Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-14T04:19:44Z

EdmundG:

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-13T23:07:16Z

EdmundG:

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-13T03:43:58Z

EdmundG:

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-12T04:58:53Z

EdmundG: /* Wikipedia is helpful */

== FAQ ==
''This section will be expanded as it becomes apparent what our new audience wishes to know.''
::''See also : [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]''

=== '''Why is registration necessary?''' ===

Conservapedia discourages anonymous contribution, preferring to lend accountability to our articles by requiring users contribute with an account, based on their real name (first name, last initial).

=== '''Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?''' ===

Conservapedia is up front about our beliefs and our politics - obviously. Despite this, some might say we have a bias towards the truth. To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias.

== WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS ==

=== Please comment or ask questions here: ===
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''

"To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias."
Not to forget those who have ever read a book and the ones that did not grow up in a cave.

I'm a wakkkkkkyyyyyyyy dem haha so everything I see on this site are such lies. It's apparent to me that you run your whole site off of lies and brainwash of the general public. So I have a question how do you sleeep at night if I wad you I'd just huddle in my bed sucking my thumb yelling for my momy. This site makes me wonder do you have a mom or a sole for that matter or did you just spawn out of the mud one day. The sad part is, I'm 15 and I see through your lies. Who ever reads this should tell me what you think at www.myspace.com/brenton_lemay "Brenton".

hi, i am a Canadian and even i can see that you use facts that have more holes than swiss cheese and are backed up by so called 'experts' that don't even have degrees in the subjects they talk about.

I'll start. How are we supposed to do that when you haven't opened this page up to editing by users who aren't registered? Whoops!

:By registering, I'd say. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:39, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Doesn't that seem needlessly insular to you? While registering is simplistic, this also seems heavily uninviting to new visitors.

:Well ultimately, we're about building an useful educational resource. Anyone who wouldn't even bother registering probably isn't really interested in making substantive contributions. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:45, 8 December 2009 (EST)

I'd forgotten how full of himself Colbert is. Unbelievable. It's a good thing O'Reilly is a rerun tonight, or I don't think I could take this.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 07:07, 9 December 2009 (EST)

The one night Colbert might have some honest, conservative viewers, and he gives half his show over to this Marxist nutcase.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 07:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Haha. Colberts the man. People anyone who has a problem with colbert caz hes full of himself?! Thats an act... COlberts the man!!!! bill o reilly is a hypocrit nut job along with glenn beck and all of his fox news hypocritical bias friends. u might as well delete this because you don't agree with me, bias BS.
00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)~~

So, if you look at the entry on Global Warming here on Conservapedia it's blatantly obvious that there is extreme conservative bias. The first paragraph is nothing more than a subtle attack on the subject from a right wing point of view. A non bias entry would give a definition and only state the evidence for and against it and nothing else. An objective viewpoint sits in the middle and draws no conclusions. Anything that disagrees with the values of Conservapedia is immediately deemed "liberal." Here is the first paragraph from the Global Warming entry: ''The Global warming theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. Liberal scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. [1] By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.''

Conservapedia, it's great that your publishing the ultra-conservative point of view. Just don't try to claim that it is objective. It's not. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 09:49, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I heard about this on the colbert report. I haven't had much time to explore the site, but being a senior in a public high school that was raised in an extremely conservative household, I think it's great that someone would take the time to put something like this together. Having just done a paper on organic foods, I also think it's good to see a mass media source that dares to show the conservative side of the argument and not a bunch of liberal bs about how great a starving, communist society would be.[[User:Desertdog|Desertdog]]

I'm a big Colbert and Jon Stewart fan. So obviously I was hesitant to come to this website after the interview on the Report. But I did, mostly because the guest told Colbert that this is a non-liberal-biased website. Now, to me (and my stupid little non-conservative brain), that meant that this website would try and steer clear of any bias because it claims to present the truth. I read some pages. And now I want to throw up. Thank you all for cementing my political and personal beliefs by creating a website that is the antithesis to it all. I know now why we'll never reach an understanding; your beliefs are based on false "facts" and ignorance, mine aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. God only knows that you'll probably start a war on me though. Oh well.

Wow - reading this site I can't tell if you people are insane, ignorant, malicious or a combination of the above. I don't consider myself a liberal by any means but good heavens you just HAVE to know that most of your articles are outright lies. None of the articles I've read are not at all suitable for research and some contain almost no truth. I also find your complete idiocy regarding the e.coli experiment unfathomable. It makes me physically ill to see people so uneducated, so superstitious and so ideologically poisoned affecting young minds. I understand now why this site is such a laughing stock. Most of your views are for comic reasons. I know the colbert nation is going to find this quite amusing. I hope you grow up one day and give up the lie your living on conservapedia. [[User:Hryden|Hryden]] 00:49, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I can't wait to watch the interview. Also, I'm actually Hojimachong. Hi Andy and TK and other assorted admins! I'm sincerely looking forward to acquiring a copy of this conservative Bible. Godspeed! -[[User:DavidCarlson|DavidCarlson]] 00:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I'm a little new here, but isn't most of this website in violation of Commandment #6: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."?
:You're joking right? This entire site is opinion - I mean they do have an article here that claims dinosaurs may still be among us ... [[User:Hryden|Hryden]] 00:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Yeah I was kidding, actually I originally thought that Colbert's team had made this site up a some sort of joke.

In response to the comment about Colbert "wasting" half his show - he has guests from all over the political spectrum. I respect that a lot, despite disagreeing with several of his guests. And though it's masked in comedy, he does give enough speaking time to let the guest get a point across. It's a good way to complete complete one-sidedness. And on that note, just because this site can boast of not having a liberal bias, doesn't mean it is superior. Any bias at all provides only partial information; so don't think a conservative bias is something to brag about.

: Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. Conservative approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth. The liberal Hillary Clinton, for example, will never say anything that might interfere with her political ambitions, regardless of what the truth is. And I don't mean to single her out; her approach is typical for liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Society evolves. You don't think the rules by which society lives should evolve to match that? Either way, only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Even the most specific statistics can be skewed, and unless you're giving only raw facts, and ALL raw facts, you're not giving the entire story. Is that really possible in the media? No. But deliberately giving only half the information available is essentially a lie of omission.
::Though I don't know your name since you didn't sign your comment, I like where you're going when you mentioned, "only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on," because that's exactly what you see and what you get from [[Wikipedia]]. It's what sets [[Conservapedia]] apart from the [[liberal bias]] and [[censorship]] practices used by the [[MSM]] and the [[liberal]] Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia understands and knows that, as Andy Schlafly said,
::{{cquote|Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. [[Conservative]] approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth.}}
::And that's the truth. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 04:12, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, Derek, it's a circular argument. Conservatism cannot lay claim to the truth any more than liberalism can. Despite what Andy would have you believe, there is nothing inherent in conservatism that makes it rely more heavily on objective truth. Both ideologies respond to truth and morality as they see it. Liberal extremists are just as convinced that their beliefs are based on the world as it is, as opposed by the conservative desire to blindly maintain the status quo. Only a truly egocentric person would believe either of these extreme viewpoints. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Insufficient, I think you missed the primary argument regarding the [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia]]. Two major differences include: (A) Conservapedia does not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules. (B) Conservapedia allows original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research." Conservapedia does not restrict research for articles in that manner. Wikipedia, however, restricts research to that of mostly opinion articles written by journalists who are mostly or always liberal; and thus, censor facts because of their personal ideology. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::No, I did read the primary argument regarding the difference. I just happen to think that it's silly. At best, you've replaced liberal censorship of conservative facts with conservative censorship of liberal facts. I think that if that were simply the case and if it were done at the same level of Wikipedia, most people would be fine with this site (though still disagree). In fact, that's what people expect when they visit the site. However, the reason that so many people are opposed to Conservapedia is that you take the issues of Wikipedia and multiply them tenfold. You replace minor biases in wording with complete lies. You replace fringe sections of ideological dissent with complete removal of disagreement. You literally mock those who disagree rather than actually trying to prove them wrong (see Evolution Syndrome). Believe me, nothing about the articles on this site is more "intellectual." As one of those "educated liberals" that Andy dislikes so much, I can say that with confidence. It promotes a more emotional atmosphere, which is an entirely different thing. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 12:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. Sometimes the truth can be disheartening to others and may cause some to lash out. The only consideration I can think of at the moment is that, in retrospect, I suppose it reaches a point where, after some individuals refuse to admit or believe the truth and at the same time omit the truth, there's no other reaction left from dissenters except to mock the opponent for their sincere foolishness. Here's a great example, regarding John Holdren telling Congress that the Earth could be reaching a Global Warming ‘tipping point’ that would be followed by a dramatic rise in sea level. I'm sure his false comments strike fear in some people, as it is intended to; however, since [[Climategate]] revealed the facts about these fraudulent claims of [[Global Warming]], it reaches to a point where this will occur:
::::::{{cquote|Milloy said the models used by climate scientists, especially those who contributed to the most recent United Nations IPCC report, do not take account of some huge factors -- including the sun and clouds. “The models exclude that big yellow ball in the sky and they also exclude those white fluffy things that float by,” Milloy mocked. “Both of those have dramatic effects on climate on a daily basis.”[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58316]}}
::::::Sure, you could simply ignore what Milloy is saying in spite of its truthfulness; or, contrarily, you could refuse to admit truth and throw up a smoke n' mirrors fit about how Milloy mocked Holdren for making such ridiculous claims. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:36, 10 December 2009 (EST)

