Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Shakespeare

2007-03-17T04:44:39Z

Dezza91:

By my troth, thou art a forgery. --[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 00:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 2

2007-03-15T03:56:40Z

Dezza91: /* Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'? */

==Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'?==

Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'? Are those who locked it afraid to debate the points at issue (such as the very title's assumption that evolution is just a theory rather than an observable fact), or are they pretending that there are ''no'' points at issue (almost as if the Bible said so, when in fact it has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject, apart from suggesting some Divine input)? If the first, then they are admitting to the weakness of their position. If the second, then they are frankly misrepresenting the truth. Which, when you think about it, is a bit ironic, to say the least! If knowledge of the truth is supposed to set you free, what is suppression of it supposed to do? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is simply no valid reason for this page to be locked. If one is to present a fair and balanced article on a controversial subject, one cannot close off the avenues leading to knowledge (in its true sense). Censorship is simply unconscionable. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Give me a break! We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship and you ought to be ashamed to write such preposterous claims. And, of course, your absurd comment that we close off "avenues leading to truth". That's what ''Wikipedia'' does. We are opening the avenues of truth, but you don't want to see it. All you want to see is the filthy lies that come out of your mouth. That's not knowledge; that's foolishness. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Methinks describing NousEpyrrhytos's comment as 'filthy lies' reveals (a) abuse, (b) contempt, (c) bigotry and (d) extreme lack of perspective. Still, at least we shall all know in future how seriously to take Scorpionman's contributions. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::What, the same as you take Conservative's contributions? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. Wikipedia also locks many of its pages. We have unlocked pages too when the inappropriate edits decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:34, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Define "inappropriate". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::He just told you! Stop asking dumb questions. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

He did nothing of the kind. Stop ignoring what the texts actually say, whether biblical or otherwise. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. That's a really stupid question. What texts? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(a) No he didn't: if so, quote the above definition. (b) It wasn't a question at all. (c) What NousEpyrrhytos wrote. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the last part is an extreme euphemism. The [[Special:Log/protect|protection log]] shows which pages were ''ever'' unprotected:
:::*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] on March 11 (or 10, in some US time zones), re-protected within seconds.
:::*[[Theistic evolution]] on March 9 (or 8), had been protected while draft had been created.
:::*[[ACLU]] on March 8, re-protected half a day later because you didn't want an unsourced and possibly out-of-context quote to be removed.
:::*[[Earth]] on March 1, with the reasoning that the protection had been unnecessary.
:::*[[Dinosaur]] on March 1, with the same reasoning.
:::*[[Template:AboutC]] on January 19, because the admin didn't mean to protect it.
:::*[[The Theory of Evolution]] on December 18, re-protected since February 24 (or 23) to give [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] control over it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=16283 This diff] (right after re-protection) nicely shows what counts as "inappropriate edits" on Conservaedia.
:::*[[User talk:BenjaminS]] on December 4, by BenjaminS (apparently an error or a test - protection lasted less than one minute)
:::*[[Main Page]] on December 1, November 30 and November 22, re-protected since December 19 to prevent vandalism.
:::*[[How To Create a Conservapedia Account]] on December 1, with the reasoning that protection had been unnecessary.
:::10 cases, including the one which had been unprotected for less than a minute. 4 cases have been re-protected (and still are protected). Out of the 6 still unprotected cases, 5 had been protected unnecessarily. These numbers count the Main Page as one case (one of the 4 protected cases). If you count it as three cases, the Main Page breaks down into: 1 re-protected case, 3 protection/unprotection cycles happened without any vandalism causing them.
:::So I think you might want to rephrase your statement a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:39, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hey Squid (oops, Sid), I looked at the diff that you claim shows "inappropriate edits". I'll tell you what was inappropriate: the trash that was rightfully removed. None of the "misconceptions" that were previously listed are valid. Microevolution and macroevolution are ''not'' used to describe two different fields of research, they're quite different in process too. Microevolution doesn't turn chimps into people, and speciation is not macroevolution. The only real misconception about evolution is by evolutionists: that it is a fact. It is a theory, and I'm not confused about that term. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow, coming up with silly names. What is this? Elementary school? After seeing how you basically taunt everybody who argues for more balance and a dose of reality in some articles, I kinda hope that you're just a clever vandal. However, I fear that you really believe that the current excuse for an article about the "Theory of Evolution" is great. The majority editor is a guy whose sole goal is to prove it wrong, no matter what. That's like asking a radical atheist to write an article about God. Yes, Conservapedia is proud to have its bias (even though it never openly admits that on the more prominent pages - for a site that accuses Wikipedia of concealing, distorting, and omitting things, Conservapedia seems awfully eager to hide its own blatant bias and the fact that tons of articles are stubs), so the few pro-balance people are of course fighting a lost battle. This article will probably NEVER be unlocked (the same goes for ACLU, Faith, Second Law of Thermodynamics, YEC, and others), and the "good conservatives" will tell themselves that they finally managed to tell The Truth.
:::But you know what amuses me to no end? This section from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]: "Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored." How fitting, considering that this article here ONLY has "facts" against it and got protected to prevent it from ever being exposed to pro-evolution material. I said it before, I'll say it again: Conservapedia replaces Wikipedia's alleged bias with full, 100% ultra-pro-Christian and radically pro-conservative bias. It has become different than Wikipedia, but not better. And people like you make me doubt that that will ever change. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why should it change? Look, the point is that Conservapedia is going to be conservative, not "radical" just conservative, and Wikipedia is going to be liberal. Now if you don't like this then just stick to Wikipedia or EvoWiki (talk about a biased site!) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::this page is ridiculous, it is give no scientific evidence for the creationism theory. please, this is meant to be an unbiased site not a christian rave page
::It's amazing, actually. Anywhere else, you'd just be a sad little troll, but here, you're quite likely on your way to become a good role model. I have better things to do than "discussing" with somebody who I could automate with a Greasemonkey script. Just push the button and insert a generic "Conservapedia is good because it's so biased, but Wikipedia is bad because it's so biased! Because our bias is in line with God and The Truth!" speech into the current textbox. Push another button, and it dishes out a taunt. How does it feel to know that your entire existence could be replaced with a few lines of code without anybody noticing the difference? :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is amazing how many pages are protected against free speech on this website. I just was pressing "Random page" for some times. And many pages were protected. In wikipedia only some pages are protected against IP's. Here EVERY page is protected against IP and many pages are protected even agains logged-in members. I do not get it. What are you afraid so much about here? That people help articles to improve? That people share their knowledge?
::Or is it just that you are afraid that some people might correct some wrong things that you wish to have true? The censorship on this webpage reminds me to the worst dictatorships in the world. Hitler burned books and people, who were against the regime were killed. When Eastern Europe was communistic - people were not allowed to say anything against the leaders or the political system. Especialy Scorpionman reminds me to the communists from the German Democratic Republic. They were building the wall through Berlin to imprison their own people in their state. But they told to the imprisioned that the walls are for keeping out the bad capitalists.
:: Scorpionman tells: "It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. " - Why is the "wall" around the article? To prevent vandalism? Or is the truth - to keep bias? HE also writes: "We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship " - That is how the comunists were arguing. Even when they were starting to build the wall, they said "Nobody wants to build a wall". Sonds quite similar to "We're not censoring anything." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha, what you said is pretty amusing. Serious, but amusing nonetheless. I assume you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book on Christian m? He asserts that we're dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country and kill anyone who holds views contrary to their own. We must stop them!" Sounds like paranoia. That's what liberalism has degraded to: paranoia. You know, ironically, this is exactly what happened in ancient Rome! Christians were viewed as a threat, and consequently were treated horribly. They were burned, thrown to the lions and other horrible things I won't say. I'd say we're coming very close to that in America: "Christians are a threat and we need to remove them." And as for the other stuff, no we're not afraid of your beliefs, heck you can belive anything you want! We're not afraid to debate you either, but frankly it's not really edifying or constructive. It doesn't do anything either, especially these silly internet arguments that culminate in nothing more than name-calling and childish insults. Now unless you have something useful to post, don't bother posting, like I've said before. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since this conservative view of evolution doesn't please you, I don't expect any will but why don't you try reading [http://www.creationwiki.org/Evolution CreationWiki's article on evolution?] Perhaps you may find it at least a little more satisfactory. Cheers. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hate to disappoint you and all, but 9 out of 10 people in America actually believe in a supreme being. You have references to God in your pledge of allegiance. Now, please tell me how Christians are percieved as a threat. As for the 'stop with the insults' line, you were the one who used Squid. I mean, thats not even a decent and/or witty insult. It reads like its written by a 16 year old who's voice hasnt broken yet and who gets beaten up at school. And about the paranoia, its always the conservative parties that use fear and paranoia as a tactic to get themselves elected. Examples of this include the use of the percieved threat of communism, terrorism...whats next? atheism? sounds like it from what you're saying...sure, Christians were burnt at the stake...so were a lot of other people. It was a tragedy, but so were the Crusades. If you're not afraid of debating then allow other users to edit this site. ---[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I have no power of the locking or unlocking of this page, so stop complaining to me about it and complain to Conservative or Aschlafly. I don't get beaten up at school, I was homeschooled and my voice ''has'' broken. But that's enough information; it's not safe to give out too many facts about yourself over the internet these days. Christians ''are'' percieved as a threat; you've obviously never heard of Chris Hedges or his book on the Christian Right and how we're ts and trying to take over the country. If you haven't, read it. It's ridiculous, but it will show you that I'm right in what I "claimed". I even found an article on the internet the other day (some obscure site and I forgot the address, it wasn't even worth remembering) that talked about how dangerous Christians and creationists are. Make sure you do the homework before immediately denying what I said. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe scorpionman is for real. He (she?) is a provocateur.

:If there's a provocator here, it's you, Juglander. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: One thing I think scorpionman is forgetting that being conservative and christian are not necessarily the same thing. Also, there are many christians who believe evolution happened (I myself happen to be one). And it helps to be open minded, I have my opinions, but if you can make valid arguements to one point my opinion can change, but attacking my beliefs without backing it up does a greater mis-service to you. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The guy's got a point, scorpionman. Chris Hedges wrote a book ripping off Christians. Wow. Does that mean everyone holds his views? You were homeschooled? HAHAHA! We're complaining to you because you defend the locking of this page, not because you were responsible for it. And you said you found one site that says how dangerous Christians are? One site? I can show you sites that deny the Holocaust, and provide evidence that is completely true. That doesn't mean that most people hold this view. That doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen. All it means is that they got 1 piece of evidence about population redistribution and ran with it. They forgot to mention the video evidence of people (mainly Jews, but there were others, particularly Russian peasants) being shot, tortured, abused, and basically being treated like animals. You are taking a single book and saying that this a majority viewpoint. I could take the manual on witchcraft, and claim that its a majority viewpoint. Show your evidence, from an independant source, that a clear majority of people worldwide (America doesn't constitute the globe and all it's people) believe that the Christian Right is threatening and dangerous. --[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 23:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archive ==

This talk page should be archived, as it's getting too long and my browser always takes a long time to open it. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You could even say it's evolved to a more advanced state! [[User:BaggerOfWolves|BaggerOfWolves]] 08:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ha ha, clever! [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Seems to me ==

that this is a very radical site. I think it might be appropriate to notify the FBI and have the terror alert raised... I sense a Christian Jihad.
: Did you allready inform FBI?

:No doubt you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book about Christian m, no? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist Lies, and Hoaxes ==

"In fact, one consistency among the Dover school Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories, and outright lies under oath..."
- ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' 400 F. Supp.2d 707, n.7 at 727.

: dude i saw that too...scary. i don't htink god wants us to lie to force his Word on others. --[[User:Ilovecoulter|Ilovecoulter]] 23:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That quote reminds me of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2013:7-9;&version=46; Job 13:7-9 (CEV)]<blockquote>"''Are you telling lies for God and not telling the whole truth when you argue his case? If he took you to court, could you fool him, just as you fool others?''"<blockquote>

== Bah ==

I have serious problems with this article. It provides a plethora of evidence against evolution, but it does not list any of the pro-evolution facts, of which there is an equal if not greater number. We are striving for the truth, what is best for Christian doctrine, is that correct? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Once again, voicing your own opinion. Like the Proverbs say, a foolish man refuses to listen to instruction, but prefers to err his own opinion. I'm not trying to offend anyone, if anyone did any offending it was the Bible, and the Bible has every right to. Since you claim that the evidence for evolution "is equal to if not greater in number", then give us a few examples! The only ones you'll be able to give is speciation, which is not evidence for macroevolution, and no doubt fossils such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik, each of which are full-one or full the other. Now stop with this nonsense. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In all fairness, evidence for micro evolution is evidence for macroevolution. It shows that it can happen, and theoretically if it were to happen when an entire population was located in one spot, it wouldn't be too far off. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, you're wrong. Evidence for microevolution is ''not'' evidence for macroevolution. Do these little mutations cause the organism to change to a totally different animal? Do random mutations happening all the time cause evolution toward the more complex? No! Mutations are either neutral (which certainly wouldn't advance evolution) or they're harmful. In rare cases are they beneficial, and these rare beneficial ones are hardly anything to talk about. You know I still can't see why you're taking this here instead of your precious "Talk.Origins" website [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: of course evolution isn't random, did you ever pay attention in biology? Evolution happens to give an aid or advantage to a species, and generally it stays the same species but is a little varient. Mutations are sudden major changes in a species, by the way, often due to a major change in typically environment or diet. Mutation is different from evolution. I don't see why you have to be so bitter, you act like evolution proves God doesn't exists.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Evolution proves ''nothing'', on account of the fact that it isn't even proven. I'm referring to macroevolution by the way. Microevolution has been observed and proven, but it doesn't support the Theory of Evolution. You got a wrong definition of mutations; they are any change in the gene code. You should be well aware that the most famous effect of mutations is cancer, which is not beneficial but can cause death. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 23:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: So cancer would be a mutation, but not an evolution. We're talking about the specific of evolution. Even if my definition of mutation is wrong, you're arguing something that doesn't actually have to do with evolution. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 21:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== What Evolution is and Is Not ==

Evolution is genetic change over time; any evolutionary biologist - the only person qualified to make this judgement - will tell you this. It simply deals with change in genes. There is overwhelming evidence for this, including that DNA replication is not perfect, small changes in an amino acid chain produce profound effects, and not all organisms within a species are exactly the same. Over extended periods of time, these differences add up to large changes within a species.

Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. Before the origin of life, there were no genetic mutations, so it would be wrong to apply evolution to the origin of life. That is a question that must be taken up with chemists and geologists, not evolutionary biologists. It is unfair to point out flaws in evolution's explanations on the origin of life if it makes no attempt to do so.

Evolution also does not explain the origin of the universe. These seems obvious, but people still point out flaws the theory's attempt to explain the origin of the universe, even though it only describes changes in genes over time. Astronomers and physicists describe the origin of the universe, not evolutionary biologists.

Finally, evolution is one of the major unifying themes of biology. Organisms would not exist today if they did not change over time. The earth changes, and organisms change with it.--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop digging up dead arguments. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: And these are "dead arguments" exactly how? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just how many times have they been used and not proved a thing? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Hmm? An argument not convincing someone doesn't make it a bad argument. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:The burden of proof is on you, Scorpionman. For over a hundred years, the theory of evolution has been tested to try to prove it wrong. As of yet, nobody has succeeded. What is your scientific proof that genes do not change over time?--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 23:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, the burden is on you. You don't have proof that they ''do'' change over time. And the theory of evolution has been disproved, though evolutionists will not admit it. And the Bible has been around a lot longer than your theory and it has never been disproven, so you've got nothing to brag about. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Did you honestly just say the Bible has never been disproven? When it comes to scientific matters, the Bible has constantly been disproven. "The sun stood still and the moon stayed — and hasted not to go down about a whole day!" (Joshua 10:12-13) This seems to conflict with the heliocentric theory of our solar system. We now know that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and that is fairly clear. I noticed that you are a young-earth creationist and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or so. However, the grand canyon is six million years old, according to all modern geologists. Are you telling me that you know more than scientific proof? Don't give me any crap about a flood forming it; it still takes millions of years to carve that out of the ground. People have spent years objectively studying rock formations around the world, and they have concluded that the earth is billions of years old. You have one poetic book to support your case. I have more than a hundred years of scientific evidence, experiment after experiment, all proving my case. How does creationism explain poodles? Those dogs obviously were not around at the beginning of the world, and in just a few thousand years, they have truly changed from their original form: wolves. You claim that fossil evidence fails to support evolution, but try to find a fossil of a poodle that was alive at the same time as the dinosaurs. Plus, whale fossils have consistently supported the theory of evolution.--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 17:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If that be so, perhaps you might feel inclined to list some of the undeniable evidence proving that evolution is erroneos in all aspects it claims to explain. Regardless of your own personal feeling on the accuracy of either opinion, codes of conduct for debating scenarios place the burden of proof upon yourself at the present time.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 09:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Self-discrediting of Conservapedia==

Well, at least the obvious tic tendencies of the Christian Right, as demonstrated by Conservapedia's paranoid locking out of anything that does not reflect its articles of faith, should put sensible, adult readers on their guard and warn them not to take anything it says too seriously! Thanks to this, I'm afraid, it is already pretty much self-discrediting - and is rapidly becoming a veritable conspiracy of ignorance into the bargain. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:So you believe that creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force? Like I said before, Nero thought the same thing, and so he put many Christians to death. However, none of his assumptions were correct, Christians were not trying to take over Rome and they're not trying to subdue America either. Obviously you've been reading Chris Hedges new book on Christian m. Where is the evidence behind his claims? Hmmm? Where are our nuclear weapons, weather control devices, bombs, guns and so on? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:And your nonsense about an "ignorance conspiracy" self-discredits you. Maybe Conservapedia does need more content, and perhaps it should show both sides of the issues, but what good do you think you're going to do by making all these absurd claims? If you talked reasonably with Aschlafly (and by reasonably I don't mean going "This whole website is nonsense. None of it is true. You're all a bunch of idiots."), maybe he might change his mind and semi-protect it. So why don't you post your comments on his talkpage. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll briefly point out that Petrus made no claim that "creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force". It isn't very civil or productive to associate with people extremist statements that they did not make. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That is what can be interpreted. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

All i have to say about this argument is thank goodness for evolution. If not for this natural phenomenon we would all be identical in genotype to Noah and his wife (did she have a name?... I mean, she did all the work, right? Cooking up the dinosaurs and dodo birds for food.). If not for evolution we would all be condemned to a long and slow-living existence with life spans far too long to remain interesting.

:I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

yes, this is obvious.

:No it isn't. Nothing is obvious anymore. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== transitional states ==

lots of folks i talk to seem to misnderstand what it means to have a fossil of a "transitional state"; the current (rather short) section on transitional states also reflects this misunderstanding.

i'd suggest modifying or appending the "transitional states" stub to reflect the idea that we DO have fossil evidence of things that can be considered transitional states, depending on your definition, and the problem is that most people tend to have an uninformed definition.

not that this proves evolution or anything, but this section of the current article is a misrepresentation/misunderstanding.

here's the research: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

== Lack of 'Credible Transitional Forms'? ==

ever heard of Archaeopteryx? or Ambulocetus?

He's got you there, Scorpianman--[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, he doesn't. Achaeopteryx was a bird. Ambulocetus seems to share a lot more in common with crocodiles than either of the others. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) lists all transitional fossils known through 1997 (they gotta update!), which is already quite a long list. The last thing on their list is their references (direct link to it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs), which you can see cites sources such as "Science", "Nature", publications of the Smithsonian, Harvard University Press, various textbooks, other scholarly journals, and conference proceedings...clearly a wide array of support for the existence of MANY credible transitional fossils. Given this, I don't see how one can legitimately claim that there is a lack of credible evidence.

: They can't credibly claim a lack of evidence, but they CAN protect the article, and then fail to answer your replies about how there is evidence.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::'''AUGH!''' (Fixed the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=34928 overly long word]. If possible, avoid adding horizontal scroll bars to pages. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpionman, I do not understand why you choose to engage these mindless users, when they cannot respond in any form of intelligent conversation. It is a lose-lose situation when you are dealing with close-minded people such as them. As for a response to such "questions" they raise: We had to prevent vandalism and non-factual material from being posted on this page. There is no supported evidence that supports any of the proposed material. The article is protected; it will remain protected. Period. Deal with it. How's that for a response? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry I didn't see your comment. I just wanted to make it clear to them why the page was protected and that it's not for censorship reasons, but nothing can really be made clear to them. I don't believe I saw Aschlafly's comment asking me to move to a different subject but I'll try to avoid this if I can. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Tell me about it! Where are all your little friends, huh, Scorpionman? None of them here! They're afraid of the truth! Look, evolution is proven, duh! Why can't you get that through your thick skull? C'mon, just look at that list and see! There's no evidence for creation! A bunch of right-wing conspirators get together and start trying to abolish the truth here! It's ridiculous! And they keep on blocking the page so the truth can't be put there! Idiots! Why don't you just give up and conform to the truth? You'll be happier, healthier, and wiser. Come with us and find TRUE knowledge! [[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 13:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::There is no objective proof of evolution. Just the fitting of facts to the theory. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 13:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think I've heard that one before, and I seem to recognize it as an evolutionary argument, but I won't make that assumption yet. And once again, may I please direct you all who are unsatisfied with this article to the [http://www.creationwiki.org/General_theory_of_evolution one at CreationWiki]? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== There's so much more that could be here. ==

Looking over the Evolution page, it seems rather barren. There's quite a bit more information that would be very useful to readers. I've gleaned quite a bit of this from various creationist sources, and they might help add even more information to the page. I would say that all of the following information is at least as academically viable and accurate as the information already present.

You should reference the popular Peppered Moth study, noting that the researchers glued dead moths in place to photograph them. Don't mention that this is a common practice in entymology; instead, present it as though it is some sort of scandal. Most readers won't research the issue further and discover that the practice of gluing dead insects is common when attempting to illustrate graphical features -- especially when comparing two different specimens that don't usually hold still in the wild -- and will instead assume that the photographers were engaged in deliberate deception.
Also, point out that the peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. Don't mention, however, that they do rest on the undersides of tree branches, which are essentially the same colour as tree trunks. Also point out that the moths are only active at night, being nocturnal. Most readers won't realise that this means that the moths will be resting -- and thus more vulnerable -- during the day. Instead, try to imply that the moths aren't around at all during the day -- as if they cease to exist -- so that you can imply that colouring is of no consequence because they can't be seen. You can find a lot of these arguments in Ann Coulter's latest book.

You mention Piltdown Man, but you don't mention that it is reported that [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=183 there were over 500 doctoral dissertations written on Piltdown Man]. I've tried to track down these dissertations, and I can't find a single one. It's quite likely that the claim is false, and that no actual dissertations exist at all, but you don't have to mention that. Just say that it is reported that there were 500 dissertations written and most readers won't bother researching and discovering that the "report" is inaccurate.

I'm somewhat disappointed that the page has no references of the social consequences of accepting the theory of evolution. The creator of Darwin's Deadly Legacy, who has a webpage [http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ here], goes into detail of the social consequences of the theory of evolution. You can easily reference sources claiming that the theory of evolution is responsible for eugenics. Be sure that you don't mention that eugenics was practiced in societies that existed thousands of years before Darwin was born, just reference the instances of eugenics policies [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/hitler.asp endorsed post-Darwin]. Suggest that the theory of evolution implies a moral mandate to kill (or at least sterilize) the "weaker" races. Most people won't realise that such a claim is an appeal to a logical fallacy (appeal to consequence), and hopefully most of your readers won't understand that scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) don't actually dictate action or define morality and that the theory of evolution doesn't actually suggest that Jews, blacks or any other genetic group of homo sapiens is definitively "weaker" than another (because "weaker" is a relative term often dependent upon a myriad of interacting environmental conditions). Just say that Hitler determined that the Jews were weaker and hope that the readers will assume that it's a logical conclusion drawn from the theory of evolution and then imply that Hitler was following the "directives" of evolution. Don't actually use the word "directive"; evolution has no "directives", so you'll have to just let your readers incorrectly infer that it does using vague language. Try suggesting that the theory of evolution does not define acts of genocide as morally wrong. This is factually correct, and many readers won't stop and realize that the same is true of all scientific claims; after all, how many people would stop and realise that the Law of Gravity carries with it no moral compunction not to push people off of buildings? Saying that the theory of evolution suggests that genocide is a good thing would be lying, but saying only that the theory of evolution does not proscribe genocide is technically truthful, and can lead people to believe the same thing.

This can be helped further if you again suggest that the theory of evolution claims that God does not exist. Hopefully your readers won't actually study the theory to learn that such a claim is false. Mention that the theory of evolution does not involve God. Try to word it in such a way to give the impression that the theory actually denies the existence of God (but don't actually say it outright; the claim is false, but the goal is to give the impression that it is true without actually saying it) and that without God, there is no good or evil. Then suggest that if there is no good or evil, that destroying a few people for the betterment of humanity as a whole is a good thing. Hopefully most people won't see that you've directly contradicted yourself. Also, most people won't see that you've essentially admitted that you believe that Jews are in some way inferior to non-Jews (by capitulating that it would better humanity to off if not for killing being morally objectionable). Also, hopefully most people won't see that you've completely gotten off of the subject of the merits of evolution, and that you're trying to disprove an event by saying that you find the (implied) consequences of that event being true as morally repugnant, as if reality depends upon what you find acceptable.

I hope that my suggestions are useful to you. I think that the research that I have referenced is of the same intellectual integrity and honesty as the current evolution page here. With a little work, this page can become a great resource for those looking for the creationist position, a repository on the common creationist objections to the theory of evolution, with all of the research and honesty one would expect from a professional creationist outfit.

I'll do some more digging to find some more claims of equal intellectual merit and accuracy.

