liberal', I genuinly wonder if any of you know the differences between Liberalism and socialism.
*The poor quality of a lot of the articles, like [[Sparta]]
*The unbelievably humourous, yet worrying level of bias on this site, which infinitely outdo's any accidental bias wiki may or may not engage in. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 09:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:You don't agree that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness? Where do you think our bias should be then? To inaccuracy and unfairness?
:Okay, let's take homosexuality. Logic is logic; there's not such thing as "scientific logic" and "petty logic". And I don't discriminate "when I feel like it". And I don't denounce homosexuality on religious grounds. I denounce it on the grounds that the Creator of us designed us to be heterosexual. I consider that to be a fact. Do you have hard, factual, evidence that I'm wrong? I'd like to see it, rather than you simply dismiss it by labelling it as "religious".
:I would also rather my children read the facts about homosexuality, but what makes you think that what the Bible says is not factual? The fact that you don't ''care'' what the Bible says is you showing your bias, not an argument from logic or science.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

That makes no sense! You can believe that some giant cookie monster created the world in seven days, just don't enforce that crap on us! There is two different kinds of reasoning - there is no evidence to support your creation theory, so I will not teach my children that. The Bible was written by ancient Kings and propagandists - I would teach them that to widen their minds and inform them of the background, rather than teach them your 'literal' truths.

You DONT HAVE A BIAS TOWARDS ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS! You clearly don't! YOUR NAME IS CONSERVAPEDIA!

This is the kinda crap I'm talking about. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 04:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? ==

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against [[Democrats]] but not against [[Republicans]], then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by [[Wikipedia]]??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:: And if the correction does not reflect bias? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>5 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>8 has been corrected. Twice.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>34 is no longer true. That said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act&diff=120080583&oldid=120073659 a version from March 3] I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>38 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>42 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>43 is no longer true; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism that article] is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>47 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>49 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>52 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>60 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of [[deceit]]. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones '''if there is a real change''' there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.

: Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense [[liberal]] bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across ''many'' articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote:
'''"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."'''-- Sir [[Winston Churchill]]
--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I take it from the use of that quote that you don't have a deletion policy. And I take it from your other statement that sysops can delete at will any article that they feel is inappropriate. Fair enough. However, I don't think this policy (or lack thereof) is sustainable. As you clearly have [[Monty Python|some articles on pop culture]] and [[Transformers|not others]] it seems only a matter of time before there is serious disagreement among sysops as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Eventually something will have to be hammered out that addresses these subjective descrepencies. While ten thousand regulations might be too much, I feel you will need more than 8. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections ''are'' made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this discussion is getting tiresome. I've been clear already, and we don't waste our time here on frivolous chatter. Look again at our Point 1. Enforce Wikipedia's own rule against guilt-by-association and clean it up there. If you can't even do that, then please don't waste our time here. If you can do that, then do it and let's then efficiently clean up and remove the remainder. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not acknowledge its [[liberal bias]]. It is so concerned with achieving "consensus" on policy, that it forgets that it is not possible to have a consensus on [[fact]]s. Originally, Larry and Jimbo agreed that Wikipedia would remain neutral when there is a dispute over what the facts are about anything. That eventually and gradually turned into allowing groups of users to create a "consensus version" of an article with a point of view which '''cannot be overturned'''.

:The new policy is that even if an article has a POV, no one is allowed to create another article with a different POV - even if the sole reason the extra article is created is to fix the bias in the first article. The alternate POV can be "legally" suppressed: one can neither create an alternate article to ''describe'' another POV, nor can one wedge the alternate POV into the first article. This is how they perpetuate the bias in key articles such as theory of evolution (in favor), intelligent design (they're against it), and global warming (they insist there's a [[scientific consensus]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like [[John C. Frémont]], [[George Wood Wingate]], [[Nelson W. Aldrich]], and [[Thomas Edmund Dewey]] would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)

It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).

Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ah yes, that's the ticket. Excuse us, this article is still a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed, I'm not on any crusade to whitewash commentary on Wikipedia; I just want to use that commentary to is utmost. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

ManInBlack, take a look at Point 1. If you can't or won't fix it on Wikipedia, then don't waste our time here.

You're like an apologize for a lynch mob who says something good about the mob. It's still a lynch mob hanging people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think I could make the case that associating someone with the John Birch Society is smearing them, I'm sorry. It's taken as assumed here that such association is a smear, with no real stated reasoning behind it. (I guess it's self-evident if you're familiar with the politics in that area?)

:It's not as though I haven't looked at this list for things to fix; I fixed some of the Henry Liddell stuff, removed a bunch of ridiculous unsourced allegations from an article on TBN, and (while I didn't get the idea from here) I was the one who closed the final AFD that got rid of the disgraceful Brandt article.

:I am broadly sympathetic to criticism of Wikipedia, and I try to act on it when I can. The organization of this list, with open and closed cases mixed freely, and different - often contradictory - problems scattered all over, does not lend itself to use.

:It comes down to your goal. If your goal is to make Wikipedia look bad, mission accomplished. That a big, impressive-looking list and its nature lends itself to nothing on the list getting resolved ever because nobody can make heads nor tails of it. If your goal is to enact change on Wikipedia, then some organization would make it significantly more useful. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, here's some criticism you can fix: the link to the ''New American'' at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet] has been broken for two years and nobody's fixed it. I'd fix it, but they'd only add another year to my ban. And personally, I think they deliberately want the link broken. Here's why: It links to an article entitled ''Propagandizing the Police'' [http://www.jbs.org/node/735] which says this,
:::" Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)..."