: You failed to grasp the point I was making. I'm not defending Wikipedia. I'm simply saying that it's hypocritical of you to condemn Wikipedia for being biased, and then proudly proclaim your own bias. I've said twice now, all that means is that you're boasting of a lie of omission. Just because we agree that a liberal bias is a bad thing, doesn't mean you're better because you're biased to the conservative side instead. And if you agree with where I was going that it's wrong either way, then you agree that you are just as wrong with your conservative bias as many other "sources" are with their liberal bias. That's all I'm saying. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 11:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Also, BOTH sides have basis in truth. It's a matter of to what extent they ignore other truths that don't support their opinion that the factual basis they start out with builds up to falsehoods. And both sides are guilty of that. Not to mention, many things hotly debated in politics are either matters of perspective (i.e. moral issues, where there really is no clear-cut right and wrong, as everyone reaches their own set of values through their own life experiences), or matters of educated guessing (i.e. economic issues, where you can look at how it's worked historically and look at the various ways you think things will pan out, but you won't know exactly how an economic policy will affect the economy at any specific time or under any specific circumstances until it's been enacted). (Holy run-on sentence, Batman. Sorry about that. Having trouble articulating myself today.) Even for other issues, like environmental issues, it comes down to realizing there is some truth in both arguments. I guess my frustration is how dogmatic you are about conservatism, and I can't help but wonder how you can see that as a good thing. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 11:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::The problem with your logic is that you're assuming the only difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is strictly political. It's not. It's also the academic resources that are allowed in Conservapedia but not Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia allows opinions of journalists to be repeated there as though they are facts. Instead, Conservapedia requires authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' biased opinion. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

We're not HIDING a liberal view. This is CONSERVAPEDIA - if somebody wants to hear the liberal side of an issue, they're not going to come here. They go to wikipedia or metapedia or a site of vandals and troublemakers or some other liberal wiki. We exist to provide a conservative resource, and we fill that role very well. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Yes, but in admitting that, you are admitting to the aforementioned lie of omission, which is essentially the entire basis for the site. Not something to brag on. So if there's going to be an argument about how terrible a thing liberal bias is, it would by hypocritical not to acknowledge that you are doing the exact same thing with the other end of the political spectrum and thus are, by your own definitions, equally wrong.

Not really. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view; Conservapedia can hardly be accused of the same thing. But before you accuse us of being one-sided, I encourage you to be a little more open-minded and read some of our articles. You'll be surprised how often a straightforward and honest presentation of facts will come off as conservative - there's a good reason for this. Conservative thought is based on facts and reason, so it's no surprise that in being honest and accurate, we're accused of having a strong bias by people who don't realize this.
Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:A lot of places "claim" to be neutral. But true neutrality is impossible; even if all you give is facts, the selection of facts will still present a bias. Basic knowledge of mass communications tells you that. And anyone who has had enough experience with rhetoric and propaganda can pick up on things like that. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:A question, while yes Colbert reminded of this website, I do remember coming here a few years and it saddens me to see you are now "trustworthy." Doesn't seem like anywhere is truly "trusworthy" anymore :-( [[User:Stjimmy33|Stjimmy33]] 01:27, 9 December 2009 (EST)

It's probably worth noting that Colbert's "full of himself" act is an intentional parody of various right-wing political commentators (particularly Bill O'Reilly). I did find it funny when Andy discussed the number of viewers that this site receives. I'm sure that there are lots of people who prefer Conservapedia because it reinforces their worldview (woe to the poor youth that are brought up to think of it as unbiased alternative to Wikipedia), but I think that Andy seriously underestimates (or chooses to ignore) the large number of people who visit this site for personal amusement. Conservapedia was personally recommended to me as a "hilarious way to waste time" between meetings, and that is how all of my colleagues view it. Some of it's assertions are so extreme and hypocritical that many people believe it to be a satire in itself, comparable to Stephen's Colbert's act. Overall, the interview began relatively uninteresting, but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned. What Andy described (i.e., individuals monitoring each other to ensure authenticity) does exist; it's called Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia is vulnerable to vandalism, but that is the price of having access to a wide breadth of knowledge with the benefit of self-monitoring. You can't have it both ways. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 01:33, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Insufficient, it's true that we block a lot more often than Wikipedia, and we don't give vandals 3 or 4 chances as Wikipedia does. However, for every vandal Wikipedia receives, there are a dozen legitimate users just waiting to undo the vandalism. Here, we have comparitively few editors trying to hold back a tide of vandalism, many of it quite shocking and disgusting, on this site, which is designed to be family-friendly. We ban users for vandalism, and we get a lot of it. But we do not ban because somebody disagrees with us, and I can prove it.
:A user, BMcP, has done tremendous work contributing to our astronomy articles, but repeatedly put old-Earth viewpoints in. He wasn't banned, though! Instead, he and I reached an amicable agreement where we would treat old-Earth and young-Earth views in seperate sections, and that is how it is done now. Conservapedia is full of examples of conflict resolution and fair treatment of users just like that. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::But, for a counter-example, look at the entire relativity talk pages. A handful of technically competent editors (including RSchlafly, who appears to be a solid contributor to the site, have been shouted down by one person: ASchlafly. The relativity page is not "the best of the public" but rather the personal (and scientifically incorrect!) opinion of ASchlafly. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 10:30, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:''"..but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned."'' Insufficient, that remark of yours sounded exactly like the emails from CRU. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::''Best. Response. Ever.'' And so true! I think he'd fit right in with the [[Climategate]] scientists. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If that is the case Jacob, why does the article on evolution seem to neglect the vast abundance of supportive evidence in its favour? It certainly isn't hard to find someone that is able to make a valid argument for evolution, and yet the page not only makes no reference to it, but often falsely denies its existence. That page alone fully disproves Andy's claim that conservatism gives priority to truth. In the place of real facts, we get denial and an irrelevant picture of Hitler to ensure that everyone gets the idea (whether consciously or unconsciously) that evolution is evil. This is in spite of the fact that social darwinism (a misnomer) is actually not part of natural selection. I'm not saying that the effects of social darwinism should be brushed under the rug, but throwing an image of Hitler into an article about evolution is ridiculous and is fully intended to evoke emotion rather than thought. I could just as easily throw up an image of Osama Bin Laden in an article on the evils of religious faith, but that would be lazy. Once you have your facts about evolution, THEN you can worry about discussing it's social misunderstandings. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 02:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:First of all, that's not Andy's claim, that's what conservative MEANS. Second, there are no valid arguments for evolution. If you wish to deny that social darwinism came from regular darwinism, go do it on Wikipedia. Finally, throwing UBL on a page on relgiious extremism would be silly - there are many fundamentalist Islamic clerics who, despite whatever other shortcomings they may have, are not terrorists. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