[[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we should just kill off all the creationists. They keep on opening up their big traps and squelching the truth. Can't we do that, huh, huh? [[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 13:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I do not believe that your response, which suggests an inappropriate act of violence, has any relevance to my posting. I am curious as to why your only contribution to my suggestion is a non-sequitur. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 14:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I would not attempt to understand anything Caveman writes. He is incompetent in a field of intelligent conversation. His response only goes to validate protecting this page. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Duh, I even can't remembur mi own pasword! I had to make new one! Whaddya mean I'm untilligent in meningful convursashun! I shure am! I talk good! But I still think that we should kill off all creationists. If I had my club first I'd take out David R, then Aschlafly, then Jimbo Wales, then George Bush, then Emperor Palpatine, then Eragon, then Johnny Cash, then Scorpionman! huh huh! [[User:CroMagnonMan|CroMagnonMan]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I belive David was right about you, CroMagnonMan/Caveman. Come on, half the people you listed aren't known for being creationists! And your threats are of no consequence to anyone here, so stop being immature. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationism popular among the less intelligent==
According to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm, a source cited on [Examples of Bias in Wikpedia](see entry 22, source 24), those without a high school diploma are more than twice as likely to believe in creationism than their college-graduate counterparts, (65% vs. 25%). Also, those living in or near poverty (Under $20,000) are almost twice as likely (59% vs. 29%) to believe in creationism than their well-off counterparts (Over $50,000). Of course drawing conclusions based on these facts would not be appropriate, that is far too Wikipedia-ish, I do think they have place in the article. They do, after all, come from a website that creators of Conservapedia have used often, proving its credence. --[[User:BushHugger|BushHugger]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::You know what? Shut up. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'll bet that the reason is because most of the major universities in the US are liberal, and therefore college grads from these universities of course believe what they are taught there. Now doesn't that make sense? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Your second response, after your initial request for the previous individual to "shut up", appears to be a non-sequitur. What has liberalism, whether present in "most of the major universities in the US", to do with the theory of evolution? [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 14:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Scorpionman, when you respond to such users, you are only hurting yourself. I think I told you once to refuse to respond. Aschlafly has already told you to move onto another subject. What is the worst these users can do on a talk page? Also, please refrain from descending to their level of conversation. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::David, is there any reason why you remove the word " t" from Scorpionman's edits all the time? I've noticed it at least twice within the past few edits. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I just noticed that the same apparently happened a week ago on his Talk page, together with a warning about offensive language. How often will he be "warned" before action is taken? And will his overall behavior here and on other people's talk pages factor into this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:The offensive language he was talking about, Sid, was the word "crap". I can't believe that you think I should be blocked for arguing. I mean, if I should be blocked for arguing then so should you because that's pretty much all you do on this site. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 16:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I wouldn't want you banned for arguing, but you're a complete troll who does little more than namecalling and "Well, duh!" arguments that have VERY little value as an argument. And I still want to know why David acts repeatedly alters yours posts to edit out the word m/ t. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:You know, on Wikipedia you would have been blocked for calling me a "complete troll". It would be like me calling you a complete idiot. And please explain ''why'' you think I'm a complete troll. I don't recall ever saying "well duh" anywhere. And haven't you been saying that all along? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 21:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can explain that: my comp filters out potentially offensive(not obscenely offensive words for some odd reason). In the case of " t", I do not know why it is deleting it. I am not doing it on purpose. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 18:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Sid should be blocked for name-calling. Calling me a "complete troll" counts as name-calling, and that's not acceptable on any Wiki. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:...don't you think that your browser/computer is ''slightly'' disruptive for this project? At least promise me to never edit [[Fascism]] then... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::Grunt, snort, grunt grunt snort, beeeelllch, buuurrrp, grunt, snort, ptbhtbhtbhtbhtbhtbhtbhthb, faaaarrrtt, smack, smack, chew, spray, uuurrrp [[User:CroMagnonMan|CroMagnonMan]] 21:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-14T07:44:15Z

Dezza91: /* How are we supposed to contribute? */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]

== Additional criticism just added concerning "Anglophilia" ==

Having read the Henry Liddell article, I fail to see the Anglophilia in this case. For example, noting the degree type isn't any different than noting what sort of degree the person got in the American system. Am I missing something here? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:12, 11 February 2007 (EST)

The term "double first degree" is meaningless to most Wikipedia readers. Only an Anglophile knows or care what that means. And did you see all the obscure titles of royality in that entry??? That entry is 95% Anglophile trivia and only 5% content.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 11 February 2007 (EST)

: Ok, first of all, I agree that many readers(not sure "most", since the term is used in many English speaking countries such as India) would not know what "double first degree" is. That's why its wikilinked. So you can click on it to learn what it is. The assertion that "only an Anglophile" would "care" what the term means is hard for me to credit. Are you asserting that one must be an anglophile to care what degrees someone has? As to the last point, "obscure titles of royality" (I will presume you meant, "royalty" although I think you actually mean peerage or the more general British honours system) I'm not deeply familiar with the rules for how to describe people per the Wikipedia manual of style for titles, but my minimal knowledge makes most of the article seem to follow the basic rule although some of them do not. I am going to go through and remove the titles that should obviously not be present under the Wikipedia style guidelines. I fail to see how an article which is about a member of a prominent 19th century British family (and thus, has many relevant titles) demonstrates anglophila by mentioning those titles. Furthermore, given the fact that the Manual of Style says that some of those titles should not be present, it is hard to see how it demonstrates a bias on Wikipedia that an article would not correspond to the manual of style (if anything, that just goes more to the general inconsistency of Wikipedia). It isn't clear to me what you mean by "Anglophile trivia" and therefore cannot respond to it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:02, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I looked at the "wikilinked" explanation for "double first degree." That link sent me to a massive explanation of the British educational system! I tried to find an explanation for "double first degree" but was unsuccessful. Apparently the term can have multiple meanings, none of which are particularly significant. So what if Henry Liddell was in the top ten percent of his college class??? Many entries about Englishmen on Wikipedia are stuffed with this silly information, as though we're all Anglophiles who worship this stuff. This junk obscures the real contributions of the subjects of the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think it matters, Wikipedia has alot of stuff that most people don't care about. I think that your claim of "anglophilia" is hard to prove. I think that the problem is that Wikipidia is so big that it is getting impossible for anyone to keep it under control, so that people can add their own favorite facts, and there is so much of it that it cannot be stopped. it isn't bias just too much information. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: It is bias towards a particular type of information. We don't have too much information about English socialism, racism, imperialism, religious persecution, etc. We don't have too much information about Irish complaints about England, or complaints by other people. We '''do''' have too much information about obscure English royal titles and nearly arbitrary college distinctions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia doesn't have "anglophilia." What Wikipedia has a very significant proportion of British contributors. Who, incidentally, are constantly pointing out valid problems with "U.S.-centric" entries.

: '''REPLY''' The contributions by English editors is fine; the obsession of some of them with obscure British royalty and silly, unexplained college distinctions does reflect an Anglophile bias worth highlighting. Is there more editing on Wikipedia by English editors than American ones? Seems like it based on my observation of so many British spellings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

en.wikipedia.org is the English-''language'' Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia.

(And I'd add that 99% of people looking up Henry Liddell are probably researching Lewis Carroll, whose fictional and nonfictional work is so liberally laced with Victorian British terms, assumptions, mindset, point-of-view, etc. that it's probably not a bad idea for anyone reading him, or reading about him to be open to picking up little bits of Victorian trivia....) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''': It's hard to see the Alice connection on Liddell's (biased) entry on Wikipedia, so many of the 99% of users could be disappointed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Ok, once again, this was something that could be easily fixed. However, I don't see what the grammatical issue is. I would appreciate if you would point it out to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:58, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Isolated bias is easily fixed, but pervasive bias is not. The Wikipedia contributors care more about an obscure royal lineage than presenting facts (and good grammar) in a clear manner. Do you know what percentage of Wikipedia administrators are English, and what their perspective is?

::: The grammar error is easy to fix, but the bias is not. "Henry George Liddell (February 6, 1811 – January 18, 1898) was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford [WHEN????], headmaster (1846–55) of Westminster School[1] author of A History of Rome (1857); and co-author (with Robert Scott) of the monumental work A Greek-English Lexicon ((1843; 8th ed., 1897; revised by H.S. Jones and others, 1940; abridged, 1957; intermediate, 1959 [ABSURD LIST OF DETAIL THERE)[2], which is still use ["USED", NOT "USE"] by students of Greek."

::: Please give credit to Conservapedia when correcting the series of errors in Wikipedia. Thank you! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Instead of claiming these simple errors as bias, why don't you just fix them when you find them. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:04, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::: It would take me all year, and then some, to "fix" the bias in Wikipedia. I'm simply giving examples here. Fixing an example does not fix the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)
:::: I am not saying to fix all of the bias, I am saying you should fix the simple grammatical errors, and things like the lack of a date when you come across them.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 21:05, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::In order to jump-start Wikipedia, many articles, particularly on older topics, were directly copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Most of them are tagged "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." They're included in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica this category]. For example, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab Ahab]. Most of these don't just "incorporate" text, they've just plain "copied" it. Compare [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ahab Ahab] in the online 1911 Britannica, for example.

:::::I wonder how many of the "Anglophilic" articles you've noticed are, in fact, 1911 Britannica material?

:::::Henry Liddell is '''not''' one of these. However, the 1911 Britannica does contain the exact sentence "Gaining a double first in 1833, Liddell became a college tutor, and was ordained in 1838." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Yeah, this is a good point. There was a project at one point to clean up all these articles but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. One occasionally runs into very out of date things, like I recently ran into an article that referred to "mohammeedans" and one runs into similar problems. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::P. S. I can't resist pointing out... Aschlafly complains that "gossip and hundreds of thousands of entries about pop songs or celebrities are pervasive on Wikipedia." However, articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu Pikachu] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Timberlake Justin Timberlake] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King The Lion King] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffyverse Buffyverse] are ''virtually free'' of Anglophilia or British spellings. So, either pop culture is pervasive on Wikipedia, or Anglophilia is pervasive on Wikipedia, but I don't see how both can be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 12 February 2007 (EST)

I lost this conversation the moment it started. I think we went a lil too far, dont you Mr.Schlafly? I guess it doesnt matter what i think anyway.:) [[Will N.]]

: '''REPLY:''' You make a good point, Will. It does matter what you think. However, note that we all learned something from this debate: Wikipedia has copied material verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I didn't know that before this discussion. That explains some of the obscure and pecularly English descriptions in many entries. Also, it shows that Wikipedia is not completely original.

: By the way, Dpbsmith, with all due respect I do think that conflicting attributes can be pervasive at the same time. Oil and water are opposites in many ways, but both can be pervasive in the same solution. E.g., [[Exxon Valdez]] oil spill. You wouldn't say that either water or oil was pervasive there, but not both, would you? :-)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::Indeed. And in mayonnaise, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I just went on Wikipedia and clicked on random article about 35-40 times, and did not find any examples of "anglophilia"--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Um, I don't think Wikipedia ever claimed to be "completely original." Wikipedia incorporates a lot of material that is in the public domain (either by release or by expiration) as well as material under the GFDL and many of the creative commons liscences. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:26, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: There's an important point here, though. A lot of our "answers" to Aschlafly take the form "but everyone ought to know thus-and-such" about Wikipedia. Aschlafly often seems to me to berate Wikipedia quite unfairly for not matching his expectations of what he ''assumes'' Wikipedia is or thinks Wikipedia ought to be.

::: The question is, what does the average reader or user, who does not contribute, has not read the policy pages, doesn't have pages on a watchlist and understand how editing works, doesn't fix casual vandalism, doesn't glance at the History, etc. etc. think Wikipedia is?

::: Is Wikipedia ''in effect'' misrepresenting itself? Is there a ''large'' discrepancy between what [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] and I and even a casual contributor know Wikipedia to be and what the average reader assumes it to be? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== "Debate" about reliability and disclosure ==

I don't know what is meant by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&curid=2896&diff=13761&oldid=13689]. I don't think Wikipedia ever hid this and if you read almost anything put out by Wikipedia discussing its early history it mentions it. This seems to imply that people were trying to cover it up or something. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:23, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:Where is this disclosed by Wikipedia? I've followed and contributed occasionally to Wikipedia for a decade and was unaware of such copying. In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

:What's lawful (copying from expired copyrighted material) does not excuse lack of attribution or credit. Wikipedia should have a strict policy of requiring attribution. Does it? Apparently not. It should.

:This relates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: You appear to be conflating a variety of different issues. First, this is disclosed anywhere, including for example on almost every article that is primarily based on the 1911 (they say at the bottom that they use it), as well as discussed at a variety of other locations such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:1911 here]. So all relevant attribution is given. As to your claim that "In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica" first there was no such debate as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Although Britannica spent a fair bit of time attacking the Nature study and has continued to spend time and effort attacking Wikipedia, James Wales has repeatedly stated that Wikipedia is not attempting to compare itself to Britannica nor supplant it. Given that there was no "debate" and that Wikipedia had used public domain work from a variety of early encyclopedias in a very small fraction of its articles which were marked as such, it is hard for me to see what else you wanted Wikipedia to do? You might have come claim about issues of intellectual honesty if Wikipeda were attempting to "debate" the relative merits, but again, Wikipedia was not attempting to do so and always stated that it was about using and sharing free encyclopedia content. (Incidentally, the 1911 edition also has nothing to do with the modern versions of Britannica since subsequent editions (I believe one of the ones from the mid 1960s) were complete or nearly complete rewrites, so any notion that Wikipedia was somehow copying from Encyclopedia Britannica as it stands now is inaccurate (irrelevant, but still inaccurate)). Now to your final comment, that this somehow "elates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity" - I'm afraid I don't see the connection at all. One is a claimed bias that Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge the contributions of Christianity to Western culture and such, the other is a claim that that Wikipedia has not sufficiently acknowledged what sources it uses. What one has to do with the other is beyond me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::*The articles copied from the 1911 Britannica are supposed to be attributed, and as far as I know most of them are. The Henry Liddell article was not copied from the 1911 Britannica, although I must say it ''looks'' to my eye as if it has been lifted piecemeal from more than one source and not attributed.
::*Checking Wikipedia for details (!), the 1974 Britannica 3 (Propaedia/Micropaedia/Macropaedia) was a complete rewrite. As recently as the 1960s there were still some articles entirely or partly based on the 1911 edition. The one that sticks in my mind was their article on Beethoven, which contained the lovely sentence "The immense changes he brought about in the range of music have their most obvious effect in the possibilities of emotional expression; and so any outbreak of vulgarity or sentimentality can with impunity claim descent from Beethoven, though its ancestry may be no higher than Meyerbeer."
::*Copying without attribution is a perpetual problem in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," and cutting and pasting particularly from websites occurs all the time. Like casual vandalism, I believe most (but not all!) of it is caught and removed pretty quickly. It is made as clear as possible to contributors that they're not supposed to do this. Copyright violations are watched for ''pretty'' carefully, and enforced ''quite'' vigorously. A "copyvio" is one of the few forms of material on Wikipedia on which an admin is supposed to shoot first and ask questions afterwords; i.e. delete as soon as noticed, and restore afterwards in those vary rare cases where the contributor proves there actually was permission to release the material under the GFDL. (A much more common case occurs when someone thinks that Wikipedia copied something from another website, but on examination it turns out that the other website copied from Wikipedia without attribution!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 13 February 2007 (EST)
::*Which is not to say there are not problems with saying something is "policy" when there is no command-and-control chain of responsibility! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: All your comments above are well-taken. I do see now that many thousands of pages on Wikipedia are copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica '''with''' attribution. That's a revelation to me.