::Now considering [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=yip this site] says Yippies are a [[terrorist]] subsidiary of the National Lawyers Guild, of which Berlet was VP, it's not surprising he'd write for their journal. And what would happen to Berlet's status as the inhouse resident expert on politcal affairs, if it was discovered he was published in an extreme and terrorist publication?

::So, beware if you dare fix that link, you will be a marked user, stalked and harassed, if your contributions do not tow the party line. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So, um, what's the problem and why? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The text of the Berlet entry uses the John Birch Society's ''New American'' allegedly to give balance & criticism. The quoted text even puts Berlet at odds with the Anti-Defamation League. But when you click on the link to read the source document, the link is broken. The source document, ''Propagandizing the Police'', cites Berlet as having written for extremist publications. I was banned likewise for using a different source that cited Berlet writting for another extremist publication (See [[Guardian]], here in CP). If Berlet writes for extremist publications, he cannot be used as a source for anything other than his own organization, Politcal Research Associates. Yet Berlet literally authored the entire Dominionism series (look at the Template under "critics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dominionism] or you can check the contribs any page in the series).

::::IOW, Berlet cannot be cited for anything in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's attribution policies, written by SlimVirgin, which state, "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of'''." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

::::Oddly, SlimVirgin is Berlet's staunchest defender.

::::Oh, as to the smear in the Brandt entry, the neologism "conspiracist" has been documented to be Berlet's own invention. Berlet created Wikipedia's "Conspiracist" entry, and cited himself. Berlet called Brandt a conspiracist, so using his own neologism is another policy violation in the Brandt case (all this I called attention to ArbCom, Jimbo, and Foundation two years ago). The John Birch Society in WP is slandered with Berlet's neologism as "conspiracist." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Okay, short version. What link is broken, and where should it link? I'm not diving into all of this for your sake, but if there's a broken link, I'll fix that. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Number 1 ==

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the [[John Birch Society]] being a Bad Thing. [[Liberal|Some]] people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as [[Eagle Forum|some]] other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, ''The New American'' considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the ''New American'' in the criticism section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism] has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

===the facts===
User:SlimVirgin wrote:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF]

: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I was the author of''' back in March. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:
: "these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told ''The New American'', which is published by the [[John Birch Society]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9210097&oldid=9210042 diff]

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication ''The New American'' are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Number 65==

*''<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.''
:This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.

:The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which [[Jimbo Wales]] himself was aware of, stood for ''at least'' 18 months. Extracted:

::''"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including [[Chip Berlet]], resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, [[L. Fletcher Prouty]], was '''openly working with and defending [[Liberty Lobby]] and the Holocaust denial group the [[Institute for Historical Review]]''', which republished Prouty's book ''Secret Team''. '''According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing [[conspiracy theory|conspiracist]] groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist'''. <ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html]</ref>

:Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for '''citing ''Washington Post'' criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors.''' And my citation of the ''Washington Post'' criticism was adjudicated as '''a personal attack''' against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff,]which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
:#personal attack against another user
:#citing self
:#violation of BLP
:#violation of Reliable Sources
:#using a self publishing source
:#using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
:#Wikipedia is a not a battleground
:#Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
:#experts do not occupy a position of privilge
:Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=138512310 lately]? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken against blatant violations of policy CP exposed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff]? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then ''all'' his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.

::The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

To answer the question, "What action has been taken against blatant violations of policy[...]in [such and such diff]", the article is now long-gone, and Wikipedia has enacted a strict policy to try and deal with articles about living people.

The entire Brandt article debacle was a disgrace to Wikipedia by any standards. I misunderstood the somewhat vaguely-written and -attributed listing in #65, taking it to mean that it was a separate, additional issue with the PIR article. As far as I can tell, the list still hasn't changed, and misattributes the mess to the PIR article, without making the context clear. It's certainly a fair criticism and belongs on any list of Wikipedia's failings (although I'm not entirely sure how it establishes some sort of bias), but the current version of this list doesn't make it clear what actually happened to someone who doesn't already know. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Berlet has a long stream of slander victims, ArbCom knows he does this, so does the Board of Trustees, and so does Jimbo. And SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Will Beback all work as a tag team with him. Fred Bauder, ArbCom Chairman. is a fellow former National Lawyers Guild member and has known Berlet for almost 40 years. When Berlet's malicious conduct is brought before ArbCom, the accusers are banned, And Berlet feels even more justified & reinvigorated.

:Who else are known vicitms? Dr. Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Payul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye for starters. Last winter I was in correspondence with User:Baby Dweezil, whom Berlet was trying to get banned. Every indication is is that Baby Dweezil is most probably Dr. Lenora Fullani, not only the first black, or the first black woman, but the first and only women who achieved ballot status in all 50 states for the office of President of the United States. This woman is a living historical figure, yet Berlet has been viciously slandering her for 20 years. When she tried to mitigate the slanders in WP, the old lynch mob led by Berlet & SlimVirgin got rid of her. And then Berlet has the audacity to claim he's for minority and women's rights. It's outrageous the way Wikipedia embraces this fraud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Article talks only of American statistics==
There are conservatives outside the US. All the statistics here say things like "n% of people in are not athiests" as some kind of claim for bias, however the statistics for other countries are different, particularly in Europe. {{unsigned|Mrescher}}

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T13:33:45Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T13:33:30Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T12:46:49Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T12:23:37Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T12:03:29Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T11:16:38Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T10:30:46Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-25T09:37:31Z

Denzo: /* Take a step back */

Medieval religion

2007-07-20T14:01:53Z

Denzo:

'''Medieval Religion''' describes the different faiths that were incorporated into the Medieval era. [[Roman Catholicism]] was the overwhelmingly predominant faith of most of Medieval Europe and a source of comfort for people who were often forced to live their lives under harsh and difficult conditions. It is relevant to note, that the vast majority of Roman Catholics were illiterate and therefore recognised their religion through the medium of Catholic clergy, and it is this ignorance of the [[Bible]] that seperates Catholics and Protestants to the present day.