That's exactly my point. There are even more evolutionists that, "despite whatever shortcomings they may have," aren't Hitler, thus making his picture silly. As for valid arguments for evolution, there are many...they're not hard to find either. Despite what this site would have you believe, there is fossil evidence to support it, it follows naturally from what we already know (beyond doubt) from animal domestication, and it's been shown experimentally in the lab with bacteria (some of the only lifeforms with short enough lifespans that we can observe it occur). Even if an individual chooses to ignore all of this evidence, which is fully within their right to do, it is still far more support than exists for any opposing argument. Yet it's all noticeably missing from the article on evolution...and I have a feeling that if I added it, it would quickly disappear. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 02:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:All your supposed arguments are wrong, just as any argument supporting a "flat earth" are wrong, because they draw a false conclusion. We don't put falsehoods into the encyclopedia. Hitler practiced the theory of evolution; any evolutionist who does not support Hitler may be morally admirable but lacks the courage of their convictions. Terrorism is not the practice of religious fundamentalism, it is the practice of a very specific kind of Islamic fundamentalism - there is a difference. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 02:50, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Your arguments just keep further proving the point I'm trying to make. Yes, there is a difference between religion and terrorism, just as there is a difference between evolution and eugenics. You don't get to hand pick your facts in order to support your conclusion while denying others. Hitler didn't practice "the theory of evolution," he practiced eugenics. It's possible to believe in evolution and be morally opposed to eugenics, just as it is possible to be a religious fundamentalist and oppose terrorism. There is nothing inherent in the theory of evolution that promotes eugenics, just as there is nothing inherent in religion that promotes terrorism. Yet in each case, the two occasionally coexist. Also, claiming that all my arguments are wrong without giving any clear reason doesn't actually refute the arguments. I could just as easily claim that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because all of the evidence in support of it draws a "false conclusion" (this argument can be made for ANY theory). However, I can deny it until I'm blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the evidence does exist, and the heliocentric theory of the solar system is in plenty of encyclopedias, along with evolution. Scientific theories are never "proven." They are only supported or refuted. In the case of evolution, there is strong support--far more than for any alternative explanations. If support for evolution draws a false conclusion, it is impossible to argue that support for creationism is any different. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 03:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::No, Insufficient, it is your argument that proves our point. You're basically stating that evolution is a fact based on "support". What kind of "support"? Scientific consensus? A lot of people agreeing that it's true? Where's the proof? All I've been seeing is Mr. Scientist ''saying'' that animal-A evolved into animal-B - he's ''saying'' it is true; he's not ''proving'' it's true. As to your argument that it was settled in the lab with bacteria or the animal farm with domestication, well, that involves the interference of man in the results. Sorry to break your bubble, but your explanations are just insufficient. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No, actually I didn't claim that evolution was a "fact," and saying so is blatantly misrepresenting my argument. I'm saying that it is a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it...moreso than is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted by the scientific community. That is the definition of a good scientific theory. Any theory that doesn't have any evidence to support it isn't worth anyone's time. I don't actually care whether you or anyone else believes in evolution, but when you (or anyone) outright lies about facts, I'm going to call you on it. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is evidence to support it, and by discrediting evolution for "lack of evidence," you are actually doing even greater harm to the theory of creationism, which has significantly less (arguably none, but I will humour you and pretend there is some). That is why there is no scientific debate about the existence of evolution. Is it a fact? Like any scientific theory, we can never say yes, but it is likely beyond reasonable doubt. As for the interference of humans, that doesn't actually matter as much as you like to believe. Whether humans interfered or not, animal domestication has proven that the heritability of traits can lead to huge changes in animal appearance and behaviour, so that after many generations, it becomes generally unrecognizable. How does this shaping occur? By utilizing natural processes: to breed an animal in favour of a particular trait, you select animals that have that trait and allow them to spread their genes. That isn't evolution; that's genetics, and we already know that it occurs from something as basic as family resemblance (for the record, this is what inspired Hitler, not evolution). The theory of natural selection merely takes what we already know about genetics and takes it to the next logical step. Why wouldn't the same rules that apply to a domesticated animal also apply in nature? If an animal has some advantage that allows it to spread its genes more than others, why wouldn't it follow the same laws? If they are in fact God's laws, you're accusing Him of inconsistency without any clear justification. And with regard to Andy's argument about "evolution syndrome," that's just called a lazy argument. I could just as easily claim the existence of a "creationist syndrome," with the exact same symptoms, but I should hope that if I was that desperate for an argument, someone would call me on it. If my explanations are insufficient (using a self-disparaging username for a pun isn't nearly as clever as you might think...), then I recommend making some of your own. Perhaps you should educate me on what a good argument with solid, logical conclusions would look like. Because so far it has all been denial, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 13:32, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::What rubbish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4 What is "wrong" about this? What doesn't make sense of the theory of evolution? Where are you saying "that's impossible"? Your, or my, inability to comprehend a theory doesn't make it lies. 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST) {{unsigned|Rutger}}
::::You don't have proof that Evolution is fact. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:::::No I don't as unlike many conservapedia regulars I don't claim to be an expert on every subject rather I defer to people who are and who do have evidence which you can continue to deny. I noticed you failed to answer to the questions though (you want to wait for Andy's script so you don't get anything wrong?) and now that Andy is trying to pretend this isn't a dictatorship those who dare question your fragile world view aren't being immediatly banned. How inconvienient for you. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'd just like to ask here for the opinions of some of the people here: Do you believe that the best place to learn about a topic is an encyclopedia that has bias but doesn't admit it, that has bias and admits it, or that has no bias whatsoever? [[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 07:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Just watched the show and I was surprised that Colbert didn't go as hard on Mr. Schlafly as I expected. For instance, Schlafly claimed that Conservapedia is a site where the best of the common people make their contributions and the correct information 'bubbles to the top.' However, it's hard to see how this can happen if articles like Evolution ("ARTICLE OF THE YEAR EDITION") are completely locked down. Granted, I understand the administrators have a legitimate need to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia has the same problem sometimes - but the article is basically cemented in a controversial, inaccurate, and poorly written form. For instance, the first paragraph includes the sentence -- "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." This has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, doesn't transition into the next paragraph, and just feels like a cheap attempt to take a shot at the theory within a poor thesis statement. And seriously guys, the pictures of Hitler and Stalin are laughable. Did they also get slapped into the articles on socialism, homosexuality, and Islam? - Montag

: We keep as many articles open for general editing as often as possible. Even when an article is "locked", it is still open for editing by frequent contributors who have earned additional privileges. Unfortunately, there is a characteristic known as [[evolution syndrome]] that will obsessively rant and rave about the topic, deny clear factual truths, and never stop until all criticism of evolution and its adherents is censored. Wikipedia is a home for that approach, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

public school education: i am a loyal fan of Colbert and would like to say a couple of things. 1) i am half republican and have democrat (my dad is republican and my mom is a democrat and i like different ideas from both groups.)2)i have gone to a private school my entire life and i have never gone to the office once. i have never been punished and i have received straight A's since i was in fifth grade. therefore by you guys saying that every Colbert nation member has been public school educated and are all rebellious is not only overly general but obviously not true. you undermine any true statement that you make by obviously making up information.

: Private school students are less than 10% of the population, so you're the exception rather than the rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::have you actually taken a scientific survey or are you making up information that would suit your argument. How sad because no doubt some of the things that you say are true but by being intellectually dishonest you blur any positive potential education of your viewers. if however, your statistic is correct (please share with me the citation) that doesn't mean that only 10% of the Colbert Report viewers are privately educated.