::: That said, I still find an unsettling lack of attribution in Wikipedia's policy. Is there a policy that requires attribution to sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying. I'm not blaming Jimmy Wales, but Wikipedia is no more synonymous with Jimmy Wales at this point than the U.S. Constitution is synonymous with George Washington.

::: The sentence in Henry Liddell's entry was obviously copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Does that violate any Wikipedia policy? It should. I'm going to ensure that Conservapedia's policy requires this.

::: Note that B.C./A.D. v. [[CE]] debate is about proper attribution also, and Wikipedia policy fails there also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: I'm not aware of any specific policy stating that public domain works should be acknowledged but in practice they generally are acknowledged. As to your claim that "The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying" - this is not in any way a fault of Wikipedia but a fault of the researchers in question if it is a fault at all. Furthermore, since the Nature study looked at a specific subset of Wikipedia articles none of which contained 1911 material, I don't see why discussing that matter would be at all relevant. As to the BC/AD v. CE/BCE matter, I still don't see the connection. One is an issue of where a system came from, the other is where Wikipedia sources came from. You seem to be confusing content and meta-content issues. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::I'm not sure anyone understands how Wikipedia functions. In a broad sort of way, Wikipedia policy ''and practice'' is strongly opposed to copyright violation. This is expressed by a conspicuous warning "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted," by the reality that sysops and experienced users really do watch for suspicious material, and really do take quick and effective action when it is spotted.

::::''On the other hand,'' this only applies to material that is under copyright. As an offshoot of the Open Source movement, Wikipedia tends to ''favor'' re-use (copying!) of material that is not under copyright, and, conversely, welcomes the re-use of Wikipedia material by others. That's what the GFDL is all about.

::::Is everyone here aware that it would be ''perfectly OK'' as far as Wikipedia is concerned to copy a Wikipedia article into Conservapedia... either exactly as is, or edited so as to season it to conservative Christian taste... as long as you follow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content these rules.] (Which include giving notice that others may re-use the content copied from Wikipedia). (I'm ''not'' suggesting Conservapedia do this).

::::With regard to attribution, this is covered by Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.

::::'''But...''' what does it mean for something to be "policy" on Wikipedia? This is one of these words that probably means something different to Wikipedians than to the world at large.

::::Wikipedia has enormous numbers of contributors. Contributions are ''not'' vetted or preapproved. It's all "ready, fire, aim." Wikipedia tries to ''influence'' contributors, but it relies on the good intentions of the majority of contributors. And there are nowhere near enough administrators to "enforce" policy. Even if the people with admin privileges all agreed on how to interpret policy, which they definitely do not.

::::And, don't forget--policy pages are just like any other Wikipedia page, and you or anyone else can go in and edit them at any time! Furthermore, it is acknowledged that policy pages are more of an attempt to report or articulate what experienced Wikipedians actually do than to control what they, or anybody else, does.

::::Now, anyone who's ever been in a large organization knows that the written policy often bears only a loose relationship to what actually happens. It may be that Wikipedia is not all ''that'' different from the other large organizations, but the paradoxes and complexities of large-scale human interaction are explicitly on display.

::::Aschlafly, I trust that '''didn't''' answer your question! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:37, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Thanks, Dpbsmith, for your informative posting. Given all that you said, I guess it comes down to this: the personal views and preferences of the Wikipedia admins. There is no attempt by Wikipedia for balance in ideology or outlook by these admins. As a result, it is inevitable that certain philosophies will gain control and the place becomes dominated by certain views. This happens in any group environment, or any organization, if there is no attempt to stop it (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Is there a way to poll the views of Wikipedia admins? As I've said before, it's pretty clear what their views are simply by watching what they post and delete. But perhaps a poll would end any pretense that the Wikipedia admins are balanced as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: That's interesting because that doesn't sound at all like what Dpb said above. Now to be clear, if an admin pushes a certain viewpoint or acts in a matter biased towards one group other admins will step in. Since not everyone cares about the same issues, one will always have some completely uninvolved admins and other editors able to help out with neutrality issues. If admins act in a particularly POV way then they will get desysopped or put on some sort of probation. This has happened to admins in the past over a variety of issues. And again, the admins aren't in charge of content, that's a general editorial thing. All admins do is block problematic users, delete when there is a consensus to delete and protect when there is a strong need to protect. None of these concern direct content issues and admins are specifically disallowed from using their admin tools in content disputes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:24, 13 February 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia on AAPS==
I'm not sure how much water I want to carry for Conservapedia, and I certainly don't want to be Conservapedia's pet Wikipedia-fixer, so I've left a note on Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Neutrality_issues.3F discussion page for the AAPS article] but have not edited the article itself. It might be appropriate to place a <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag on the article itself, but I don't want to go that far yet, at least not until I see whether there's any response on the Talk page. (I expect to be chided for not fixing the article myself...)

It looks to me like the article is on balance negative toward AAPS, but that most of the comments and criticism are properly sourced.

The usual best approach to adjusting balance problems in Wikipedia articles is not to remove material on the overrepresented side if it's well-sourced, but to add well-sourced material on the opposing side, e.g. the fact that AAPS is (according to the New York Times) drawn from AMA membership and that (at least one) AAPS member has been the president of the AMA... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:21, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: Your edit to the Example of bias here is an improvement. However, I think your comment that the Wikipedia article is merely "on balance negative towards AAPS" is quite a bit understated. (Disclosure: I do work for AAPS.)

: The bulk of the entry about AAPS itself (not including its journal) is a rant by a British television journalist. Why isn't that high degree of bias prohibited, and why shouldn't the contributor be warned about a violation of a policy? --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: High degrees of bias are prohibited by the neutrality policy. However, the policy is not exercised instantaneously or with much precision. That paragraph strikes me as the Wikipedian equivalent of driving 80 mph on a interstate highway posted 65. It's against the law but it would be naive to expect to see flashing blue and red lights behind you the instant the needle crosses 65. Thousands of drivers can ''habitually'' rive 80 for ''long'' periods of time without seeing them.

:: P. S. I see the article as slightly biased, you see it as very biased... no surprises there. Disclosure: I have nothing whatsoever to do with the AAPS! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:43, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: P. P. S. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], in response to the note I left on the Talk page, one editor who's been active on this page recently cut the Brian Deer material down to about half its previous size and moved it into the section on "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons." I don't expect you to be satisfied, but I think you'll agree that it's better than it was. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the article]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: I'm at least not happy with it still. DPB, where did the NYT mention that a member had been a past president of the AMA? That would seem to be a pretty relevant detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: The shift is a slight improvement. But why are Brian Deer's intemperate comments even on AAPS's entry? How long do you think a similar rant against Brian Deer, if posted on his entry, would survive Wikipedia admin review? There is no justification for posting Brian Deer's rant on AAPS's entry. Note, by the way, that Brian Deer went off the deep end in response to criticism in England by someone other than AAPS of Brian Deer's own work, but that was not included.

:::: Also note that the date "2005" for Time's description about AAPS is wrong, and off by nearly 40 years. The Time remark is from 1967, when Time might have described Ronald Reagan the same way. Oh what a difference 40 years makes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: I've corrected the date to 1967. As discussed on the talk page for that article, Deer is an award winning journalist specializing in medical issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to include his opinion. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:48, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Citing something that is 40 years old to describe an active organization is silly at best, and obviously biased in this case. Time is editorializing rather than presenting something factual, and it's 40 years out of date. This is rank prejudice.

:::::: Allowing Deer's baseless opinion is even sillier and more biased. He has no personal knowledge of AAPS and cites no basis for his polemic, which was prompted by someone else's (not AAPS's) criticism of Deer's own work. Deer, an English journalist, has no expertise for commenting on an American organization anyway. Allowing Deer's diatribe to remain violates the NPOV that Wikipedia apparently only applies to censor conservative comments, not liberal ones.

:::::: As long as Deer's rant remains, this beautifully illustrates Wikipedia's bias. I'm moving this illustration up higher in the list here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: I'm going to disagree in part and agree in part. I agree that there may be a problem having a 40 year old comment in (although whether the piece is an editorial doesn't alter much whether or not it is relevant). The Deer assertion however seems to lack a strong basis- it isn't clear to me why an English journalist cannot comment on an American organization (it isn't like this is the 1700s and someone in Britain has almost no access to details about what is happening to organizations in the US) and regardless of what prompted the matter Deer is a qualified journalist in the relevant field. Citing a qualified journalist in the relevant field who gives his opinion does not seem biased to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:05, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::: OK, you've made yourself clear and I've updated the content page accordingly. I feel this ranks #3 in illustrating bias on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Bell Trade act ==

First note that the article has a neutrality disputed tag on top, so neutrality problems are a) not surprising b) don't reflect that poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Also note that the quote about father capitalism was "wrath of Father Capitalism and Mother Nature" which is hard to see as actually anti-capitalist. It appears to be more of an attempt by a poor writer trying to use flowerly language to say that their were both economic and environmental problems. Also note that that phrase was in any event removed a while ago. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Robert McHenry ==
...is quoted in point 23 as saying:
:One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined.

Well, yes. And that is why, at least since 2003 and I believe '''well''' before that, WIkipedia has had a policy page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not], saying:
:Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.
So McHenry's remark is beside the point, and doesn't illustrate much except that McHenry doesn't [[grok]] Wikipedia in fullness. Was this the same essay in which he likened Wikipedia to a public toilet?

[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html No, it was a different one]:
:The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
I like that remark better. At least it's funny. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:53, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::That is a funny remark. But Wikipedia does claim to be an "encyclopedia", and it does operate with any guiding principles that check and minimize the problems with democracy (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Page deletions (such as conservapedia) are done without any explanation other than (perhaps) majority vote. McHenry's observation fits Wikipedia to the tee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 18 February 2007 (EST)

The deletion of the page on conservapedia was not unexplained; the article was clearly against wikipedia's notability standards. You can complain that they selectivly enforce these standards (they do) but you cannot say that there were no legitimate grounds to delete the article. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:24, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY:''' Not true. The admin who deleted the conservapedia entry on Wikipedia did NOT explain his action. Some said it was because most (not all) of the comments favored deletion. But then defenders of Wikipedia claim it is not majority-rule. So which is it? Majority rule or reasoned basis for actions? For it to be a reasoned basis for action, the reason must be given by the person taking the action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== "Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors?" ==

Rising to the bait as usual... reaching for the rope for which to hang myself... since Aschlafly keeps asking, I'm going to guess at an answer.

Wikipedia doesn't survey these editors because I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does, ''how'' you would survey these editors. Aschlafly seems to labor under the impression that Wikipedia is like most traditional organizations, with reasonably well-structured organization charts and chains of command and so forth. It isn't.

Aschlafly or Jimbo or anyone else could ''ask'' editors to respond to a survey. There _is_ a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits List of Wikipedians by number of edits] that would enable anyone to identify the high-volume editors. One could go down that list and leave notes on all of their Talk pages asking them to fill in a survey. But what then? There's no way to compel them to answer. There's certainly no way to compel them to answer truthfully. Not as thing stand. (I can only imagine what would happen if Jimbo decreed that anyone not answering the survey would be blocked).

And Wikipedians tend to be rather antiauthoritarian and resistant to such requests. I don't know what the usual response rate is to online survey requests but I'll bet it would be about 0.2%. Make that 1% if it were clearly a personal, sincere request from Jimbo himself.

I'm afraid that the composition of WIkipedia's active editors must be guesswork based on observation of actual behavior.

One of the few factoids I am aware of is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_age List of WIkimedians by age]. A tiny voluntary sampling. Is it representative? Who knows? But it looks like a young crowd to me.