[[Category: Medieval history]]

Talk:Abraham

2007-07-19T14:51:05Z

Denzo: New page: I have a big problem with this, check my last edit - I think we should emphasise the importance of Abraham of casting off his love for his son at the behest of God as being a wicked thing,...

I have a big problem with this, check my last edit - I think we should emphasise the importance of Abraham of casting off his love for his son at the behest of God as being a wicked thing, but since it stems from God it is an example of Abraham's devotion to God. Does that make sense?

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 10:51, 19 July 2007 (EDT))

Abraham

2007-07-19T14:49:40Z

Denzo:

[[Image:abraham_sacrificing_isaac.jpg|thumb|right|200px|''Abraham Sacrificing Isaac'' by Rembrandt]]

'''Abraham''' (Hebrew '''אַבְרָהָם''') lived in [[Ur]] approximately 1800 BC. His story is told in the book of [[Genesis]]. He is credited in the [[Bible]] as the father of [[Judaism]] and the recipient of a covenant with God. Held up as an example of faith to all Christians, Jews, and Muslims, Abraham migrated to [[Canaan]] in obedience to God's command. In the Bible, Abraham had two important children, [[Ishmael]] and [[Isaac]]. The descendants of Isaac became the [[Israelite|Israelites]] as chronicled in the Bible. The [[Arab]]s claim to be descended from Ishmael, although this is not discussed in the Bible itself.

Abraham was married to [[Sarah]], but was childless. God came to him and told him his descendents would be as numerous as the sand on the shore. As time went on and Sarah had still not conceived, Sarah gave her maidservant [[Hagar]] to Abraham to have children. Ishmael was born from this union. (Genesis 16: 1-5). Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. (Genesis 16:16) Abraham had his son of the covenant through his wife Sarah when he was 100 years old and his wife Sarah was 90, beyond normal child bearing years at that time. When Isaac was still young, Sarah told Abraham to send away Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham complied.

The most famous story of Abraham dealt with his son Isaac, when Abraham was told by God to take him up into the mountains and sacrifice him. (Genesis 22:1-14) Abraham did as he was told, but at the last moment an angel of the Lord told him to stop and another sacrifice was there to be put in his place, "for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me."<ref>Genesis 22:12</ref> Christians see this as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of [[Jesus]].

In response to Abraham's display of love for God and ability to cast off all love for his son, which is inherently a wicked thing, by willing to sacrifice his only beloved son, "The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said:<ref>Genesis 22:15-18</ref>

:I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Biblical persons]]
[[Category:Ancient History]]

John Kenneth Galbraith

2007-07-19T12:50:19Z

Denzo:

'''J. K. Galbraith''' was a [[Liberal]] who agitated for more [[socialist]] economic reforms in the 1960s and 1970s in the [[United States of America]].

[[Category:stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]

United Nations

2007-07-18T15:52:02Z

Denzo:

[[Image:UN1.jpg|thumb|right|Seal of the United Nations]]
The '''United Nations''' is an organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It has since devolved into a radical debating society which has blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref>

It was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919.

==Organization==
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''[[Security Council]]''' handles matters relating to international peace and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.

The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpreation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.

The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is [[Ban Ki-moon]], the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==

The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.

[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]

The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict.{{fact}}

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

===Arab-Israel dispute===

The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "[[Zionism is racism]]" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations, and are beneficiaries of special events such as an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."<ref>[http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/ UN Web Site for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, retried June 29, 2007]</ref> Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

==Complements==
The United Nations has been complemented for providing an open forum for international leaders to discuss pressing international issues, as well as having a constanst diplomatic team present and able to discuss issues with diplomats from other countries.

==History==
The term "United Nations" was widely used during [[World War II]] to denote the allied powers making war against Germany and Japan. As an organization, the UN originated as a bureau within the US State Department during [[World War II]] tasked with planning and organizing a post-War future. President [[Franklin D. Roosevlet]] envisaged "four policemen", the British Empire, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Kuomintang]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism. Ulitmately the Kuomintang were subverted and replaced by the Soviet Union's [[Comintern]] ally, the [[Chinese Communist Party]]. The CCP holds the UN Security Council seat to this day, despite the fact their Soviet ally abandoned the policy of workers world revolution and communist subversion more than 15 years ago.

In the original planning stages State Department employee and KGB Agent [[Alger Hiss]] was tasked with much of the organizational work and later became the first Secretary General at the United Nations Charter Conference in San Fransisco. US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said a the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest." Nonetheless, the separate alliance of [[NATO]] came into existence at the same time and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did.{{fact}}

In its earliest years, the United Nations was not dominated by the Asian and African "Third World" nations which ultimately poisoned the organization, but was of only limited use in controlling international conflict.

A General Assembly resolution led to the partition of Palestine in 1947, but the UN was useless in preventing armed Arab aggression against the new State of Israel in 1948. In 1950, A UN Security Council resolution authorized use of force to combat North Korean aggression, but that was possible only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council and unable to veto. It was the only instance during the Cold War in which the UN took a stand against Communist aggression.