::The article on [[evolution]] is a keeper! Don't change a bit: I love reading sentences like ''19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior'' (according to the source, both were partly right, partly wrong) [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:02, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::You'll like our entry on [[evolution syndrome]] even better. In fact, maybe you can prove first-person examples!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, you've managed to completely ignore a school of thought without having to rely on a single fact (though I'm sure that you believe otherwise). Congratulations. If your strongest arguments against evolution are ad hominem attacks, I can live with that. I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution, and I don't make a nickel for each person that I "convert." At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. In fact, if you want to believe that there is insufficient evidence for evolution, I am even fine with that (though I disagree), but don't outright lie and say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't fool anyone that has actually done the slightest bit of research. Just be aware that it is extremely inconsistent to argue that there is "insufficient" evidence for evolution and that people who believe in it are fools, yet argue that creationism is somehow founded on sound logic and conclusions. It's called hypocrisy and it seriously undermines your arguments. If your belief is based on faith, that is fine, but don't try to present it as something else. Don't pretend that the entire group of evolutionists can be summarized as closed-minded, because in addition to being gossip, it neither argues against our belief nor in favour of yours. By all means, disagree, but don't use lies to try and discredit others. Also, why is the burden of responsibility on evolutionists in order to prove themselves? Creationists are under the same obligation to rationalize their beliefs, and their arguments have to be held up to the same standards. So far, that isn't what I've seen on this site. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Wow, the article is great, too! You should add some other syndromes, while you are at it: relativism syndrome? [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 12:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)

If evolution is undeniable fact, how come we never evolved a third set of teeth? Since you cannot observe evolution, and you can observe many things that would be different were evolution true, it seems to me the sensible starting point is to assume that evolution didn't happen, and wait to be proven wrong. As that has not happened yet, I'll continue to believe evolution is just an justification for social Darwinism and policies like the Nazis enacted.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 18:38, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A third set of teeth? I'm not sure who taught you the theory of evolution, but just know that you are WAY off the mark. I'm starting to think that disbelief in evolution comes from a complete misunderstanding of anything about it. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 19:18, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Exactly. Before you discount something, actually know what you are talking about. However, if people on here knew what they were talking about, most of this website, if not all of it, would not exist. As for your example, if you knew anything about evolution, you would know that we don't have a third set of teeth because we don't need one. If it benefitted people, then if and when the mutation took place in our genes, that person would thrive and have more offspring than other people, promoting this gene in future generations. I can see why evolution might confuse you if you think that it "just happens."

:But it would benefit people; that's unambiguous. Teeth go rotten, get cavities, fall out. Only recently has it become commonplace for people to keep their teeth into middle age and beyond. You need teeth to eat, see how long a chimpanzee lasts in the wild with no teeth, so I would think someone who can regrow teeth as an adult would be at a huge advantage relative to those who couldn't. Plus a full set of teeth is more attractive to the opposite sex than not, no? My argument is precisely that it does benefit us, and so the fact that it hasn't caught on is proof that evolution doesn't exist. Your problem is your mind is closed to ideas that you don't already have. I concur with Andy that you might find the article on [[evolution syndrome]] useful.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 22:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Only recently has it become commonplace for people to '''live''' into middle age and beyond.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:All the more reason why a third set of teeth would benefit humans. Can anyone here over the age of 25 really claim that getting fresh teeth would not be nice?--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 00:11, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Captain2obvious- It's only common place for liberals who want to enact global warming legislation. Liberals want everyone to live in huts of straw and forfeit the modern ages which is bad bad bad for the Earth.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:15, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's what's called a strawman. If your arguement has no merit please continue to use them and think you're superiour. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Two things: First a question. HUH?; Secondly, I am not a "liberal", as you are so implying.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Why do people who state "I am not a liberal" never state what they actually call themselves? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)
The simplest reason would be that until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Oopsy, I read your reply wrong (middle ages / middle age). I never said you were liberal, just misinterpreted your remark.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Perfectly understandable Jpatt, its not the first misunderstanding that's occurred on the Internet.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

"until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative" Forgive me for my conflicted feelings between seriously asking exactly what that means and being simply baffled by the silliness of such a statement. Split the difference: what does that mean and how in the world could a brief visit to a single website change what you consider yourself to be? Also, you still haven't stated exactly what you consider yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Let me clarify a bit then. Visiting the site has not in not the slightest changed the way I think about myself. I still consider myself Conservative. However in my "brief" time visiting this website, and after reading several of the articles and discussions, has made me question whether other people would classify me as such.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 00:50, 10 December 2009 (EST)

And I repeat, Gonzo: your understanding of natural selection is incorrect. With all due respect, it completely undermines your attempt to discredit natural selection when you don't know what you're arguing against. Evolutionists don't argue that humans (or any other species) are currently at their "peak" of evolution. People have this inflated self-view about the world revolving around them, but aside from a more advanced central nervous system, we're just another spec on the evolutionary time line. Your argument assumes that we are done evolving, which isn't the case at all (nor have I ever heard an evolutionist make this claim). That is partly why your "why aren't we the absolute best that we can be?" straw man argument doesn't work. Second, you are assuming that just because something is beneficial, that means that it will naturally occur through evolution. This is also not the position of modern evolutionists. If that were the case, beavers would have naturally evolved with chainsaws and gazelles would be able jump over rivers to escape predators. We don't automatically evolve everything that would be useful. We evolve based on the genes that are available in the gene pool. Several factors come into play here (minor random mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift...things that we know occur through research unrelated to evolution), but what is important is that evolution has to work with the genes that are available. Those that are beneficial will tend to spread, while those that are detrimental will tend to recede (though not necessarily disappear). Once again, this is fully in line with what I already described earlier with animal domestication. You can't breed a dog to fly, but you can create a lot of variability based on the existing gene pool. Finally, even if a gene does appear in the gene pool, it is more difficult to determine usefulness than you seem to think. For example, suppose that a gene did arise for an extra set of teeth (might as well work with the argument you've given). Who knows, maybe this gene does exist, did at some point, or some day will. However, it's not just a simple matter of extra teeth = good. These teeth have to come from somewhere. Your body needs to find the resources to create them. This can mean less calcium available for other sets of teeth (thus resulting in an overall reduction in a person's tooth quality), less calcium for bone production, an increased necessity for nutritious resources, etc. Everything costs something, and teeth aren't free. Every modification becomes part of a complex equation of costs versus benefits. And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution. NOTHING about evolution requires (or even asserts) that those hypothetical animals need to exist. Then again, I'm sure that this lengthy explanation will be brushed off as an "obsessive rant," because that is easier than taking it seriously... [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 12:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:''"And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution."'' - Insufficient. "Simplified?" Not so much. [[Liberal wordiness|Wordiness]] is what comes to mind. On the subject of [[evolution]], do you believe evolution happens because of ''environment'' or because of a ''need'', or is it simply a random gene mutation? ''Why does the Panda bear have a thumb?'' ;-) ...I think philosophical debates can be fun, but in many cases it doesn't prove or disprove anything, because there's usually a counter-argument to an argument. But it can bring up interesting debate topics. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::I apologize that it takes WORDS to explain a complicated process like evolution. You demand that I answer your questions, but then complain that it can't be done in two sentences or less? I'm sorry that the world isn't that simple. Believe me, what I gave was a simplified answer to Gonzo's question. You keep asking for more questions to be answered, yet you make it clear that the answers are above your head...which is it? I wouldn't be so judgemental of your position if you yourself even knew what (or why) it is. Instead you lure with baited questions, yet you have no interest in whatever answer you get. As I've stated before, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with evolution on the grounds of faith, but at least admit it to yourself. Don't pretend to be intellectual by faking interest in the other position. Don't outright lie about the facts and demonize those who choose to take a non-faith based search for the truth. If someone says that 2+2=4, don't argue that it's because of "human interference." I know that I could take you by the hand through each step of evolution and it wouldn't change your mind. One of creationism's central arguments is that it is infallibly true. I personally dislike circular arguments, so I choose to find my own path to the truth, but that is a personal choice. Even if evolution turned out to be a big hoax (I bet Andy would host a parade), at least I can say that I believed in what seemed like the most rational answer to an unbelievably complex question. I understood and questioned what I believed because I would rather LEARN that I am wrong than be TOLD that I am right. I didn't limit my knowledge by trying to keep it simple (i.e., I wasn't afraid of words). Suppose that all of this was true and evolution was finally removed from the history books...would this really help your position for creationism? Not according to the unrealistic (and silly) standards that you've a set for evolutionists. Your demand for "proof" has always been doubly harmful to creationism. But who knows? With all of that objective truth that you claim to have on your side, I imagine that you guys must be hoarding a ton of undeniable scientific evidence. In fact, with all of this ample evidence that you have (because not having it would, of course, make you a hypocrite), why would you even worry about evolution? Show us the truth. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Woah..woah...hold up. No demands or complaints from me. Thus far I've only pushed buttons; testing the sensitive spots for a reaction. All I did was attempt to open a possible door for you, as another approach for you to argue for evolution. Hence the Panda's thumb theory, which was more of a test to see if you've heard of the theory. You might like it. Point being: the best argument(s) attempting to prove a point should always be willing to counter the best argument(s) on the other side, which of course are trying to prove different point. You say, ''"Even if evolution turned out to be a big hoax, at least I can say that I believed in what seemed like the most rational answer to an unbelievably complex question."'' The logic you're using to make that conclusion, I find it interesting -- so, earlier I 'prodded' for more (or 'baited'). But it seems like you're judging me based on the community I enjoy being a part of, not on what I have said to you. I was only asking questions and looking for a logical, concise answer. Nothing more and nothing less. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 01:10, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Fair enough, but you can understand why this discussion might feel like hitting one’s head against a brick wall for me. It is pointless to bother answering questions when I know that no possible response will be taken seriously. With regards to the panda thumb, it does sound interesting, but I know very little about pandas and cannot begin to speculate on its evolutionary history. I personally can’t think of any reasons why it would throw a wrench in evolution’s gears, but I would be interested to see these theories you mentioned. I also apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you specifically. I realize that I am talking to several different people in here, and it can be difficult keep the arguments from blending together. I actually have no problem with creationism or those who believe in it. I come from a religious family and I certainly don’t think of my mother as dumb for her beliefs. She knows that her beliefs are based on faith, and although we disagree on the matter, I accept her difference of opinion. However, she doesn’t feel the need to discredit evolution because if you truly have faith in creationism, there is no need to. I respect that. I believe that my brother’s belief is more integrative. There is, after all, nothing about evolution that cannot fit into the central doctrines of Christianity. The only concession is that several stories in the Bible would need to be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. I’ve always considered this to be a better interpretation anyway, but many people do not wish to make that concession. Fair enough. My pet peeve is hypocrisy. A truly faithful creationist should have no vested interest in evolution and shouldn’t really care what side of the debate science supports. A casual interest in the matter would be fine. There’s nothing wrong with being curious about other people’s explanations. However, if a creationist decides that he or she is going to enter the science debate and fervently argue against evolution on scientific grounds, they have forfeited their “faith” argument. They have made it clear that they do believe scientific evidence is important, and thus they have to play by the same rules as evolutionists. If they try not to, I will call them on it. Admittedly, I was also trying to push some buttons. Andy has implied that there is scientific evidence for creationism, but it seems to be some closely guarded secret that nobody will share. I was trying to evoke someone into spilling the beans. It didn’t work. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 14:59, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::: I believe that that was a simplified version of evelotion. Books upon books have been written on the subject. It can be summed up in a few sentences, but then it is lacking in the crucial details you all demand.