There ''is'' a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with 202 members and a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians] with 68 members. Make of it what you will. (And I'm sure you will!) (And that includes Will N!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:06, 18 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. What do we know about the political composition of Encyclopaedia Britannica editors? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== Mathematics ==

I do not understand point 16 in the list, about mathematics (I am a mathematician). I am all in favor of having an unbiased encyclopedia, but what does this entry have to do with being anti-American or anti-Christian? Wikipedia does not have an entry on elementary proofs, but it does have an entry on "Proof". It is not a mathematical textbook, so you cannot expect all proofs to be completely written out, I think.

:If no one objects, I will remove this point. --[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 02:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''REPLY:''' Unfortunately, "reverts" do not seem to have a comment section for explanations. I'm sorry for not seeing your comments here until last night, when I attempted to respond immediately. (By the way, I also have something of a mathematical background)

::: The concept of "elementary proof" was important for most of the 20th century. A Fields medal was given for an elementary proof; Paul Erdos swore by this approach; Math World recognizes it; and mathematicians who emphasize rigor appreciate the concept also. Why pretend it doesn't exist? It certainly does. Complex analysis has some inherent assumptions, and the concept of "elementary proof" recognizes as much. Why pretend otherwise?

::: Wikipedia (unlike Math World) refuses to recognize the concept of "elementary proof," and Wikipedia even omits any reference to the concept in its long-winded treatment of "proof" that you cite above. This reflects bias. Math may be less vulnerable to bias than other fields, but no field is completely immune from bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I agree that elementary proof is a very important concept. However, I think that this does not so much show bias as just the fact that Wikipedia is incomplete: probably nobody thought about adding an entry for this concept. BTW, I just noticed that Wikipedia does have an entry for Elementary proof now (since February 5), it was no doubt created as a result of this list. I updated the list accordingly.

I would be interested to see your reply to my other point, about Wikipedia not being a textbook. Do you intend to have only formal and rigorous proofs in Conservapedia?

::'''REPLY:''' The new entry in Wikipedia topic looks good, and must have been in response to the criticism here. Thanks for updating the entry here to reflect that.

:: That said, this was no oversight. Some mathematicians do falsely pretend there is no such thing as an "elementary proof," and some liberal blogs have ridiculed me for claiming otherwise. Rigor is vulnerable to bias, and this is an issue concerning rigor.

:: I wouldn't require only elementary proofs, but it essential to be aware of the concept and departures from elementary proofs. Denial of this important concept is worth criticizing, as we did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

This is very interesting, I never heard about mathematicians who denied the existence of elementary proofs. Could you give me some examples/quotes? Seems like a very strange position to have.--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 14:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Andrew, I think you exxagerate. Elementary proofs are only important in number theory, and only then mainly for aesthetic or philosophical reasons. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:: Thank you, Joshua, for denying or downplaying the significance of the elementary proofs in response to Twoflower's statement.

:: Yes, of course there are mathematicians today who deny significance to the concept of the elementary proof. The mathematicians who have inserted thousands of entries in Wikipedia for ten years without ever mentioning elementary proof, either as its own entry or as part of a comprehensive entry on proofs, further illustrate my point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::: Um, speaking as someone who has published papers in number theory where the notion of elementary proof first came to be somewhat relevant- should Wikipedia have had an article about it? Yes. Is it such a terrible thing to not have one? Not really. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK, that's the opinion of JoshuaZ, and that confirms my statement that some mathematicians downplay or deny the significance of the elementary proof. Needless to say, other mathematicians haven't agreed. A Fields medal was even given for an elementary proof once. Some mathematicians devoted their careers to the pursuit of elementary proofs. And there are obvious logical reasons for preferring elementary proofs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Obvious logical reasons? Really? Such as? There are reasons a logician might be interested in the matter, but that's not logical reasoning, and again in any event, this isn't a bias of Wikipedia but an ommision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I favor dropping the item on ''elementary proof''. I don't think that the concept is either well-defined or important. Yes, MathWorld gives a definition, but I do not believe that definition is accepted or used among mathematicians.
The point of this item seems to be that an elementary proof is somehow more rigorous or desirable than a non-elementary proof. However, I do not think that is true. If some mathematician has that view, then who is it? I think that it would be a minority view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== We need to decide what this list is ==

Is this a list of examples of biases in Wikipedia or an example of problems with Wikipedia or a list of examples of foul-ups of Wikipedia or some combination? I see all three in this, all listed as examples of bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

:Perhaps the list should be categorized; separate sections for bias, errors, omissions and whatever else. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Bias underlies many "foul-ups" and "errors". I don't separating them into categories helps.

::One of the complaints about Wikipedia is how long-winded everything is. An encyclopedia should be concise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::''Some'' encyclopedias are not concise. For what it's worth... the Encyclopædia[sic--their spelling] Britannica 11th Edition (1911)'s article on the Bible runs from page to 849 to 894. That's forty-six pages. And an Encyclopædia Britannica page is several ordinary book pages (and many computer screens). I estimated once that the article would be about 1 megabyte of ASCII text. And then it's followed by "Bible, English" from pages 894 to 905. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)

While '''''some''''' foul-ups and errors may have underlying bias, most do not. In fact, I don't think that any of the errors pointed out in this page reflect bias; we should reove them completely. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:54, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The following entry strikes me as wrong or misleading -

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public".

:Just because those editors identify themselves as liberal does not, in fact, suggest that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It depends whether they are allowing their political views into their articles, whether the articles in question are capable of being politicised and whether the entire American population is made up of only liberals and conservatives. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:I am also a bit Challenged by the concept that something could be "six times more liberal" than something else. I wonder if Noam Chomsky is six times more liberal than Phyllis Schlafly? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Horace makes a valid point. I thought about that "six times more liberal" ratio myself quite a bit, both before and after writing it. But what other number would make sense? Liberal by a 3:1 margin is many times more liberal than something that is conservative by a 2:1 margin. How many more times? Well, if the ratio went from 1:1 to 2:1 then we would say twice as many. When the ratio goes from 1:2 to 3:1 then six times as much seems appropriate. I welcome other suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I suggest that you remove the sentence-- I don't think that 'degrees of liberal' can be expressed accruately with a ratio.

Furthermore, I think that while we should strive to point out the liberalism of wikipedia, we should '''''not''''' by any means suggest that they be just as consevative/liberal as the general public. This (I hope) would be hypocrisy! We are trying to be as far to the right of the general public as possible.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:41, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Can't resist:

::::Alice was puzzled. "In ''our'' country," she remarked, "there's only one day at a time."

::::The Red Queen said, "That's a poor thin way of doing things. Now ''here'', we mostly have days and nights two or three at a time, and sometimes in the winter we take as many as five nights together—for warmth, you know."

::::"Are five nights warmer than one night, then?" Alice ventured to ask.

::::"Five times as warm, of course."

::::"But they should be five times as ''cold,'' by the same rule--"

::::"Just so!" cried the Red Queen. "Five times as warm, ''and'' five times as cold—just as I'm five times as rich as you are, ''and'' five times as clever!"

:::Oh, a concrete suggestion: once you've said 'twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative"' it seems to me the point is made. Do you really need to say anything more? Readers can draw their own conclusions, numerically if they're so inclined. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Dpbsmith, I am not sure why you removed the following post of mine, but I thought it was relevant-

::::Actually, my maths isn't great, but I think six times is not right. If I had say 12 people drawn from the general population (and assuming everyone is either conservative or liberal), on your figures I would expect four of them to be liberals. If I had 12 Wikipedia editors I would expect nine of them to be liberals. That is not a sixfold increase.

::::I emphasise that I am not a mathematician.

::::Perhaps you should just say that liberals are grossly overrepresented as editors of Wikipedia.

:::Perhaps you removed it by accident. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::I wasn't aware of removing anything. Sorry. I agree with your math by the way.

:::Is everyone aware that the lists Aschafly cites are not polls, interviews, samples, or anything like that? It is the number of Wikipedians who are aware that these categories exist (they're not advertised, you're not encouraged to add one when you create an account or anything) and have decided they want people to know their views. It is reasonably analogous to driving through a medium city and counting 201 lawn signs for Democrats and 68 for Republicans, or counting bumper stickers on cars as they drive by on a highway. It probably means ''something'' but I'm not sure I'd care to do math on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:07, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I agree that there is some merit to the above comments. But where is the flaw in the math? Polls ''do'' show that the conservative-to-liberal ration is 2:1 among the American public. That alone is useful. I didn't know that before. Did you?

:::I don't know that I know it now. I'd like to know a lot more about that poll. How can the American public be 2/3 conservative and yet vote very close to 1/2 Democratic (e.g. popular vote in last two elections?) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:37, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::The American public is ''not'' 2/3 conservative; in the poll ASchlafly cites, the single largest group are the moderates, with 40% of the respondents. Compare to the list of moderate wikipedians, who number all of 22, and you begin to get the idea that these comparisons just aren't meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:22, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::The liberal-to-conservative ratio of 3:1 based on how many signed up for the corresponding Wikipedia pages is like yard signs, as Dpbsmith says. But a ratio in yard signs ''is'' indicative of a region's views. In some ways this is better than phoning people, because this reflects strength of conviction, and willingness to speak out. And thanks to Dpbsmith for the observation in the first place!

::The only suspect part of my analysis is to conclude that Wikipedia is 6 times as liberal as the American public. I thought more about this today. Don't we draw the same conclusion about relative concentrations in solution in chemistry? And don't we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove, or "twice as sweet" in candy? If anyone can explain a flaw in this, then I'd like to see and discuss it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::The error in the math becomes apparent if you treat the ratios as percentages (and again assume everyone is either liberal or conservative). In the general population 33.3% of people identify themselves as liberal (at the 2:1 ratio). At Wikipedia 75% identify themselves as liberal (at the 1:3 ratio). An increase from 33.3% to 75% is not a sixfold increase. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::To Aschlafly--Oh, well. Since you ask.

:::No, I don't think we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove. ''My'' stove just says "wm, low, med, med hi, hi." I can't imagine someone saying "make it twice as hot" when they mean "turn it up from medium to high." The oven says "WM, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, BROIL," but those aren't degrees Kelvin, and 400 is not "twice as hot" as 200. For example, if a recipe says to cook something for one hour at 400° it would not work to cook it for two hours at 200°.

:::I don't know about sweetness, but spice heat is (or formerly was) measured in Scoville units, which in turn represent the relative amount of dilution that produces the same sensation of spice heat. In other words, if habanero sauce diluted 10:1 tastes as hot as tabasco sauce, then habanero sauce is ten times as hot.

:::Now, applying this methodology to Wikipedia and to America, the question is: how much would we have to dilute Wikipedia by adding conservatives in order to make it match America? This is a nice little algebra word problem for your high-schoolers. Call the total Wikipedian population W. We're saying 3/4 of W is liberal. We want to dilute Wikipedia until it is 1/3 liberal, same as America. So, we're going to pour conservatives into Wikipedia, stirring gently, until it reaches a size X·W where it is now 1/3 liberal. At that point, we will say Wikipedia is X times as liberal as the America (because we had to had to make it X times bigger in order to get the proportion of conservatives the same as America).
:::Let the number of liberals in Wikipedia, before and after dilution, be L.
::::L = W·(3/4)
:::We want
::::L / (W·X) = 1/3
:::Substituting,
:::: (W·(3/4)) / (W·X) = 1/3
:::: (3/4) / X = (1/3)
:::: X = (3/4) / (1/3) = 9/4 = 2.25.

:::So, Wikipedia is 2.25 times as liberal as America.

:::Checking, if WIkipedia had 100 people, it would have 75 liberals. If we multiply it by 2.25, it would have 225 people and 75 liberals, so it would have 225 - 75 = 150 conservatives, or a 2:1 ratio.

:::But this is just a game... I'm sure there are other ways to frame the question that will yield other numbers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Oh. Easier way to get the same number: 75% / 33.333% = 2.25. If you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 9 of them are liberal. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 4 of them are liberal. 9 = 2.25 × 4.

:::Of course... if you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 3 of them are conservative. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 8 of them are conservatives. So Wikipedia is 3/8 as conservative which make America 2.67 times as conservative as Wikipedia, which seemingly would make Wikipedia 2.67 time as liberal as America. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:32, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I don't think the above analysis compares the "concentrations" of liberals in the two "solutions".

:: How about drawing an analogy to a pH scale? Call conservative low pH and liberal high pH, so that we can find a ration. 2 parts conservative and one part liberal would yield a low pH. 3 parts liberal and 1 part conservative would yield another pH. I wonder what the ratio would be?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::Well, pH is ''approximately'' minus the natural logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. Since litmus turns Democratic blue in an alkaline solution and Republican red in an acid solution, I guess hydrogen ions (acid) correspond to conservatives. The, uh... uh-oh... pC... of the American public would be -log10(2/3) = 0.176, and the pC of Wikipedia would be -log10(1/4) = 0.602. (Higher pH numbers mean less acidic, and higher pC numbers mean less conservative... so I guess pC works out after all!)