In the years to come, the Security Council became frequently paralyzed because of the Soviet veto, and the General Assembly became a shrill sounding board for anti-American sentiment.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.nysun.com/article/56061 UNDP Officials Said To Hamper Probe Into Counterfeit Cash], By Benny Avni, ''The New York Sun'', June 7, 2007.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
*[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
*[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2007/May/theuae_May569.xml&section=theuae&col UN General Assembly President Shaikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa calls for Islamic texts re-interpretation,]Khaleej Times Online, 19 May 2007.

===Criticism===
*[http://www.unwatch.org UN Watch]
*[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
[[category:politics]]
[[category:organizations]]

Republic of Ireland

2007-07-18T15:46:04Z

Denzo: Edited factual inaccuracies and updated political parties.

[[Image:Ireland.gif|right|thumb|300px]]
The '''Republic of Ireland''' is a parliamentary democracy in north-western Europe consisting of 26 counties on the island of [[Ireland]].

==Geography==
The island of Ireland is located in the [[Atlantic Ocean]], to the west of Britain. Of the thirty two counties of Ireland, twenty six are in the republic, including all counties in the provinces of Connacnt, Munster and Leinster. Of the nine counties of [[Ulster]], three ([[Cavan]], [[Monaghan]] and [[Donegal]]) are in the republic and the remaining counties remain in the [[United Kingdom]]. The longest river in Ireland, The Shannon -- also the longest in the British Isles -- divides the Republic into a largely urban eastern section, dominated by Dublin, and a more rural, less economically vibrant western area.

==History==
The republic was declared in 1948, with the state having previously gained Free State status following partition of Ireland in 1922 and leaving the [[British Commonwealth]] in 1937.

==Politics==

The Republic of Ireland uses [[Proportional Representation]] meaning that there are a large number of political parties. The Republic of Ireland has a bicameral legislature, "the Oireachtas". It consists of the 166 seat lower house Dáil(parliament) and the 66 seat upper house, the Seanad(Senate), which both sit in Leinster House, Dublin. In recent times the country has been governed mostly by coalitions generally of either Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats or Fine Gael and Labour. The Republic of Ireland is also a member of the European Union and is represented by 13 MEPs. <ref> [http://www.europarl.ie/meps/index.html] </ref>

'''Fianna Fail''': (Pronounced Fee-Na Fall which is Irish for 'Soldiers of Destiny'). Ireland's main political party, they do not class themselves as either left or right wing but are generally considered centrist and traditionally the choice for republicans (in the Irish sense, meaning supporters of a United Ireland) due to its foundation by Eamon de Valera; considered by his supporters to be the greatest of all Irish nationalists. Fianna Fail is traditionally a Left Wing party, spearheading the disease and slum eradication programme's of the 1950's and 1960's. Nowadays however, it is considered to be on the pragmatic centre as well as supportive of the building developers. Currently the largest party in the ruling coalition. Led by Bertie Ahern, current [[Taoiseach]]([[Prime Minister]]) of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.fiannafail.ie/]</ref>

'''Fine Gael''': (Pronounced Finna Gale, Irish for 'Family of the Irish'). Ireland's second largest party. Fine Gael is traditionally socially and fiscally conservative. Traditionally the party of Big Business and the farming community, and generally conservative on social issues (though probably not by American standards) Under the leadership of [[Garret FitzGerald]] in the 1980's, the party embraced [[social democracy]]. Today the party likes to characterize itself as a party of the "progressive centre". Led by [[Enda Kenny]]. <ref>[http://www.finegael.com/index.cfm]</ref>

'''Labour Party''': A social democratic left-wing party, similar to the Labour Party of the British Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]]. [[Pat Rabitte]] is the leader of the Labour Party.<ref>[http://www.labour.ie/]</ref>

'''Progressive Democrats''': The second party in the ruling coalition, it is very right wing on economic issues, favouring low-taxation, pro-business policies, were once liberal on social issues such as divorce and contraception, but now dominate the centre ground on social issues. [[Mary Harney]] is the current interim leader and Minister for Health of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/index-main.php]</ref>

'''Green Party''': A left-wing party in favour of environmental protection, renewable energy and a stronger system of social security. Elections for the leadership are underway, with Patricia Mc Kenna and John Gormley in the leading position.<ref>[http://www.greenparty.ie/]</ref>

'''Sinn Féin''': (Pronounced Shin Fane, Irish for 'Ourselves') Remnant of Ireland's oldest poltical party, it is closely connected with the Provisional [[IRA]], a terrorist/guerrilla movement that sought a United Irish Republic. They have recently embraced a more democratic approach. They are a party of left-wing socialist economics which espouses liberal social issues such as gay marriage. They organise in all 32 counties of Ireland. Led by Gerry Adams. <ref>[http://www.sinnfein.ie/]</ref>

'''Socialist Party''': A left-wing Trotskyite party. They oppose capitalism and seek a United Socialist Ireland. Led by Joe Higgins. <ref> [http://www.socialistparty.net/] </ref>

----

====Taoisigh(Prime Ministers) of the Republic of Ireland====

From 1922 to 1937, the office was known as "President of the Executive Council".

'''William Thomas Cosgrave''' (Cummann na nGaedheal): 1922-1932.

'''Éamon de Valera''' (Fianna Fáil): 1932-1948, 1951-1954, 1957-1959.

'''John A.Costello''' (Fine Gael): 1948-1951, 1954-1957.

'''Seán Lemass''' (Fianna Fáil): 1959-1966.

'''Jack Lynch''' (Fianna Fáil): 1966-1973, 1977-1979.

'''Liam Cosgrave''' (Fine Gael): 1973-1977.

'''Charles Haughey''' (Fianna Fáil): 1979-1981, March 1982 - December 82 and March 1987 - February 1992.