::Exactly. And I'll point out that unlike my friends in the secular left, I don't pretend that I'm smart enough to know all of the mysteries of creation. I'm merely pointing out that it's hard to get my head around evolution when there's so many adaptations that would have been useful that we don't have, like extra teeth or the eradication of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors. But you're exactly right, I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable to understand everything about how the world works. That's why we have science, why we have the bible, indeed why we have this site, and it's all of our job to ask questions like I'm doing.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 17:38, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::So...you admit that you don't know the answer to these questions, but you smugly ask them with a clear answer in mind, denying any evidence to the contrary? I just wanted to make sure that I properly interpreted what you said. It's a bit tricky, given that I have to reconcile it with your previous comments. I agree, most people aren't scientists and don't have direct access to the evidence, but ignorance isn't a argument against evolution. Scientists do agree on evolution based on the understanding that they DO have. It sounds like you would believe in evolution if you practiced what you preached. You are also correct that science grows out asking questions...but what's the point if you don't intend to stay to hear the answer? [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, I've done my best to ascertain what the scientific community has to say about evolution. There are some who are in favor of evolution, there are some who are against it. My personal assessment is that secular humanist scientists are relatively more likely to let their own views distort their research, and I anyway find the creationist perspective more persuasive based on the facts. You should peruse our [[evolution]] entry. I certainly don't know everything, but my point was that people on the left are so sure of evolution that it might as well be some other, inaccurate religion.--[[User:Gonzo55|Gonzo55]] 21:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::With all due respect, it doesn't seem like you want to hear what the "scientific community has to say about evolution." I'm not a biologist and certainly not an expert, but it is a side interest of mine, and I have been surrounded by scientists for several years now. Also, it is not difficult to find tons of information on evolution. Although I am not biologist, I am in a discipline that works closely with biology. In all of my years at multiple universities, I have personally never met a scientist that didn't believe in evolution. I don't deny that they exist, but they are actually relatively rare. What scientists DO sometimes disagree upon is the micro-level causes for it. There is ample evidence that animals changed over time and we know a great deal about genetics as it is, but there is still more to learn. This is exactly how scientific theories emerge and it is not in any way atypical. First, the scientific community learns that a process occurs (e.g., the earth revolves around the sun), and then disputes the reasons WHY this is the case. The same controversy emerged when the aforementioned earth-sun controversy arose, and it proved that the church isn't always right on matters of science. Despite what Conservapedia would have you believe, scientists are no more stubborn than are creationists. They're both equally stubborn, but for different reasons. Scientists are stubborn because everything that creationists say is in opposition to what we see from historical evidence. Creationists are stubborn because the infallibility of their argument is one of its central tenants. I am aware of the viewpoint of evolution as another form of religion, but I would argue that it is no more a religion than is believing that the earth revolves around the sun. By that logic, believing in anything would qualify as a religion, at which point the argument becomes meaningless. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 22:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::::"Insufficient", you need to get out more if you've never met a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution. And you need to respect logic more if you think consensus establishes truth. Better yet, I urge you to give equal time to the Bible, the most logical book ever written. Based on your postings, I bet you don't spend even 5% of your spare time reading or analyzing the Bible. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Andy, like I've said, I'm sure that there are scientists out there that do deny evolution. There are fringe scientists that deny most accepted theories. I know it's pretty crucial to your argument that you disagree with me, but they are by far in the minority. Being in the fringe doesn't mean that they are wrong (I have never stated that evolution is "fact"), but it also doesn't help your argument very much. I have also never said that consensus establishes truth (you need to respect logic more if you think that lying about my argument changes the actual argument). Ironically, you are implying that consensus establishes truth with your beliefs about the Bible. What I HAVE said is that there is ample evidence for evolution--far more than is available for any competing theory. I have presented a small, simplified section of it in this discussion, but as is typical in evolutionary debates, it has been ignored. You are free to disagree and I have offered numerous opportunities for individuals to do so, but you need to do better than telling me to read the Bible. Everyone here has made it quite clear that you all have very high scientific standards for the theory of evolution--high enough that literally NO answer will ever suffice. If that is truly the standard that you wish to use, so be it, but you are obliged to be consistent in your conviction. Creationism must be held to the same strictly scientific standards, and thus I implore you to present your counter evidence. I was raised in a highly religious household, so I can say with certainty that the Bible is certainly not the most logical book ever written. It has some useful life lessons (as do many books), but my understanding is that you are currently trying to remove these useful lessons from it, so I doubt we will come to a consensus on this. What it comes down to is that you are trying to have the best of both worlds. You want to be a scientist when it comes to refuting evolution, but then be immune to the rigors of science when touting creationism. If that works for you, then you have no right to preach to me about logic. The few arguments that I've been able to draw out of this discussion have ranged from misunderstanding to blatant hypocrisy. If these are the sirens of creationism, then they need to work a bit harder on their song. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 14:54, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Andy, isn't the whole philosophical underpinning of a wiki that collaboration and consensus lead us closer to some kind of truth? In your interview, you said something along the lines of "the best of the public" engages in a "process that brings out the best," and "the truth rises to the top." Isn't this a form of consensus-making? You also likened the process to a jury decision, which is also a process of consensus-making. So, what do you mean when you when you say that someone needs "to respect logic more if [s/he] think[s] consensus establishes truth?" Also, since the discussion here seems to hinge on people demanding "proof" from other people, could you provide proof that the Bible is the most logical book ever written? By what standards do you judge logic? Have you read every single book in existence in order to come to your conclusion? --[[User:WideAngle|WideAngle]] 12:27, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::The straight scientific ''"consensus"'' on the shape of the earth in 1491 was that it was flat. Was that a right or a wrong consensus? And yes, the Bible is the most logical book ever written; by what standards do you think it's not? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::I'm not making the assertion that consensus=truth. I merely wanted Andy to explain how he can reconcile the claim that consensus does not establish truth with the philosophical underpinnings of a wiki. And the onus isn't on me to establish the standards for evaluating the logic of the Bible. I didn't make the claim that it was the most logical book ever written. It's your responsibility to support your claim that the Bible is the most logical book ever written, not mine. As people are fond of saying here, assertion is not argumentation. --[[User:WideAngle|WideAngle]] 13:23, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::: (edit conflict) Actually, as reverted [[User:GrahamGore]] pointed out, scientists then considered the earth spherical - and they actually had a better idea of its size than Columbus, and they knew he couldn't get to Asia - what they didn't know was that America was in the way. I think a better example would be bloodletting: the scientific consensus for ages was that it helped patients, when it actually was hurting them. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 13:26, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::::::::I mentioned the consensus of 1491; the previous troll went to an ''an hominem'' - and completely ignorant - argument immediately upon entering the site. As far as user WideAngle goes, he dosn't come here and make demands of us to answer his questions when he knows full well that it has been answered many times within these articles and talk pages. Now I have a question of him, and he will answer: explain the "philosophical underpinnings of a wiki" and how it's supposed to be different from everything else, and why we must conform to that explanation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 11 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::::::Since this site values conciseness, I'll be brief. I take the philosophical underpinnings of a wiki to be an investment in the idea that collaboration is the best way to produce knowledge. Rather than rely on "elite" gatekeepers, wikis rely on communal gatekeeping to establish knowledge. In other words, knowledge is formed from the bottom up, through compromise and consensus. I mentioned this in my first post, but I'll reiterate - how does this idea of publicly-formed knowledge (which, during his Colbert interview, Andy claimed was the goal of Conservapedia) fit with the kind of gatekeeping performed by the Conservapedia editors? I think it's obvious that Conservapedia is selective in presenting its facts, which is fine. Just don't claim that the site is truly user-generated. Also, if you could point me to an article that conclusively demonstrates that the Bible is the most logical book ever written, I'd be more than willing to read it. --[[User:WideAngle|WideAngle]] 16:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::::Karajou, you should read conservapedia's article on [[Flat earth]]:
:::::::::::::''The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for the purpose of slandering Christians.''
:::::::::::::Thinking that the ''scientific consensus'' in 1490 (or even 1300) was that the earth is flat, is silly. The consensus of the educated people - especially the clergy - was that the earth is spherical...
:::::::::::::[[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:03, 11 December 2009 (EST)