::::I am not going to do anything at all with regard to comparing 0.176 and 0.602. Here are two numbers. I calculated them and I showed how I calculated them. Ain't gonna say nothing more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:16, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::: The ratios imply that WP has 6 times as many liberals as you would expect from the number of conservatives. Or the number of conservatives would have to be increased by a factor of 6 in order to match the American public. But it doesn't follow that WP is 6x as liberal as the public. If WP really functioned properly, you would only need at least one conservative editor and one liberal editor on each article. As long as they reached a consensus, then the article should be balanced, even if the number of editors is uneven. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Instead of using all of these hypothetical analogies, why don't we work with what we have. there are about 3.75 million wikipedia editors so at 3:1 that would make 2,812,500 Liberals. there are about 300 million people in the U.S. so at 2:1 that would make 100 million Liberals. 300 million/3.75 million = 80. so multiply the liberal Wikipedians by 80 to aproximate the US population to get 225 million or '''2.25''' times as many liberals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: Your math is flawed because it doesn't recognize that all the people who are neither liberal or conservative. The simple way to see this is as follows: what fraction of the liberals on Wikipedia now would give it the same balance as the American public? 1/6th. Hence Wikipedia is currently 6 times more liberal than the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::: You are automatically assuming that when you adjust the the numbers that the number of conservatives does not change. To do it properly you have to raise the number of conservatives as well as lower the number of liberals. The percentage of "unbiased" (for lack of a better word) people should stay the same. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Indeed. Amplifying a bit, as long as there's one conservative editor who is capable of adding conservative material that accords with Wikipedia's policies (particularly source citation and "facts about opinion, not opinions"), and one liberal editor similarly capable of adding liberal material, and provided the effective pool of active editors in the article really support Wikipedia's policies and are ''reasonably'' able to judge material objectively against policy... the article should stay balanced.

:::::Thus, the number that matters is not the relative number of liberal and conservative editors. It is the percentage of edits that are made by editors who are truly committed to the neutrality and verifiability policies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:23, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Right, it would be easy for Wikipedia to restore balance in such a manner. In fact, this is how the media ensures balance on certain shows (e.g., Crossfire) and many debates. But Wikipedia does not do this. Rather, it behaves in the same manner as a lynch mob. There is nothing neutral about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Fascinating, one thing I couldn't stand about Crossfire was that it felt a need to break everything down into liberal v. conservative, make sure to label who was on which side and then let them scream each other. Not every issue is simply liberal v. conservative, and I'd have to say that if Crossfire is the ideal, I'd rather be non-ideal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:40, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Something about Wikis acts as a positive-feedback loop that amplifies bad behavior. It can be infuriating to have an edit reverted or deleted. Wikipedia regularly does show "lynch-mob-like" behavior, but the lynch mobs are small, dissolve quickly, and have relatively little affect on the overall content of Wikipedia, other than to get some people so totally alienated as to never be able to think straight about WIkipedia ever again. Wikipedia to some extent is part of the USENET "flamewar" culture, and I think its [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_age age composition] may be more of a problem than its political composition.

:::::: With nobody in authority to make final decisions on policy (no, admins do ''not'' effectively have the ability to do this), borderlines are fuzzy, and everything on the border is resolved by border disputes, with inconsistent outcomes. Really notable things don't get deleted. True vanity articles always get deleted. But your Conservapedias and obscure Norwegian politicians (Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa, Minister of Education and Church Affairs 1913-1915) and articles about middle schools are on the borderline. AFD discussions about borderline articles tend to show WIkipedia at its very worst. However, you might be surprised at how often one of these discussions starts with "piling on" in the delete direction, with curt comments, and ends with a reversal ''if'' people find and quote good sources or improve the article mid-discussion.

:::::: There are certain Wikipedia characteristics that may be properly criticized, but that do ''not'' add up to consistent, systematic liberal bias. For example, the neutrality policy in operation leads to a tendency to ''include unflattering information.'' Wikipedia biographies are never respectful puff pieces, and you may be absolutely sure that an article on Ted Kennedy will mention Chappaquiddick (let me check: yep); that an article on Barney Frank will mention his affair with whozis (let me check: yep, and the name I was trying to remember was "Steve Gobie"), and similarly for Gerry Studds (check), Gary Hart (check), etc. I don't even remember whether Wilbur Mills was a Republican or a Democrat, but I certainly remember his being found wandering drunk in the Tidal Basis (whatever that is!) with a stripper, and I expect the WIkipedia article to remember it, too. (Check: "Mills is perhaps best known for a drunken incident on October 7, 1974, with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." And he was a Democrat). Tabloid-like? Maybe. Politically biassed? No.

:::::: Poor Wilbur Mills! All that time in Congress, and his legacy is "best known for a drunken incident... with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." But isn't it accurate? Without looking at Wikipedia's article (or anyone else's), can you remember any other single concrete thing about him? In my case... I have a vague notion that he was really important, so much so that I mistakenly thought he was a Senator, not a Representative But I can't think of a ''specific'' thing he did apart from the Tidal Basin incident. Can you?

:::::: By the way, although the liberal blogs have had a lot of fun with Conservapedia's objection to British spellings, I have to say I at least see Aschlafly's point. To a newcomer to Wikipedia, redirects seem like magic. I can see how typing in "phonograph record" and getting "Gramophone record" could feel as if Wikipedia were saying "No, dummy, you're wrong, it's ''gramophone.''" No handy little explanation pops up to explain that Wikipedia is deliberately inconsistent and is not endorsing one term over the other. I don't know if its ever gotten to the point of a U. S. kid telling a teacher, "No, that's the wrong spelling, Wikipedia says..." but I can imagine it happening. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:04, 4 March 2007 (EST)

This "six times more liberal" thing is comparing an anonymous poll to non-anonymous affiliations that people choose to put on their user pages, right? It could mean that liberals are just more enthusiastic about announcing their beliefs, or less certain of them when polled anonymously. The numbers can't be compared directly. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

: I am wonder who added a comment in the WP article on CP saying that CP has been criticized because the CP article on the Democrat Party includes a sentence describing a harsh view from a critic. It is criticism of the criticism of the criticism, and I am criticizing it here! Somebody needs to tell WP editors that it is not necessary to document every criticism. When an article gets to be more than half criticism, then it probably has too much. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::That sentence certainly looks tendentious, rather than factual, to ''me.'' (Of course, I think the article [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] is precisely 6.23 Scoville units ''more'' tendentious...)

:::As with Conservapedia, the entire history of the article is open to examination. The comment was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=next&oldid=112296143 here] by user Kronix1986. I am ''not'' going to act as some kind of human gateway between Conservapedia and Wikipedia and want to ''try'' to stay out of the incestuous business of editing each Wiki's article on each other. I'd suggest that ''if'' you wanted this comment removed, your best approach would be to say something about it on the article's Talk page, because when you're closely involved in an article sometimes keeping a little distance is better than direct editing. It's easier to present cogent comments on a Talk page than in an edit comment, for example.

:::The argument ''I'' would use is that the statement isn't supported by the cited source. The [http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html cited source] uses the passage ''as an example of the difference'' between the two sites. It does not criticize Conservapedia for this passage, nor does it say that Conservapedia has been criticized for this passage. Furthermore the phrase "seemingly pejorative" is a good example of weasel terms, which Wikipedia has a guideline against. In other words, the statement is clearly editorializing, ''not'' reporting something published elsewhere.

:::(This could, of course, be remedied by rewording the passage to say "One passage, used by a Guardian Unlimited writer to exemplify the different approaches of the two sites, is...") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Good luck dealing with folks who are six times more liberal than the American public! There isn't any chance that Wikipedia will have a fair or reasonably unbiased entry about Conservapedia.

:: That's OK, because this is great fodder for illustrating Wikipedia's bias. I've added a point (around #5, I think) in our list of Examples here. Watch Wikipedia's editors change its entry about Conservapedia as I point out its biased errors here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Point, if you look at the talk page for the Conservapedia there was additional criticism that didn't go in because it was decided that it would be problematic. Furthermore, attempts were made to find more reliable sources that were positive. Attempts were unsuccesful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Regarding American versus English spelling policy ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. They might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

It's interesting because America somewhere along the line changed the spelling of these words. In fact most of the English world (I'm from Australia) views the American spelling as the strange version. It seems to me that this insistence on spelling everything the American way is just another example of American arrogance. I thought the reference to the European ruling family was espicially silly. I personally have no problem with Wikipedia using the proper English spelling for words. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I would like to add a "here, here," to the remarks by Conservative. Furthermore, it seems that Conservapedia is in conflict with itself. When it comes to dates Conservapedia wishes to favor the "historical" anno Domini system in contrast to the newly developed Common Era system. But when it comes to spelling, Conservapedia decides that the historical spelling system should be discouraged and the newly developed American spelling should be used. The foundations for British spelling were published in 1755 as compared to the foundations for American spelling which were published in 1828 (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_spelling_differences&oldid=113116955] for more information). Does Conservapedia have an actual system for determining what it prefers or is this all merely the opinions of a small group of individuals?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==LIBERAL BIAS==

We should change the name of this page to "Examples of Lliberal Bias in Wikipedia".

We don't care about (in fact some of us welcome) conservative bias. The above name would not seem hypocritical. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Who said any of us here actually welcome conservative bias? This wiki was advertised as having a conservative ''perspective,'' not a conservative bias. And this difference is really rather important. A conservative perspective would merely show people how conservatives view the different things happening in the world. A conservative bias would be presenting information with the conservative perspective but instead of presenting it as the way conservatives view things it would be presented as the way things are. I hope that made sense :)
I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. That said, seeing the conservative perspective is, in fact, really intriguing and helpful to me. Conservative bias, just like liberal bias, is not in my best interests and would definitely '''not''' be welcome by some members who are curious liberals. If this is in fact an attempt to convert people throwing in bias is not going to help.
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:You may find this debate interesting... [[How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]] --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Re #32 ==

With regards to criticism #32 this can, and will, happen to any information source. Any system that involves humans is going to have errors. I assume that no member of conservapedia would be so bold as to say there is not one error within the articles. The ''Daily News'' or whatever the paper was are largely to blame as well. Any news source that publishes material based on only one source deserves to feel the slap of public humiliation.
Finally, I would like to ask, as I honestly do not know, how this is an example of bias (as the article title indicates it is)? Is it some form of Pro-Ivy-League-Rutgerian bias?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: It reflects a lack of accountability which is a by-product of the systematic bias. It also demonstrates that the distortions in Wikipedia do matter, as newspapers and others are relying on them and repeating them. Why any system has some errors, you're not likely to find this kind of error in a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== On the definition of pseudoscience ==

One of the arguments presented is "It currently offers a article on the topic listed under the category "Pseudoscience". What reputable encyclopedia uses such an unencyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism?" The definition given for this is "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method." There are indeed people who claim that [Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|creation is scientific]. As it stands Creationism and Intelligent Design do not make testable theories nor is it falsifiable and thus it is not scientific.

It is unfortunate that this falls into a similar category as people making claims about astrology, ghosts, and crop circles. If this is not attempted to be presented as scientific fact and stayed as a religious belief, one would assume that it would not be categorized as pseudoscience.

This is a poor critique of wikipedia that weakens other arguments. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:You disappoint me, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]. On what grounds do you declare that creation science does not follow the scientific method? For example: did you know that a number of geologists have already shown that current models of [[radiometric dating]] do not correlate well with one another in dating various objects, and indeed often produce inconsistent dates for the same object? These geologists have shown--''by the scientific method''--that those methods have their basis on improper assumptions and sometimes on [[circular reasoning]].

:They have since determined, after exhaustive reviews and their own data-gathering, that the uniformitarian assumptions behind most of the dating models are totally untenable--and that radioactive decay was in fact ''accelerated'' at a key moment in early earth history.

:Testable theories, sir. Even falsifiable theories.

:The worthies at [[Wikipedia]] have never shown a willingness to examine the hypotheses that leading creation scientists have formulated and tested. They have simply concluded that the world and mankind ''cannot'' have been created, and ''must'' have formed out of nothing, and that "we just don't understand yet how it happened." Now ''that'' is pseudoscience.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:If you think the term "pseudoscience" reflects a "sensitive tone" then I suggest telling a scientist that his work is "pseudoscience". I would also suggest that the scientific method was invented by Francis Bacon who likely believed in creationism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
:: Bacon's was a creationist - one quote of his is "I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind". He also encouraged experimentation and the use of induction to discover more about the world. Unfortunately, Francis Bacon died a century before the voyage of HMS Beagle and thus had no observations to the contrary. Can you suggest an alternate name for what to call something that calls itself science without using the scientific method? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::You have no warrant whatsoever to claim that Sir Francis Bacon would have recanted his statement after a meeting with Darwin post-''Beagle''. That would have been an interesting conversation, to be sure. However--you want another name? I'll cite you several. Try Michael Behe. Or Larry Vardiman and Stephen A. Austin of the RATE ('''R'''adioisotopes and the '''A'''ge of '''T'''he '''E'''arth) Group.