'''Garret FitzGerald''' (Fine Gael): 30 June 1981- 9 March 1982 and 14 December 1982 - 10 March 1987.

'''Albert Reynolds''' (Fianna Fáil): February 1992-1994.

'''John Bruton''' (Fine Gael): 1994-1997.

'''Bertie Ahern''' (Fianna Fáil): 1997-Present. <ref> [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=349&docID=-1] </ref>

Foreign policy

2007-07-18T15:25:41Z

Denzo: New page: Foreign Policy is the policy which national governments adopt in relation to their dealings with other nations.

Foreign Policy is the policy which national governments adopt in relation to their dealings with other nations.

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-07-18T15:23:28Z

Denzo: /* No */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2007-07-18T15:22:43Z

Denzo: /* No */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.''{{fact}} [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

Talk:American founding fathers and Christianity

2007-07-18T14:22:58Z

Denzo:

==God in Constitution==

Hey, this is a great idea for an essay. I would like to point out a correction though: God is not mentioned in the Constitution. You can see for yourself [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html here] (just search for the word god). As a matter of fact, Religion is only mentioned twice in the Constitution - of course in the First Amendment (the establishment clause and free exercise clause), and in Article VI (no religious qualifications for holding office). Look forward to seeing the finished article! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Why was this article deleted?
([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 10:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

Talk:American founding fathers and Christianity

2007-07-18T14:22:29Z

Denzo: /* God in Constitution */

France

2007-07-18T14:19:16Z

Denzo:

{{country
|map=map_of_france.jpg
|flag=FranceE_3.gif‎
|capital=Paris
|government=Republic
|language=French
|president=Nicolas Sarkozy
|pm=François Fillon
|area=260,558 sq. mi.
|pop=64,102,140
|pop-basis=(2007 estimate)
|gdp=1.871 trillion
|gdp-year=(2007 estimate)
|gdp-pc=$30,100
}}
'''France''' (Official title: French Republic/République française) is a country in Western [[Europe]].

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars, such as Serge Gainsbourg, Immanuel Kant, and Francois Nique LaMer. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

Military aid was given to the American colonies in their attempt to gain independence. The sacrifice of her navy and commitment to the American cause became vital to the survival of the United States.

Also in this time, France was a center for the enlightenment. Philosophes like Descartes, Montesquieu and others theorised many ideas that are now synonymous with Western Civilization and the Democratic system.

The success of the American Revolution and the development of the above ideas inspired France to have a revolution of her own. As a thanks to the US for inspiration, France gave the [[Statue of Liberty]] to the US in 1886.

France is also renowned for its cuisine and its wines. Good food is highly valued in France.

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU.

In March 2003, France was one of over a hundred nations that did not participate in the alliance that liberated [[Iraq]], with its aim of removing the [[Baathist]] regime of the dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], though France had committed substantial forces to the First [[Gulf War]]. French forces did, however, participate in the war in Afghanistan, and suffered casualties in the fighting [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/,/]

==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called Gaul, populated by Celtic tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] conquered Gaul, thanks to the lack of unity among the tribes. Gaul remained an important part of the [[Roman Empire]] for several centuries.

==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the Franks, a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland. Franks were pagans but Clovis converted to Christianity (legend has it he prayed to Christ during a difficult battle, offering to become a Christian in exchange for victory ; shortly after that, the enemy fled).

==Government==
France is a democratic Republic, governed by a [[President]] and [[Parliament]]. Its current [[President]] is the centre-right [[reformist]] Nickolas Sarkosy, who has promised to modernise Frances economy, regularly described as being too [[socialist]] with its reliance on government bodies and flagging industries.

==See also==
*[[French Wars]]

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:France| ]]

Godless liberal

2007-07-18T09:56:51Z

Denzo:

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a term describing liberals who are [[atheists]], or who believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life.

Although attached with negative tones, both Liberals and conservatives tend to use it in a joking manner with no genuine animosity implied. [[George Cloony]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner.
[[category:politics]]

Godless liberal

2007-07-18T09:56:13Z

Denzo:

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a term describing liberals who are [[atheists]], or who believe in the merits of purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life.

Although attached with negative tones, both Liberals and conservatives tend to use it in a joking manner with no genuine animosity implied. [[George Cloony]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner.
[[category:politics]]

Medieval religion

2007-07-18T09:55:20Z

Denzo: New page: Medieval Religion describes the different faiths that were incorporated into the Medieval era.

Medieval Religion describes the different faiths that were incorporated into the Medieval era.

Thirty Years War

2007-07-18T08:42:00Z

Denzo:

'''The Thirty Years War''' was a conflict lasting from 1618-1648 between the [[Holy Roman Empire]], [[Sweden]], [[Denmark]], [[France]], Savoy, [[Spain]], [[Holland]] and numerous Germanic rebellious forces.

It is one of a large number of European Wars, a cycle of conflicts that didn't truly end until the formation of the European Coal and Steel community, later known as the [[European Union]].

''Work in Progress - Please contribute''

Thirty Years War

2007-07-18T08:41:37Z

Denzo:

'''The Thirty Years War''' was a conflict lasting from 1618-1648 between the [[Holy Roman Empire]], [[Sweden]], [[Denmark]], [[France]], Savoy, [[Spain]], [[Holland]] and numerous Germanic rebellious forces.

It is one of a large number of [[European Wars]], a cycle of conflicts that didn't truly end until the formation of the European Coal and Steel community, later known as the [[European Union]].