It's nice to finally have all of the fallacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia in one easily accessible place. I think my favorite thing about Conservapedia is the use of the Bible in what seems like every article (I haven't read every article so perhaps this is a gross generalization. But when it comes to, say, immigration is the Bible really the best source?) I will probably be using this website when I have to write papers on current situations. It will be a lot easier to just come here than to have to seek out the few religious right wingers I know for a quote. {{unsigned|Writerfish}}

: Try taking our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]. You might break the record for the lowest score!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==Registration==
You don't make it easy for a place that wants people to edit, do you? I tried after the show last night, couldn't figure it out, but managed to stumble upon one of your (stupider, and rather well hidden) policies on user names. I was able to register this morning, but if it hadn't worked, you probably would have lost a contributor forever. [[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Welcome. I don't believe stupider is an actual word.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::It isn't, but it fits the flow of what I wrote better than "more stupid" which is more correct. My word is truthier. --[[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Perhaps now is a good time for me to re-suggest the [http://conservapedia.com/Wiki/conservapedia Welcome Banner], as discussed on the [[New Welcome Banner proposal]] page. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Wow. Could you guys stop whining about registration already? I'd rather not be associated with people who can't pass the rigors of user-name creation. --[[User:Montag|Montag]] 21:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::The argument I'm making from the New Welcome Banner has more to do with creating a more welcoming entrance to the site, but also improving ease of navigation to pages that are valuable to newcomers. At one point or another every one of us was a wiki-newbie. While the easiest way to learn is through trial and error, I see no harm in facilitating the learning process by allowing new-comers to be more cognizant of the encyclopedia's rules, guidelines, how-to's, and other salient information that more advanced members already know about. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 21:59, 9 December 2009 (EST)

==Open letter to Conservapedia==

I've known about Conservapedia for months. I've been fascinated with it since my initial introduction (when the special project to reform Jesus's "groovy liberal" image was anounced on a news site).

There's some equivocating concerning the obvious bias (I think the device of substituting the word "truth" for "bias" is entertaining), but the corporation does not actually conceal its mission. Conservapedia is candid with the following facts: It represents the conservative socio-political viewpoint, it is alligned with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and it is hostile to opposing viewpoints. I note the distinction between this candor and react differently to Conservapedia than I do to a corporation like News Corp (Fox News), who boasts fairness and balance. Remember: Conservapedia does not promise balance. Yet Conservapedia is predominantly fair.

Despite an open allignment with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, Conservapedia is not contemptuous of other forms of Christianity, or even other religions. They dutifully note the basic interpretations of other scriptures like the Q'aran and Torah and tell the stories respectfully. They also include other denominations' interpretations of Biblical text without condemning them. Conservapedia articles suggest outside doctrine is foolhardy, but stops short of actually calling adherents fools.

What Conservapedia actually does is compile the conservative viewpoint in a way that incorporates most of the world's features and topics (from science to history to theology) in such a way that has the potential to reconcile problems (such as science versus ideology) and unify conservatives into a more cohesive bloc than was possible before technology of this scale. It is also a reference for non-conservatives to understand their fellow countrymen better. In my opinion, both functions have a benefit - even if I am an apostate by Conservapedia's rigid measure.

The only problem I see with Conservapedia is its deliberate mission to be more concise than its rival (and source of inspiration and design), Wikipedia. Some topics are completely sterile and do not admit any sort of bias (gravity, for example). Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion. However, Conservapedia probably actively seeks to limit the length of its articles to conform with its mission. If the latter is true, Conservapedia has turned the clock back on the encyclopedia as reference source to the days of the hopelessly out of date set of World Books that were the staple of every suburban home in the 60s and 70s. Good for identifying major breeds of dogs, but inadequate for much else.

My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen. They are not evil men and women. They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale. If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent. Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.

Respectfully, [[User:Steech|Steech]], December 10, 2009.

:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Steech, your open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal thought. It is the anathema to conciseness, so it's obvious you don't like Conservapedia's rule to be concise. We've had that rule since the very beginning and it is essential to quality learning. Wikipedia is a like a 3rd grade essay contest that gives points for more words. Here, we focus on learning and teaching, which is why we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges while I don't think Wikipedia has helped anyone do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:05, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly, accept my thanks for personally answering me. I find the attention a sign of your generosity and sincerity in your endeavor.

::My "open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal" arts educations. It also reflects a personality trait and characteristic style of communicating. Many editorialists from across the philosophical spectrum have found comfort in loquacity. My word count is high; I concede the point. However, I respectfully disagree with your accusation that I've offered a poor show of points.

::In bullet-point style, the recap reads as follows:

::*Conservapedia does not generate conservative news stories. It is a repository of conservative ideas.
::*Conservapedia acknowledges there are alternative views.
::*Conservapedia rejects alternative views, albeit with some tact.
::*Conservapedia codifies the conservative worldview in a way that will inform adherents and detractors alike.
::*Conservapedia is not an academic reference source. It is only a codex for a specific value set.

::Prosaic style does not harmonize with your editorial prerogative. I understand that and admit I would be a poor Conservapedia contribitor. However, your site and your interview on The Colbert Report prove that you are personally an intelligent man and believe your readers are intelligent as well. I think there is room in this world for people like me.

::(As an aside, I took your "Quantifying Openmindedness" article self test and satisfied your basic criteria. According to your "example questions and topics," I am not a polar ideological enemy of yours. It would seem we merely respectfully disagree.)

::To other commenters, let me be more clear on the subject of "'pedias" as academic resources. No encyclopedia article will constitute research by any discriminating instructor's measure. Maybe in elementary or junior high school. But by the time a student reaches high school or college, the encyclopedia is effectively disqualified as a citation in a research paper.