:::Cargo cult science? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Thats not quite appropriate. The Cargo Cult involves copying without understanding. Cargo cult science would involve copying significant portions of other experiments because "thats the way it is done" rather than understanding the reason behind it. It would still be invoking the scientific method including falsifiability. With peer review, cargo cult science tends to get smacked down quite hard. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Jimmy Wales and atheism/passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism ==

Should we include that "Wales has been a passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_wales] in this article in relation to Wikipedia's material on Christianity and creationism/evolution? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
: Does the founder's philosophy of personal liberty and individual rights constitute a bias in the organization against Christianity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Is that all that Ayn Rand's Objectivism espouses? Does objectivism have any relation to atheism and have all societies which have officially embraced atheism persecuted Christians? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Check out the article on [[Objectivism]] that I expanded recently. I know this subject because I was once an adherent of Objectivism before I, for lack of a better term, "got saved" and "came to know [[God|The Lord]]." I also know where some of the bodies are buried...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: Ayn Rand's philosophy is atheistic. But I don't know how much of an issue to make of Jimmy Wales' personal views. His editors are making the numerous biased decisions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Asclhafly, who controls the editors at Wikipedia? In short, who picks the admins at Wikipedia and more importantly who decides to discipline the Wikipedia admins for inappropriate conduct? I am asking these questions because I am not very knowledgeable about the power structure at Wikipedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: We have Wiki admins here who can answer this better than I. But my understanding is that Wiki admins are picked from the "ground up", by nomination and acclamation, rather than by selection by Jimmy Wales. I doubt that Jimmy Wales' personal beliefs have anything to do with the bias on Wikipedia. The real problem is the lack of meaningful principles which results in mob rule, and the mob has become a liberal one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::: I'm not going to address the mob issues and such since I doubt I will change anyone's opinions, but to comment: admins are choosen by community consensus (as Andrew put it from the "ground up"). Jimbo only steps in under very limited circumstances and then has not stepped in any any political issue in my memory. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Please note that this is still a relatively small(but growing) website compared to Wikipedia. Jimbo may not step in anymore, but is it possible that, when Wikipedia was small site, he did? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::At Wikipedia, anybody can nominate an admin. In fact, anyone can nominate ''themselves'' as an admin. There is then a discussion in which people express support/oppose/neutral. The decision-making process is: "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus (few RfAs succeed with less than 75% support), but a request for adminship is not a ballot." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Thanks for Joshua's and Dpbsmith's insights. But David R makes an excellent point also. If Jimmy Wales embraces Ayn Rand (which is an atheistic philosophy), then that could set the tone and have an effect. He doesn't have to intervene often. The fact that he is enormously respected, as Dpbsmith says, only *increases* the influence of his belief system on the project. So I'm OK with referring to his Ayn Rand philosophy, but let's make sure it is well-supported (preferably by quotes) and done in a tasteful manner. Truth be told, I respect Jimmy Wales also and have emphasized this with reporters. I loved Wikipedia in the old days and I lament how it has gone down the wrong path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: I doubt that most editors even know what Jimbo's personal religous and political views are. Heck, I'd go further and suggest that I'd be surprised if more than half the admins knew that a) Jimbo was an objectivist and b) knew that objectivism was atheistic in nature. Now, if people don't know what opinions Jimbo has, it is hard for respect for him to influence things much. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:22, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::JoshuaZ, I know you are a Wikipedia Admin and I was hoping you could answer the question, "Who decides when to discipline the Wikipedia Admins for inappropriate conduct? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
:::::::::Admins can be disciplined by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, generally someone has to complain first. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::: To be clear, admins are very rarely disciplined, and when they are the discipline is generally for abuse of the admin tools, not for anything else. Indeed, if one looks at the prominent examples of admins being disciplined they have almost nothing to do with politics or religion. For example, there was a group of admins who got into a wheel war over deleting/restoring the article on Daniel Brandt and one of them was desyopped as a result. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Disciplining admins is ''very'' rare. I don't know exactly how admins have had their admin status revoked but I'll bet it's on the order of one a year, or less. "Banning" users (permanent blocks) are very rare, too, and it only happens after more discussion online that you could possibly believe. (A "wheel war" is analogous to an edit war and occurs when two sysops alternatively undo and redo some action). There are currently 849 active admins on Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Two more points to be made. First off, the feeling of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" up to this suggestion seem to be things that could be rectified. This one is doubtful if it could be rectified if it is indeed an issue. Secondly, if it was the case that this is a valid criticism, then a likewise valid criticism of conservapedia is that it was founded by a Christian conservative. This is not to say that either Christian conservative or objectivist is a bad thing, but if one is a valid criticism, then the other is likely too. As this is not part of the criticisms section of wikipedia (for good reason) to include it here would reduce any moral high ground that is had. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::JoshuaZ, Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee decide when to discipline Admins. Who decides who is on the Arbitration Committee? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::: Each year, some of the arbitration commitee spots go up for election. Users with at least a certain number of edits and certain amount of time on the project can then bullet for or against a candidate. Each candidates total votes (number of support-number of oppose) is then tallied. Of those with very high approval ratings (what percentage this is has I think varied from election to election) Jimbo selects to be on the commitee. In practice, Jimbo picks almost all as the ones with the most votes, although this has not always been the case. Summarizing how ArbCom is elected is a bit complicated since we keep changing the voting procedure and how much input Jimbo has. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::JoshuaZ, you wrote: In practice, Jimbo picks almost all as the ones with the most votes, '''although this has not always been the case.''' Why hasn't it always been the case? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::::: I have no idea, you'll have to ask Jimbo his reasoning. In at least one case (that of Jayjg) there were a number of other candidates with more votes (I don't remember precisely how many, I think 3 or 4). That was 2 or three years ago, I don't think Jimbo has done it since. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer ==

The article claims that:

"Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[6] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[7]."

, while this is plainly not true. Wikipedia has an entire article (50 kilobytes long!!) about it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis here] Please, someone who has sufficient priveleges, change the article to admit this information. {{unsigned|GofG}}

: Your link is not to the Wikipedia entry on "abortion", which is what most people will access. Also, please sign your comments by clicking the signature button above. Thanks and welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Fine. Here is the link to the section on breast cancer in the abortion article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer], which contains a link to the aforementioned article. And I did sign my comment; there was an edit conflict and I had to retype it all out and I forgot to resign it. [[User:GofG|GofG]] 21:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I just checked that link on Wikipedia. It is extraordinarily biased, ending with statements about the views of organizations that do not conduct any research and have obvious liberal biases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:: Andrew, it is linked in the article right where you would expect it to be, under the summary section dealing with ABC. I'd also be curious as to what you mean by "organizations that do not conduct any research and have obvious liberal biases" [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: Whether or not it's biased is not the question. The article says that wikipedia "omits" it. They do not omit it, they just have a biased article about it. There is a difference. Why not put:

::::"Wikipedia denies that the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies is notable."

:::Or something like that that exposes the bias but does not lie. [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:That sounds good. Why not put that? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I couldn't find this in Wikipedia, or anything like, and hence the statement is correct that Wikipedia omits this: "Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia six times more liberal than public?==

Someone needs to check their math on this one. If twice as many people identify themselves as conservative as liberal, then 1/3 of the public identifies themselves as liberal. If 3 times as many Wikipedia editors identify themselves as liberal instead of conservative, then 3/4 of Wikipedia editors identify themselves as liberal. 3/4 divided by 1/3 is 9/4, or 2.25. Therefore, "six times" is just incorrect math, and 2.25 times is the correct answer.

: Please sign your entries using the signature button above. Your math is flawed: many people do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: Fine then, let's group everyone into the categories liberal, conservative, and moderate. Let L1 be the fraction of liberal members of the public, L2 be the fraction of liberal members at Wikipedia, M1 be the fraction of moderate members of the public, M2 be the fraction of moderate members on Wikipedia, C1 be the fraction of conservatives in the public, and C2 be the fraction of conservatives on Wikipedia. By your own statistics, C1 = 2*L1, and 3*C2 = L2. Also, by definition, C1+L1+M1 = 1 and C2+L2+M2 = 1. Combining these equations, 2*L1+L1+M1 = 3L1 + M1 = 1, and L2+L2/3+M2 = (4/3)L2 + M2 = 1. Equating the two 1's, 3L1 + M1 = 1 = (4/3)L2 + M2. Shuffling things around, L2 = (3/4)*(3L1 + M1 - M2) = (9/4)L1 + (3/4)(M1-M2) = 2.25*L1 + 0.75*(M1-M2). L2/L1 = 2.25 + 0.75*(M1-M2)/L1 = 2.25 + 2.25*(M1-M2)/(1-M1) = 2.25*(1-M1+M1-M2)/(1-M1) = 2.25*(1-M2)/(1-M1). If the percentages of moderates in the public and Wikipedia are equal, then L2 = 2.25*L1, as I stated. If the number of moderates is higher in the public than on Wikipedia, then L2 is more than 2.25L1. If the number of moderates is lower in the public than on Wikipedia, then L2 is less than 2.25L1. What is the exact value? It depends on the explicit value of M1 and M2. You cannot say with any certainty that it is 6. In fact, it is most likely to be in the range from 2 to 2.5--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what the currently entry states at: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[4] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[5] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."

::Next I have not read footnote #4 yet but I am guessing that people identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::Here is what footnote #4 states: "On a decade-by-decade basis, Conservatives grew modestly from 32% in the 1970s to 36% in the 1980s, and 38% in the 1990s. So far in the 2000s they comprise 34% of adults. Liberals have remained constant at 18% and moderates have held the lead with 40% or 41% in each decade."[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: Is it not impossible for liberal editors to edit neutrally. Just because the editors are liberal doesn't mean the content is liberal; they are working for neutrality. It might be better worded as "Wikipedia ''editors'' six times more liberal than public." [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::The content of Wikipedia is more liberal than most encyclopedias and I think my recent addition to the list was very telling: "In the mid-20th century, one of the few "authorities" to assert that Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopedia.[1] Wikipedia currently writes in its article on Jesus the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[2] Now it is certainly true that a small amount of scholars assert this matter but it is also true that it is a minuscule amount of scholars and none of them are historians which Wikipedia fails to mention. And what does Wikipedia offer in regards to a mythological Jesus that never existed? It offers a article entitled "Jesus as myth" which has a section titled "Specific arguments of the theory" and has had a long history of having warnings like "This section may contain original research or unattributed claims."[3] Why does the article in question have a long history of warning to its readers and why doesn't Wikipedia seem to want to do anything about it? In addition, Wikipedia would be hard pressed to cite a current reputable encyclopedia which prominently cites in its Jesus article a statement like "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus." in its first two paragraphs. What current encyclopedia other than Wikipedia spends time on the proposition that Jesus never existed and does such a unscholarly job of presenting this matter?" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::::It might be that the majority of other encyclopedias are conservative biased. I'm not saying this is true, it's just a possibility. Why does the article have a long history of warnings? Because they don't want the readers to be mislead into believing the information, as it is not verified. What exactly is wrong with that? Removing the information entirely would be denying its notability and existance, which is also unencyclopedic. Do you have any other articles to cite? [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::I was being generous in what I wrote. Wikipedia has had the same warning for ages. Every time I look at the article it has had that warning. Why doesn't someone clean up the mess? I believe it is because they are reticent to delete unsourced liberal material and Wikpedia just doesn't care about "unsourced junk" written about Jesus that denies he existed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: According to your data, then, M1 = 0.4 or 0.41. Plugging into my equation, L2/L1 = 2.25*(1-M2)/(1-0.41) = 3.81356 * (1-M2). M2, the fraction of Wikipediaers who are moderates, can (by definition) only range from 0 to 1. Therefore, the '''very maximum''' is 3.81 (assuming that no Wikipediaers are moderates, which is unlikely to be true). Six is incorrect.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Look at this way: How many more conservatives would we need on Wikipedia such its balance reflected the American public? Wikipedia is 3:1 liberal, so we need six times as many conservatives. Six is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Then what you should be saying is that Wikipedia is six times less conservative, not six times more liberal. As you pointed out yesterday, there is a major difference. Plus, if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to back them up with actual numbers, not a hand-waving argument. If you do the appropriate substitutions into the equation above, you'll find that C1/C2 = 1.573/(1-M2). For this to be equal to 6 would require that M2=0.73, i.e., about 3/4ths of Wikipedians would have to be moderates.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This calculation is indeed deeply flawed. If you keep it like this you run the risk that liberal will view it as confirmation that conservatives can't do math. You compare a representative poll with the areas of interests of Wikipedians. The results of the poll are that 18% of Americans are liberal, 34 % conservatives, and 40% moderates. The Wikipedia numbers are that of 3.7 million Wikipedians, 204 are interested in liberal themes and 77 in conservative themes. This means that less than 0.0075 % of all Wikipedians are either conservative or liberal (or both). And the chances that this miniscule self selected sample is representative is next to nothing. You can't do statistics with this sample. You simply compare apples with next to nothing. I'd suggest to remove this entry altogether. Otherwise you just confirm the liberal idea that conservatives fudge numbers as they please. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 11 March 2007 (AEST)

: Folks, the math is correct, and no one credibly disputes that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Those who do dispute it only serve to illustrate the deception of Wikipedians pretending not to be biased. Be up-front about your point-of-view. Are you liberal yourselves? Don't be bashful, disclose your point-of-view as we do here, and then we can have a more meaningful dialog. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry, the math is really incorrect. It doesn't serve you well to label everybody who points to wrong math as ''liberal''. A valid point (bias in Wikipedia) is tainted by invalid math, especially when combined with calling names to settle a mathematical dispute. This point is just a red herring, and will do nothing than give people an opportunity to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. There is nothing wrong with droppoing this point, since everybody knows that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:55, 12 March 2007 (AEST)

::: Exactly. If someone who agrees with my political philosophy is using obviously incorrect logic to prove their point, that makes me look worse by comparison. The math is incorrect, and saying that is isn't make it so.

Based on the above stated information, the Wikipedia survey is not representative as the basic assumption for statistical validity (random selection, or precise stratification) is violated. However, let us assume it is valid and forget about the math, then next question arising will be:
what is the point?
It is common knowledge that Americans tend to be more conservative than the average world citizen. But why should the American public be particularly relevant to Wikipedia, which extends far beyond America?
The idea that it is a bias if Wikipedia's authors do not mirror the American public, seems to reveal a narrow and ethnocentric scope of the authors behind "Conservapedia". A bias which Wikipedia (thank God) does not seem to have.

==Item 12==

This is not an example of bias, but rather a simple convention. The English spelling of the word is the proper spelling, the American spelling is a branch spelling and not appropriate for some topics. This is why the US Courts still use Anglo-English spellings.
--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]]

: Thanks for your comment, but I can assure you that US Courts use American spellings of words. I don't know where your comment here comes from: "The English spelling of the word is the proper spelling." I respectfully disagree. But I hope you can contribute edits here, and in your case we'll be mindful of your preference for English spellings!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm a legal major and have read many a court file and the use of English terms is actually quite common, however, it is in a sense traditional. Also, many international courts use the English spelling.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think that this should be included as an example of bias. The British spelling is no inherently better or worse than the American spelling, and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise. The bias list has some good points, but they are being weakened by silly points like number 12.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 23:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: There seems to be an anti-American undercurrent to the spelling issue, just as there is an anti-Christian motive to erasing "A.D." We have vandals on this site going around changing American to British spellings. No joke. The same must be occurring on Wikipedia because non-American spellings turn up in the oddest of places. When most users are Americans and the system was started in America, doesn't that strike you as a bit odd??? American-bashing seems to have become quite a sport around the world, and this is part of it. American spelling is more economical, by the way. "Color", not "Colour". The "u" need not be there. Americans love the British, by the way, and every four years we elect a British descendent as president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Out of curiosity, how is American English "more economical"? Also, have all the presidents really been British decendents? Are you sure no one's been of a German, French, etc line? And thirdly, I keep seeing people talk about how most wikipedia users are American, do you have proof of this or is it an assumption. I would imagine there are more users/speakers of the Queen's English in the world than the American version. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::...who says most users are Americans? The site is frequented by users from the entire world. If you trust [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=wikipedia.org/ Alexa], 21.3% of its users are from the US, but 54% of all users go to en.wikipedia. That means that less than half the people on the English Wikipedia are from the US.
::::Of course, there are a few weak points with this argument (and with yours). We both currently assume that every visitor/editor contributes an equal share to Wikipedia, and we both assume that Alexa is halfway accurate to measure site statistics (which I personally doubt, but I accept it as the best approximation we can get). Then there is the question what kind of English is taught in the other countries (and what the individual editor ends up using - for example, I learned English in school, but later basically switched to American), but there is no practical way to answer this question on a site like Wikipedia - it's simply too large.
::::As such, I'd just go with the most intuitive explanation: Editors use what they are used to, and often enough, it's not American. It's not about being anti-American or bashing the US. It's just what they personally find intuitive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional problems with Wikipedia==
* Blatant double standard as to what constitutes "reliable sources". Wikipedia is supposed to pride itself on its Neutral Point of View policy and sourcing articles to reliable, neutral, third party sources which are not partisan and not self-published. Yet there is a clique of administrators who insist that self-published material from such extremist, partisan groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Political Research Associates meets the reliable sources criteria. In particular attack articles from the SPLC have been linkspammed to a large number of articles to attack the subjects of those articles, especially people involved in immigration issues. The SPLC's ritual defamation tactic of labeling any group they don't like a "hate group" is given sanction by Wikipedia editors who add the "SPLC has designated this group a hate group" label to articles.
* Bias in favor of postmodernism and postmodernist notions. Wikipedia is littered with articles like "Gender roles", "Anti-bias curriculum", "Oppression" and so on which promote the notions that reality is a social construct; "gender roles" is written of as if it is a real thing instead of a postmodernist neologism to describe what are actually gender ''traits''; racism and sexism are instutionalized "systems" of oppression inherent in Western culture rather than prejudices held by individuals; etc. I could dig up hundreds of such articles and put together a "worst of Wikipedia" list if I had the time to do so.
* Rampant political correctness. The Wikipedia article on political correctness is skeptical and gives too much credence to the notion that there is no such thing as PC, yet at the same time Wikipedia is cluttered with thousands of articles promoting the POV every would-be "systemically oppressed" group imaginable. Wikipedia is full of Aspergers Syndrome-cruft, illegal alien advocacy cruft including multiple articles on every pro-illegal immigration protest in recent months, articles that smack of being elaborate jokes or just plain absurd like "Anti-racist mathematics" and "Neurodiversity", etc.
* Systemic bias against guns and private firearms ownership. Two different articles with the anti-Second Amendment neologism "gun violence" in the title, a "Category:Deaths by Firearm", etc. All attempts at deleting or renaming these biased names have failed.
* The Wikiproject on "countering systemic bias" is itself extremely systemically biased, as most of the subject areas in that project smack of whiny political correctness.

[[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 10:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Wow! Your points are superb. With specific examples and citations I could add them to the content page here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks - here are just a few off the top of my head:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role] - "A 'gender role' is a set of behavioral norms associated particularly with males or females, in a given social group or system. It can be a form of division of labour by gender. It is a focus of analysis in the social sciences and humanities. Gender is one component of the gender/sex system, which refers to "The set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed needs are satisfied" (Reiter 1975: 159). Most societies have a gender/sex system, although the components and workings of this system vary widely from society to society.[citation needed] Some see "gender roles" as oppressive stereotypical expectations imposed by society."
::(The "gender/sex system" by the way refers to a belief that gender and ones physical sex are not the same thing, that somebody can be born a woman but be a man inside, or vise versa.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-bias_curriculum] - these two articles speak for themselves.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression] - "The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms. When this is institutionalized formally or informally in a society, it is referred to as "systematic oppression"."
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._English] - 2/3 of the article is criticism of the group.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement] - Uses the left-wing's term for the movement instead of the term "Official English" preferred by the movement itself.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity] - another absurdity. Autism, Parkinsons, and Tourettes are not diseases that need a cure, but should be accepted as an integral part of "who they are".
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory] - "This binary may itself be a false dichotomy, as discourse shapes our understanding of what is natural and what is cultural shapes discourse-- but it still is a useful starting point for exploring these debates. Constructivists counter that there is no natural, that all meaning is constructed through discourse and there is no other subject other than the creation of meaning for social theory. In a Constructivist perspective it is not proper to take gay or lesbian as subjects with objective reality; but rather they must be understood in terms of their social context, in how genealogy creates these terms through history."
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Countering_systemic_bias] - Claims Wikipedia has a "systemic bias" against topics related to non-English speaking people, the third world, women, non-Judeo-Christian religions, etc.
::That's just a start. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 15:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Fantastic! I added a new point 2 on your stuff. Will add more also. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I have to object to some of this. While I agree that some of these discuss ideas or topics that are absurd (Anti-racist mathematics is one that particularly annoys me) they are legitimate topics of articles and Wikipedia would be remiss not to have articles on these topics. Similarly, Wikipedia has articles on flat-earthism, white power, black power, and phrenology, not out of endorsement for their ideas but because they are encyclopedic topics. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect ==
Is there a reason the Wikipedia entry redirects to the Example of Bias page? I could have sworn there were two separate articles yesterday. And if this is done for a reason, it might be helpful to remove the links within the Bias page that link to itself through the wikipedia page. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:The entry got deleted, redirected and protected a few hours ago. I'll just quote from [[User_Talk:Aschlafly|Aschlafly's Talk page]], where I asked about this:
<div style="border: 1px dashed rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 5px;">We don't need two separate entries about Wikipedia and its bias. The protection was required because people were putting in false statements like non-Americans are more intelligent and Conservapedia should be criticized (for its free speech?). The entry became a place for Wikipedians to spread more falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)</div>
:There is much I want to say in reply to this, but at best, it wouldn't change his mind, and at worst, it would get me banned. Let's just smile and nod, it takes less energy than fighting a lost fight. *shrugs* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks for pointing that out. But in response to [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s reason, couldn't the wikipedia article be an article about wikipedia, not it's bias? like starting date, multiple languages, etc and the Bias page be used for the bias info? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: OK, that's a good idea. I'll reopen the page for factual information like what you suggest. We could all benefit from that. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Renaissance's Inspiration? ==

I would like to dispute item 4 on the list of examples of bias. It is stated that the Renaissance was primarily inspired by Christianity. This is not the case, however; the Renaissance was a return to the values, ideas, and artistic style of pre-Christian times, specifically those of classical Greece.

== My response ==

I'm just listing what I think of these.

# So? If you were a Jew, would you be offended for people not using the Hebrew calendar? And how does wikipedia not give credit to christianity 
# How is this bias? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... having an entry on it isnt bias. It does not support or oppose anti-racist mathematics.
# Again, how is this bias? It says specifically that a small number of people believe this, and is cited well. And saying that 'no credible historian makes such a claim' is both false and biased.
# There are alot of Renaissances. Look at wikipedia's article on 'Italian Renaissance'. Christianity is credited on that article.
# Why is this still here? I think its been discussed on the talk page.
# How does it read 'like a brochure for the abortion industry'?
#
# Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias, does not include articles that are insignificant. Conservapedia only recently became famous; therefore, in response to publicity, the entry was created. It makes sense. And although wikipedia's article may include 'obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements', I could say the same for this article as well. And even if it does have out-of-date citations, why are you using them in all of the 'Wikipedia later removed this error' examples?
#
# There is no point of view. It states the opinions of others; it does not say 'JPandS is an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.'
# 'Out of date.'
# Using 'foreign' spellings is not bias.
# The article on Benjamin Franklin says 'A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing "erratum".' Another out of date citation?
# How can you distort and omit facts at the same time? And if those are true, then that would be an error, not bias.
# How is that gossip? A famous person becoming injured isnt gossip. Would you consider Dick Cheney shooting somebody with a shotgun gossip?

Ill stop here. Feel free to respond ><

== Toronto Evening Star and Statistics ==
The Toronto evening star apparently liked the statement that wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Mathematically flawed arguments in the ''bias article'' are like giving freebies to the liberals. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 22:00 (AEST)

== Liberal Wikipedians as compared to conservative Wikipedians ==

The referenced links only represent an extremely small percentage of Wikipedia's total membership. This really invalidates it, and I would remove that particular point if I didn't fear the consequences. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fear not, you couldn't remove it anyway: The article is protected. And this issue has been mentioned a few times by now, with the most prominent one (in my eyes) being in [[#We need to decide what this list is|We need to decide what this list is]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, all polls or sample sizes are "an extremely small percentage" of the population. That does not make it invalid.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It does. The Harris poll was contained from a statistical significant sample of 6,000 people, and the results were weighted for sex, education, age, etc to have the outcome match the general population. Also, it had 3 possible answers: conservative, moderate, liberal.

:::The wikipedia numbers are based on a selfselected sample of about 300 people who felt like putting political orientation into their profile. This sample is unlikely to be representative for the 3.8 million wikipedians. Even if your guts tell you that a rate 3 to 1 liberal is close to reality. Its your guts that say this, because these numbers don't prove anything. These numbers are not corrected for age, sex, education. And there are only two choices: liberal, and conservative (in contrast to 3). And the way you compute with fractions is even fundamentally flawed, even if the numbers were right and significant, but that a different issue altogether.

:::: No, the sample is not merely 300 people in the Wikipedia. It's thousands, or millions, of which well over 300 people responded. It is MORE reliable than a poll that only contacts a few hundred people. The Wikipedia survey is like an election, where people have the option of voting or not voting. That is MORE accurate than a telephone poll that does not expressly give people that option.

:::::''What survey?'' Nowhere on Wikipedia does ANYBODY go all "Hey, if you like, you can add these silly labels to your userpage!". Few people know of this category, fewer people are Americans who these labels apply to, even fewer people care enough about them. Jimmy Wales himself said that he discourages these things, so EVEN fewer people will slap one of those things onto their pages. Your "survey" is like me setting up a poll on a site somewhere and then not advertising it. My sample size automatically becomes "All users of the Internet", and that makes it a valid survey. If just ten people reply, it won't matter since millions of people participated - they just chose not to take the poll.
:::::Look, I know you're very proud of this claim, but let it go. You have no basis for stating that Wikipedia is more of ANYTHING. These things are no poll, no survey, no anything. You've had your fun, the press in one or two countries at least made fun of it, but that's it. Keeping it in will only show that you're stubborn even in the face of people openly mocking it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Since this is the only '''bold''' statement in the entire article on bias in Wikipedia, it better be right. However, it is wrong on so many levels. The only thing that speaks for it that it coincides with your gut feeling. It is a gift to any liberal who wants to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. Its like starting a football match and giving away penalty kicks to the opponents. --[[User:Order|Order]] 10:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

:::: This debate illustrates how the problem is more than the fact that Wikipedia is liberal. It is that Wikipedians won't admit they are liberal. That's what makes Conservapedia so much better. We're up-front about our point-of-view. Liberal Wikipedians pretend they are not liberal, when they are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry to be so blunt, but this is just a weasel statement, because you won't admit that you used bad statistics combined with poor fractional math. If wikipedia is so secretive to not provide any good numbers, then don't use their numbers. There are many good points you could make, but this is not one of them. Its a godsend for the liberals. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

== How are we supposed to contribute? ==

You say to contribute to the page, yet how, if it is locked to prevent editing?
:Post here and a mod will add it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you're talking about the kangaroo page, I locked it because an edit war with some guy who kept posting that creationism was stupid was tying my hands up. I didn't have time to explain it at the time. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely locking a page for reasons other than vandalism is detrimental to the whole point of wiki software. --[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)