Thirty Years War

2007-07-18T08:41:17Z

Denzo: New page: '''The Thirty Years War''' was a conflict lasting from 1618-1648 between the Holy Roman Empire, Sweden, Denmark, France, Savoy, Spain, The Netherlands and numer...

'''The Thirty Years War''' was a conflict lasting from 1618-1648 between the [[Holy Roman Empire]], [[Sweden]], [[Denmark]], [[France]], [[Savoy]], [[Spain]], [[The Netherlands]] and numerous Germanic rebellious forces.

It is one of a large number of [{European Wars]], a cycle of conflicts that didn't truly end until the formation of the European Coal and Steel community, later known as the [[European Union]].

Investiture Conflict

2007-07-17T16:56:28Z

Denzo: New page: The '''Investiture Contest''' was a conflict between the Holy Roman Empire and the Gregorian papacy over who would control appointments of church officials. It would lead to a bitter C...

The '''Investiture Contest''' was a conflict between the [[Holy Roman Empire]] and the Gregorian papacy over who would control appointments of church officials. It would lead to a bitter Civil War and the disintegration of Germany, as many German Lords used this time to increase their own power and embark on a castle building programme which in turn weakened the power of the Holy Roman Emperor, something from which he never really recovered.

Talk:Medieval politics

2007-07-17T16:52:58Z

Denzo:

Hi,

I don't think this article is finished, just a rough first draft. Please contribute as you see fit.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 12:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT))

Talk:Medieval politics

2007-07-17T16:52:44Z

Denzo: New page: Hi, I don't think this article, just a rough first draft. Please contribute as you see fit. (~~~~)

Hi,

I don't think this article, just a rough first draft. Please contribute as you see fit.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 12:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT))

Medieval politics

2007-07-17T16:51:33Z

Denzo:

{| class="toccolours" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em; text-align:center; border: 1px solid #4169E1;"
| style="font-size: 90%; text-align:center;" | Part of the series on
|-
|height="30" style="font-size: 100%; background-color:#6495ED; text-align:center; margin-bottom:5px;"|<big>'''[[Middle Ages|The Middle Ages]]'''</big>
|---
|-
| style="font-size: 95%; background-color:#B0C4DE;"|'''Historical Periods'''
|-
| style="font-size: 95%; background-color:#dee;"|
[[Early Middle Ages|Early Middle Ages (6th-10th century)]] 
[[High Middle Ages|High Middle Ages (11th-13th century)]] 
[[Late Middle Ages|Late Middle Ages (14th-15th century)]] 

|-
| style="font-size: 95%; background-color:#B0C4DE;"|'''Medieval History'''
|-
| style="font-size: 95%; background-color:#dee;"|
[[Holy Roman Empire]] 
[[Investiture Conflict]] 
[[Black Death]] 
[[Vikings]] 
[[The Crusades]] 
|-
| style="font-size: 95%; background-color:#B0C4DE;"|'''Medieval Society'''
|-
| style="font-size: 95%; background-color:#dee;"|
[[Medieval religion]] 
[[Medieval politics]] 
[[Feudalism]] 
|-
|}

'''Medieval Politics''' is a diverse branch, differing greatly from modern politics based on [[democracy]] and [[accountability]].

==Feudalism==
[[Politics]] in the [[medieval]] age revolved around the affairs of monarchy and nobility and ties in with the practise of [[feudalism]]. Under [[feudalism]], every member of society knew his or her place and social upward mobility was either extremely difficult or impossible depending on your circumstances. The order of [[hierarchy]] came as follows in the [[secular]] feudal state:

*[[King]]
*[[Nobility]]
*[[Freemen]] ([[Merchant]]s and larger farmers)
*[[Peasant]]s

[[Clergy]] were very often were members of the noble class, and monastic orders were regularly as rich if not richer than the [[King]] in question.

==Role of the Clergy==
[[Religion]] played a major part in [[government]] and many of the [[Civil service]] of the feudal state was formed from among the clergy. In Europe, Monastic orders such as the [[Cistercians]] wielded considerable political power, with the co-founder [[st. Bernard]] being a particularly important figure responsible for rallying support for the [[Second Crusade]].

During the [[eleventh century]] papal reform movement, attempts were made to seperate church and state as Medieval monarchies wielded great power and authority over clergy and the Catholic hierarchy. This led to the [[Investiture contest]] and the reform of the papacy. Medieval Kings were instinctively opposed to attempts of the Church to centralise its decision making efforts in Rome as this damaged the regional churches, who contributed to the coffers of Medieval Kings. Also, Kings needed clergy to operate in their Civil service as [[scribe]]s and [[Chancellor]]s as there simply wasn't too many educated non-clergy in the realm who could perform their duties which was vital for the smooth operation of the realm.

==The importance of war==
As opposed to modern perceptions of war, Medieval politics placed great emphasis on [[war]], considering it to be a useful and often necessary tool of [[foreign policy]]. Small scale wars between important nobility and larger conflicts such as the [[Hundred Years War]] is testament to this fact. The large number of [[castles]] built in Europe during the Medieval age is another testament to the frequency of war, as nearly every nobleman found it necessary to build a castle for his own defence and protection.

==Arranged Marriages==
Succesful diplomatic efforts were often marked by a [[marriage]] between two houses. Medieval Kings placed great emphasis on the importance of daughters, as they often were wedded off to troublesome nobles or to cement foreign [[alliance]]s.

First Crusade

2007-07-17T16:46:56Z

Denzo: New page: The '''First Crusade (1098-1100)''' was a conflict between the Catholic powers of western Europe and the Islamic powers of the Holy Land, called on by Pope Urban II at the Council ...

The '''First Crusade (1098-1100)''' was a conflict between the [[Catholic]] powers of western Europe and the [[Islamic]] powers of the Holy Land, called on by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont.

''Work in progress - Please contribute''

Medieval politics

2007-07-17T16:44:18Z

Denzo:

'''Medieval Politics''' is a diverse branch, differing greatly from modern politics based on [[democracy]] and [[accountability]].

==Feudalism==
[[Politics]] in the [[medieval]] age revolved around the affairs of monarchy and nobility and ties in with the practise of [[feudalism]]. Under [[feudalism]], every member of society knew his or her place and social upward mobility was either extremely difficult or impossible depending on your circumstances. The order of [[hierarchy]] came as follows in the [[secular]] feudal state:

*[[King]]
*[[Nobility]]
*[[Freemen]] ([[Merchant]]s and larger farmers)
*[[Peasant]]s

[[Clergy]] were very often were members of the noble class, and monastic orders were regularly as rich if not richer than the [[King]] in question.

==Role of the Clergy==
[[Religion]] played a major part in [[government]] and many of the [[Civil service]] of the feudal state was formed from among the clergy. In Europe, Monastic orders such as the [[Cistercians]] wielded considerable political power, with the co-founder [[st. Bernard]] being a particularly important figure responsible for rallying support for the [[Second Crusade]].

During the [[eleventh century]] papal reform movement, attempts were made to seperate church and state as Medieval monarchies wielded great power and authority over clergy and the Catholic hierarchy. This led to the [[Investiture contest]] and the reform of the papacy. Medieval Kings were instinctively opposed to attempts of the Church to centralise its decision making efforts in Rome as this damaged the regional churches, who contributed to the coffers of Medieval Kings. Also, Kings needed clergy to operate in their Civil service as [[scribe]]s and [[Chancellor]]s as there simply wasn't too many educated non-clergy in the realm who could perform their duties which was vital for the smooth operation of the realm.

==The importance of war==
As opposed to modern perceptions of war, Medieval politics placed great emphasis on [[war]], considering it to be a useful and often necessary tool of [[foreign policy]]. Small scale wars between important nobility and larger conflicts such as the [[Hundred Years War]] is testament to this fact. The large number of [[castles]] built in Europe during the Medieval age is another testament to the frequency of war, as nearly every nobleman found it necessary to build a castle for his own defence and protection.

==Arranged Marriages==
Succesful diplomatic efforts were often marked by a [[marriage]] between two houses. Medieval Kings placed great emphasis on the importance of daughters, as they often were wedded off to troublesome nobles or to cement foreign [[alliance]]s.

Medieval politics

2007-07-17T16:41:02Z

Denzo: New page: '''Medieval Politics''' is a diverse branch, differing greatly from modern politics based on democracy and accountability. ==feudalism== Politics in the medieval age revolved aro...

'''Medieval Politics''' is a diverse branch, differing greatly from modern politics based on [[democracy]] and [[accountability]].

==feudalism==
Politics in the medieval age revolved around the affairs of monarchy and nobility and ties in with the practise of [[feudalism]]. Under feudalism, every member of society knew his or her place and social upward mobility was either extremely difficult or impossible depending on your circumstances. The order of hierarchy came as follows in the secular feudal state:

*King
*Nobility
*Freemen (Merchants and larger farmers)
*Peasants

Clergy were very often were members of the noble class, and monastic orders were regularly as rich if not richer than the [[King]] in question.

==Role of the Clergy==
Religion played a major part in government and many of the Civil service of the feudal state was formed from among the clergy. In Europe, Monastic orders such as the [[Cistercians]] wielded considerable political power, with the co-founder [[st. Bernard]] being a particularly important figure responsible for rallying support for the [[Second Crusade]].

During the eleventh century papal reform movement, attempts were made to seperate church and state as Medieval monarchies wielded great power and authority over clergy and the Catholic hierarchy. This led to the [[Investiture contest]] and the reform of the papacy. Medieval Kings were instinctively opposed to attempts of the Church to centralise its decision making efforts in Rome as this damaged the regional churches, who contributed to the coffers of Medieval Kings. Also, Kings needed clergy to operate in their Civil service as [[scribe]]s and [[Chancellor]]s as there simply wasn't too many educated non-clergy in the realm who could perform their duties which was vital for the smooth operation of the realm.

==The importance of war==
As opposed to modern perceptions of war, Medieval politics placed great emphasis on war, considering it to be a useful and often necessary tool of [[foreign policy]]. Small scale wars between important nobility and larger conflicts such as the [[Hundred Years War]] is testament to this fact. The large number of [[castles]] built in Europe during the Medieval age is another testament to the frequency of war, as nearly every nobleman found it necessary to build a castle for his own defence and protection.

==Arranged Marriages==
Succesful diplomatic efforts were often marked by a marriage between two houses. Medieval Kings placed great emphasis on the importance of daughters, as they often were wedded off to troublesome nobles or to cement foreign alliances.

Israelite

2007-07-17T16:26:09Z

Denzo: New page: An '''Israelite''' is a constituent of the Israeli nation, or Israel.

An '''Israelite''' is a constituent of the Israeli nation, or [[Israel]].

Ancient history

2007-07-17T16:23:44Z

Denzo:

{{stub}}

Ancient history can be defined as all that happened from the [[Cuneiform|beginning of writing]] until AD 600. Ancient history described creation of many civilizations and revealed many great intellectual breakthroughs. Advances in literature, drama, mathematics, philosophy, and language are just a few of the things which the ancient peoples passed on to succeeding generations.

Two of the mightiest ancient civilisations of the past have been Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

[[category:anthropology]]

Impact of Jesus on world history

2007-07-17T15:49:36Z

Denzo:

[[Jesus Christ]] is a historical figure verified by several Roman historians and other non-Christian figures [http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/]. Whatever one's personal religious convictions, it is undeniable that Jesus Christ has played a massive role in World history.

==Origins==

In the years immediately after the death of Jesus on the cross, Christianity rapidly developed into a [[Jewish]] cult. It was gaining many members and as such was frowned upon and persecuted by both their [[Roman]] masters and [[Jewish]] brothers. Paul was a Romanised [[Jew]] who on the road to [[Damascus]] dramatically changed his mind and religion after suffering a [[revelation]] from [[God]].

''work in progress''

Impact of Jesus on world history

2007-07-17T15:49:25Z

Denzo:

Impact of Jesus on world history

2007-07-17T15:49:11Z

Denzo:

[[Jesus Christ]] is a historical figure verified by several Roman historians and other non-Christian figures [http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/]. Whatever one's personal religious convictions, it is undeniable that Jesus Christ has played a massive role in World history.

[[Origins]]

In the years immediately after the death of Jesus on the cross, Christianity rapidly developed into a [[Jewish]] cult. It was gaining many members and as such was frowned upon and persecuted by both their [[Roman]] masters and [[Jewish]] brothers. Paul was a Romanised [[Jew]] who on the road to [[Damascus]] dramatically changed his mind and religion after suffering a [[revalation]] from [[God]].

''work in progress''

Infrastructure

2007-07-17T15:28:31Z

Denzo: New page: Infrastructure describes, but is not limited to the number of roads, hospitals, schools, public amenities, universities, railways and other vehicles that help drive a healthy or growing ec...

Infrastructure describes, but is not limited to the number of roads, hospitals, schools, public amenities, universities, railways and other vehicles that help drive a healthy or growing economy. Some economists, such as the revered [[Adam Smith]] argue that the supply of infrastructure is the [[nation state]]s primary purpose.

Economic planning

2007-07-17T15:26:32Z

Denzo: New page: Economic planning is a term used to describe the long term plans of an incumbant government to co-ordinate and develop the economy. Economic planning is commonly a feature of [[big governm...

Economic planning is a term used to describe the long term plans of an incumbant government to co-ordinate and develop the economy. Economic planning is commonly a feature of [[big government]] as it usually involves increased spending on things such as public work schemes and government programmes.

Economic planning can include:

*Discussing the long term future of economic growth, and ways of achieving said growth.
*Meeting social partners such as trade Union leaders to co-ordinate government planning in relation to these partners.
*Organising committees to create reports and offer reccomendations for future economic expansion.

Critics, who generally tend to be pro Free-market argue that the only economic planning that government should engage in is providing a framework for the economy to operate, such as sufficient [[infrastructure]] and the maintenance of [[law]] and [[order]]

Talk:Godless liberal

2007-07-17T15:18:34Z

Denzo:

Please don't delete this, is intended to diffuse tensions between left and right on this board. if there is a genuine reason why this cannot be accepted please let me know!

:1. Please sign your comments
:2. Why in the world should this ''not'' be deleted? What substance does this add to this encyclopedia? Shoud I add an article entitled <s>'porch monkey'</s> to diffuse tensions between african americans and caucasians on this wiki?
:I '''strongly''' advise a sysop to delete this article and protect this page so it won't be created again. The term "godless liberal" is a slur meant to demean good people whose only differences is in religious belief and political ideology. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, if you feel this should be deleted then please do so. ([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:18, 17 July 2007 (EDT))

John Kenneth Galbraith

2007-07-17T15:16:41Z

Denzo:

J.K Galbraith was a [[Liberal]] who agitated for more [[socialist]] economic reforms in the 1960's and 1970's in the [[USA]]

John Kenneth Galbraith

2007-07-17T15:16:19Z

Denzo:

J.K Galbraith was a [[Godless Liberal]] who agitated for more [[socialist]] economic reforms in the 1960's and 1970's in the [[USA]]

Godless liberal

2007-07-17T15:13:44Z

Denzo:

Godless Liberal is a term describing liberals who are [[atheists]], or who insist on purging spirituality and all references to God from public life.

Although attached with negative tone's, both Liberals and conservatives tend to use it in a joking manner with no genuine animosity implied. [[George Cloony]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner.
[[category:politics]]

Impact of Jesus on world history

2007-07-17T15:08:03Z

Denzo: New page: Jesus Christ is a historical figure verified by several Roman historians and other non-Christian figures [http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/]. Whatever one's personal religious c...

Talk:Godless liberal

2007-07-17T15:05:20Z

Denzo: New page: Please don't delete this, is intended to diffuse tensions between left and right on this board. if there is a genuine reason why this cannot be accepted please let me know!

Please don't delete this, is intended to diffuse tensions between left and right on this board. if there is a genuine reason why this cannot be accepted please let me know!

Godless liberal

2007-07-17T15:04:35Z

Denzo: New page: Godless Liberal is a term Liberals sometimes refer to themselves as in a joking manner, parodying conservatives perceived stereotype of a Liberal.

Godless Liberal is a term Liberals sometimes refer to themselves as in a joking manner, parodying [[conservatives]] perceived [[stereotype]] of a [[Liberal]].

John Kenneth Galbraith

2007-07-17T15:03:39Z

Denzo: New page: J.K Galbraith is a Godless Liberal who agitated for more socialist economic reforms in the 1960's and 1970's in the USA

J.K Galbraith is a [[Godless Liberal]] who agitated for more [[socialist]] economic reforms in the 1960's and 1970's in the [[USA]]