::"'Pedias" have made basic reference immediate and increased the efficiency of writers in an unprecedented way. Need to know the name of an Andy Griffith Show cast member or the name of the movie in which Don Knotts played a cartoon fish? Dial it up electronically with the help of a "'pedia."

::But do you have to write a term paper about Alexander Hamilton? Don't consult an open source, democratic 'pedia, because it will by nature contradict itself. The old school World Book and Funk and Wagnel's avoid such inconsistency only by being abbreviated to oblivion.

::My advice to the kids: Education (regardless of whether it is a conservative or liberal one) is still conducted primarily in the theaters of the juried manuscript, lecture hall, and laboratory.

::[[User:Steech|Steech]] 16:56, 11 December 2009 (EST).

:::''we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges'' That's really impressive - at least, if you can give some corroboration for this claim... [[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 17:13, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::BTW, on your user-page, you state ''My students have typically been admitted to their first choices in colleges '', followed by a list of fifty colleges. Do you think that all of these are top colleges? Only sixteen are linked to an article here at conservapedia, I suppose that these are the best. OTOH, you say that ''at least 6 students [were] admitted'' at ''Grove City College'', so taking this as an upper bound for admissions, I'd say that less than 100 students of you were helped by you into a top college. So, which other programs here at conservapedia are responsible for the next 100 successful applications?
::Otherwise: Shouldn't you leave such hyperbole to the liberals?
::[[User:ComedyFan|ComedyFan]] 17:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::ComedyFan, based on your assumption and opinion, let's say the teaching and education provided by Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia helped 100 students get into the college of their choice. That's 100 more students who benefited from the use and information from Conservapedia than what Wikipedia can claim. Conservapedia has assisted in educating 100% more students than Wikipedia - that's quite the accomplishment if you ask me. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a story awhile back about a kid who used Wikipedia as a reference for a paper - and failed the assignment for it. Yikes. If only Wikipedia held itself accountable for the quality of its articles... [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 17:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I benefit from information on wikipedia...I mean, it would be foolish to use it for a project, but anyone with an open mind who intends on doing more research, or just needs some tiny fact on an ovbscure subject (history of video gaming), than its good. [[User:DerekSmalls|DerekSmalls]] 22:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::ComedyFan, I've personally taught nearly 200 teenagers, and 10 or 100 times as many have benefited from our materials here. Take a look at the page views on my lectures. They are in the many thousands ''for each lecture''.

:::I didn't add that many of my students have won scholarships, and even graduated from college in 3 years.

:::How many lectures does Wikipedia have? Zero. How many model answers? Zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::Wikipedia isn't supposed to have lectures and model answers for one. Its an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unlike this one, which is used as a tool for teaching homeschool kids. Wikipedia isnt out to change the world into something conservative or liberal, its there to be a quick look up for random information. DerekE, If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia...or metapedia or any other wiki type thing. They are not good sources, if you want to cite something use the original source.--[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 18:22, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia ... if you want to cite something use the '''original source'''."'' -- JAiken. You just proved my point. Wikipedia doesn't allow original sources as references, while Conservapedia does. From your example, and based on the differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia, if I were using both as a tool to help for researching purposes, Wikipedia would provide me with '''''zero''''' references to help assist further research; likewise, Conservapedia will provide a vast number of properly cited, original sources for academic purposes. Wikipedia is simply filled with opinion articles from journalists. If I wanted to go read ''The New York Times'' or HuffingtonPost, I'd go directly to their Web site. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::I am sorry DerekE, but that claim is 100% false. Wikipedia does link to the original sources in their reference section. What they do not allow is original research/ideas. I think you have confused these terms and the meaning behind them. An original source is linking to the original full research paper by Craig Venter on the human genome. Wikipedia allows this and it is one of the only reasons a person should ever go to Wikipedia when doing serious work. On the other hand I cannot go to Wikipedia and post my own original thoughts/ideas/unverified research as fact. I would hope that Conservapedia does not allow that either. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 12:07, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::That's simply false. Wikipedia ''is'' propagating liberal falsehoods and censoring conservative truths, as illustrated by [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. One of the entries on that list discusses how Wikipedia editors have been 6 times more liberal than the general public.

::::If Wikipedia were designed to help people as Conservapedia does, it would be very different indeed. Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, just because Wikipedia doesn't set out to "help(?)" individual students, it is still a place of information. I'm sure that plenty of people who might otherwise no have access to information have benefited from it.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 21:29, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::The ''National Enquirer'' "is still a place of information," so you can't be serious in proposing that as the test. Verbose gossip and/or liberal distortions may cause more harm than good, particularly for students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::: You may be right on that fact. Conservapedia is a place of "information," but "conservative" distortions may cause more harm than good, particularly for the easily manipulated.[[User:Captain2obvious|Captain2obvious]] 21:33, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::You're long on rants, but awfully short on specifics ... because you have none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If you still want evidence that Wikipedia helps students, it has certainly helped me. And before you say that all it does is teach liberal bias, I'd like to see how you bias math. In fact, Andrew used math as an example of objective truth in the interview. Wikipedia has numerous and detailed articles on numerous math topics and is an invaluable resource on learning things that the public education system never teaches.
I have been unable to find any similar math articles on Conservapedia by the way.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 21:36, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:::::The National Enquirer is in no way a reputable source of information. Nor is Wikipedia, unless you only use it for the primary sources it lists in the citations section. 6 times as liberal? Pray tell. How do you quantify liberality? Is it just some litmus test you randomly developed on this site or is there some sort of physical test? Tell me, if I support evolution, oppose gun control, and think Obama is a traitor, how many times more liberal am I than you? Would that number change if I was believed that evolution was false? What about if I wanted to burn all the books dealing with relativity because it distracts from reading the bible? --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 21:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:: I can give an example of a conservative distortions being used to cause harm, Uganda. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 21:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

In response to Edmund, your claim is not credible because it lacks specifics. Many liberals like Wikipedia's bias and would claim it has helped them simply to promote it further. That doesn't wash. I've looked at many of Wikipedia's math entries and can't say I've learned anything of value from any of them. They are not concise and clear, and many of them seem to deliberately obscure. Their entry on Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, omits how it relies on the Axiom of Choice. Wikipedia even deleted its entry on the important concept of an [[elementary proof]], and only added its current version after I pointed that out as an example of bias. Our explanation is better even now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:I hate to break it to you Andy, but you can’t tell someone, “No, you didn’t learn anything from Wikipedia.” That’s a lazy argument, even by the standards of this website. I’ve learned things from Wikipedia many times, specifically to clarify statistical concepts. Your argument doesn’t even try to make sense here. There are SOME errors on mathematical concepts, ergo absolutely nothing on Wikipedia is useful? Well, I better bring my last assignment back to the professor and inform him that he accidentally marked several incorrect questions as correct; I was apparently using liberal statistics! Do you have any idea how many math related pages there are on Wikipedia? Of course there are going to be errors. Even my TEXTBOOK has errors. Also, I don’t want my encyclopedia to dumb material down for the sake of being concise. A complex mathematical concept shouldn't be simplified so that "even Andy can understand it." It should be explained in it's entirety because it targets a more educated audience than, say, an article on Pokemon. If I am reading an article that is above my head, I don't try to blame someone else for my own shortcomings. If you don’t want to read, maybe an encyclopedia isn’t the place to go...I’m sure there are lots of picture books at the local library. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:11, 11 December 2009 (EST)

It seems that this website is full of contradictions. An encyclopedia with an admitted bias, but says its trustworthy? Bias is inherent in everything but if we say that it is okay even good then there is no attempt to actually reach the unbiased truth. Bias is not good but shouldn't we be trying to move away from it and not embracing it. If this website says something that is completely at odds with what the rest of the world believed it wouldn't matter because there is an inherent interest in providing one side. That tends to come at the expense of truth. This website seems to dislike the MSM but if they so something with obvious bias someone can call them on it. If this website does something with obvious bias that's fine. If journalists are all biased in the main stream media then how do you get information? There are plenty of right wing commentators but you can't create facts out of commentary. People have to actually report the information. Why are there adults making fun of people who don't agree with them? I would also like to take issue with what truth is thought of as. Taking original intent in your view of the constitution and reducing government power does not make your political ideology any more truthful. Just as trying to make the government more powerful and interpreting the constitution more broadly does not make a political ideology any more truthful. I am mystified how believing these things adds to truth. Truth is what is actual reality. Neither changing government power or interpreting a piece of writing really leads to truth. --[[User:johnsm]] 21:30, 10 December 2009 (est)

:One thing i've noticed is that there has been no data actually presented in these cases aside from anecdotal evidence. Also, just because You, or someone, hasn't learned from something doesn't make it invalid, it just means that you either A) knew the information already and didn't need to re-learn it, or B) didn't take the effort to learn, and therefor passed it by.

:Also, conservative distortions, just like liberal ones, cause harm every day in the world. Take for example Iran, Sudan or Somalia [all of which follow 'religious conservative' governments], the deaths of Dr. Teller or Dr. Gunn, the thousands of children that died from measles [easily preventible by vaccination] last year, or any other examples you would wish me to point out. I won't get into the historical arguments here, to save space. That is not to say that liberalism doesn't have the same, or worse, negative effect on the world. The current Swiss ban on minarets comes to mind. I just wanted to point out that distortions from both sides are harmful and should be eliminated.

:And, to finish off, I just wanted to say it's good to be back. I'll be looking forward to debating with you all again. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 08:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::Cody, we explain what [[conservative]] means, and it includes limited government. This concept is not running the governments you mentioned. Next you act like liberal/conservative are symmetric with respect to the truth. That's plainly false, as illustrated by our entry on [[deceit]]. I urge you, I beseech you, I beg you: spend at least 5% of your spare time reading or translating a ''logical'' book: the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:28, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, I like how you frequently use your own articles to support your arguments, yet condemn liberals for using biased resources. Keep up the good work! [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:31, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:::Conservatives don't want limited Government, they want their own government, as outlined by their moves to block stem cell research, abortion, gun control, amnesty, alternative energy, and a range of other topics at the national and federal levels. The truth is symmetric to the truth, and is both apart from and twisted by both sides of the political spectrum, conservatives and liberals alike. And I have read the bible before, once as a child and once during my crisis of belief after entering the military, which led me to my agnosticism. If you want me to read it again, then I find it fair that I ask you to look at the evidence for relativity, evolution, and other topics without the biblical worldview. I may find something new in my next reading of the Bible, or you might find something new in your next examination of the secular world. As they say, Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted. How about it? -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 14:32, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Cody, There is a marked difference between limited govt. and no govt. A conservative recognizes the need for government to perform certain necessary roles. (including the abolition of outlawing such moral travesties as Slavery, the slaughter if innocent children, i.e. abortion, etc.) The nation must have laws, and those laws that we do have must be enforced. (including immigration laws) If you don't enforce the laws, they cease to be relevant. And FYI, the conservative position on gun control is one of limited government. More gun control = more government. I don't know of any conservative who is opposed to alternative energy. It's wasteful government subsidies that we oppose, once again in keeping with our ideas of limited government. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:00, 11 December 2009 (EST)

== Wikipedia ''is'' helpful ==

Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.''

If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, wikipedia's. Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO3.

In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by wikipedia....

[[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Also, if you want specifics about math, Vitali Set. Hessian Matrix. Tridiagonal Matrix. Homogeneous coordinates. Hilbert Space. Fermat's factorization method. Error function. Need I go on?
These are just a few of the many topics that I learned about from Wikipedia. I have found these articles to be clear and explanatory to me. What part did you have trouble understanding? Where are the Conservapedia versions?[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:53, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Yup, many students from numerous countries use Wikipedia every day to learn about different topics. I've used it for everything from solving minor curiosities to learning about statistical concepts. However, Andy has made it clear that Wiki articles are above his head (too many words), and as a result NONE of us are allowed to learn anything from it. A solid argument, indeed. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 22:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:Congratulations on crossing the line into personal insults. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:20, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Well he did say that they were not "concise and clear" enough for him.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:25, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:Not sure whom you're quoting, but I said Wikipedia is not concise and clear enough to help students in a meaningful way. And I've personally taught nearly 200 students and helped them get into good colleges and win scholarships. "Insufficient" insults me and talks big, but gives no specifics. I wonder how many students he's helped, and to what extent. Maybe he'll tell us.

:The unfortunate reality is that many Wikipedia editors are more interested in concealing information from viewers, such as the harm caused by abortion or the flaws in evolution, than actually helping anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 11 December 2009 (EST)

But Wikipedia is not just politically related articles (although Conservapedia seems to be). Sure there are articles on abortion and evolution, but there are also hundreds of articles on mathematics. Just because you disagree with the views represented in some of the articles doesn't mean that the entire site is worthless.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:58, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-12T04:25:33Z

EdmundG: /* Wikipedia is helpful */

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-11T23:53:49Z

EdmundG:

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-12-11T02:47:06Z

EdmundG:

<big>The following is a growing list of examples of '''[[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].'''</big>
 
 
#Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of [[global warming]] science ([[climategate]]) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate</ref>
#[[Isaac Newton]] ''translated'' parts of the [[Bible]], and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.</ref>
#The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the [[theory of relativity]] and Newtonian gravity, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Wikipedia article] describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.<ref>The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in [[Essay:Quantifying Order]].</ref>
#Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the [[theory of evolution]] must be true if others accept it.
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#Amid the [[libel]] controversy against [[Rush Limbaugh]] during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the [[St. Louis Rams]], Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from [[Wikipedia]].<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112839 Limbaugh: Media 'scum' lying about fake racist quotes], WND, October 13, 2009.</ref> The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Legal_threat</ref> It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)], American Thinker, October 21, 2009.</ref>
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence, like that which resulted in the September 11, 2009, death of peaceful protester Jim Pouillon. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Pro-life movement" article section about "Term controversy."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
#Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the [[Theory of Relativity]], instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity</ref>
#Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."<ref>ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck</ref> However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (''aka'' [[Barack Obama]]) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."<ref>ref: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref> This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
#Wikipedia's article about [[Bernhard Riemann]], perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's [[faith]] and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/bernhard-riemann</ref>
#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Noting that Al Gore's 2009 statement that he won a 2007 British court case about [[An Inconvenient Truth]] ran contrary to the actual ruling and, especially, the judge's statement that the claimant won the case against the film is considered "original research" and "POV" on Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills&diff=302098981&oldid=302092626</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] often treats [[conservative]] figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal [[double standard]]. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# The Wikipedia page on [[Phyllis Schlafly]] implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a NY Times book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even tho she is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as [[atheist]]ic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, [[atheist]], agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# 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.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "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."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia trivializes the book ''Inventing the AIDS Virus'' by making it a redirect. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_AIDS_Virus</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</ref> however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref>, the 9/11 Truth movement<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth</ref>, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
# In the article for flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#[[Wikipedia]] deleted [[9/12 Candidate]] page (twice) due to lack of notability<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate</ref>. Owner blocked because his real name does not meet username policy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker</ref> and editor (me) blocked<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke</ref> for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
#[[VoteVets.org]] is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org</ref>
#Just like the liberal-aligned [[MSM]], Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow [[liberal]]s. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia [[Sotomayor]], the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614</ref>
#Wikipedia feels that the [[Barack Obama]] article should omit any mention of [[William Ayers]] and the [[Weather Underground]]. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to [[ACORN]] either. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=302499449&oldid=302497807</ref>
#Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas [[White House]] Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/]
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWFlagsBarnstar.JPG American flag] desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
#Liberal elites at [[Wikipedia]] have embraced the ideology of [[Al Gore]]'s [[Global Warming]]. It is with great saddeness that [[ClimateGate]] has emerged as a worldwide news story. In an attempt to shrug-off the story, Wikipedia labels the page ''Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident,'' with ClimateGate as only a redirect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate] Next, Wikipedia claims the CRU was illegally hacked but other sources say possibly an inside job. [http://www.junkscience.com/] Finally, Wikipedia is sure to include plenty of climate change alarmists views discounting the incident; ''a smear campaign'', '' an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen'', '' James Hansen "no effect on the science" '', UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband ''"We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident&action=historysubmit&diff=328281249&oldid=328279458]
#[[Wikipedia]] has completely failed to mention the controversy regarding Obama's ties to PETA, a liberal group which has supported domestic terrorism in the past.

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

Colbert Report Viewers

2009-12-11T02:36:59Z

EdmundG: