Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fencing

2007-07-19T01:02:44Z

SirJim:

==picture==
It's really funny, but I don't think it's the best example of modern fencing out there :) :) [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:50, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:Hm, you'd be surprised then; having just looked at dozens of images, there aren't any particularly good ones around at all [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Looks pretty darned good to me, Fox. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:59, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Removed my last comment, didn't see that the picture had changed... sorry [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 21:02, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fencing

2007-07-19T01:01:22Z

SirJim:

==picture==
It's really funny, but I don't think it's the best example of modern fencing out there :) :) [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:50, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:Hm, you'd be surprised then; having just looked at dozens of images, there aren't any particularly good ones around at all [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Looks pretty darned good to me, Fox. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:59, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Really? That's amazing.... I'll see if I can find any good ones.... and like I said TK, it's funny, but Fencing doesn't often involve posing like that.... In fact, I don't think my feet have ever left the ground while in a duel [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 21:01, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fencing

2007-07-18T22:50:47Z

SirJim:

==picture==
It's really funny, but I don't think it's the best example of modern fencing out there :) :) [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:50, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fencing

2007-07-18T22:50:37Z

SirJim: New page: ==picture= It's really funny, but I don't think it's the best example of modern fencing out there :) :) ~~~~

==picture=
It's really funny, but I don't think it's the best example of modern fencing out there :) :) [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:50, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Al Franken

2007-07-18T22:39:55Z

SirJim: New page: ==Layout== Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time ~~~...

==Layout==
Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Fencing

2007-07-18T22:35:36Z

SirJim: Added information about classes and honor, along with more information

'''Fencing''' is an [[olympics|Olympic]] Sport, derived from the practice of dueling. It is also one of the disciplines of the modern [[pentathlon]].

It is governed by the FIE (Federation D'Internationale D'Escrime).

==Classes==

Three classes of weapons are included in fencing:

*Foil
: The standard fencing class and the weapon which comes to mind when the average person thinks about fencing. Foils are very simple weapons, consisting only of a handle, blade and small hand guard (some foils even remove the guard completely. In Foil matches, Only hits with the point are legal, making solid contact to the torso.

*Epee
: The Epee is a smaller, quicker weapon, usually consisting of a grip, hand guard and blade, in an Epee match, any hit with the point, making contact anywhere on the body is considered a valid hit.

*Sabre
: The Fencing Sabre is a larger weapon, consisting of a grip, large handguard and long, slightly curved blade. When dueling with Sabres, hits with either point or edge are legal, but all points are scored above the waist, making leg and groin hits illegal.

Fencing bouts are generally decided by the first competitor to reach 5 points, but historically, epee bouts were often decided by a single hit.

Fencing rules draw heavily from the concept of honor and honoring one's opponent. Trash Talking and Playing to the crowd are serious violations and can even result in disqualification and reversal of points.

Some historical thought was also given to having an Olympic fencing event for the [[bayonet]].

==More Information==

For more information, including local clubs, visit US Fencing here [[http://www.usfencing.org/usfa/content/category/7/325/80/]]

[[Category:Sports]]

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-07-18T22:23:39Z

SirJim:

==General comments==

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Faggot means a bundle of sticks. I do not understand the liberal media's obsession with casting her as a bigot. She was merely pointing out an etymological anomaly. At worst, it was misinterpreted by people who were looking for something to complain about. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I really hope you're joking. To suggest that we should disregard MONTHS of precedent on this site and completely warp its original focus to somehow give the impression that one must be a "radical" or "fascist" in order to share their viewpoints is probably one of the most absurd, and, coincidentally, radical and fascistic concepts I have heard in a LONG time. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Ann Coulter is a political entertainer. She knows this is true and the joke is on those who take her seriously. For instance, she recently made a joke that she's made more money off her comments about wishing Edwards was killed in a terrorist attack than he has made attacking her. She's laughing all the way to the bank. That said, conservapedia has a conversative, Christian bias. To lionize Coutler is to praise someone who is actually the enemy of religous conservatism. Her behavior does not represent any of the kind and noble virtues set forth in the Torah or the Christian bible. She doesn't represent intelligent, mature discussion of issues void of schoolyard antics. Her principle is to make money off controversy. Like a neo-con Rosie O'Donnell, happy to reap the rewards of a society voracious for public spectacle. I'm a democrat and more than happy to call a spade a spade, whether they be a republican or a democrat. To be taken seriously, you must be honest and live your word.

I think that the point is largely being missed here. It simply cannot be argued that Edwards comes across in a somewhat effeminate fashion, from the quality of his voice to his obsession with his hair. I think that Coulter was making a perfectly valid accusation, and that it should be taken seriously. Many homosexuals do marry in order to retain their mainstream appeal while continuing to engage in horrid "extracurricular" activities. Maybe we should seriously consider that Edwards is a "fag." Frankly, that she would back down on this sort of hardhitting genius for which we all respect her is really one of the most dissapointing occurences I can recall in her public history.
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 11:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Total Fag" ==

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It would not be offensive to atheists, because sin is the transgression of God's Law, and atheists do not believe in God, so it would be like someone accusing you of transgressing the law of Zeus, or Baal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Comedic" ==

The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont think being invited as a major speaker at the Conservatice Political Action Conference jives with being "relegated to the fringe," and neither does Mitt Romney endorsing her before she speaks, but maybe thats just me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," ==

I agree that this is sufficiently troubling that a good source is needed. I think it is relevant precisely because it seems to me to go beyond the bounds of anything that can possibly be brushed off as humor. I think an Associated Press story printed in USA Today is a good enough source.

If the issue is whether the New York Observer actually printed this, I'm willing to pay the $2.95 to confirm it, but I don't think this is at issue. If this issue is whether she really said it, presumably if she issued a "clarification" (which IMHO makes it worse) to rightwingnews.com that means she acknowledges saying it. I haven't actually found this in rightwingnews.com, but believe that the AP would be reliable on this. As nearly as I can tell, rightwingnews.com is actually a conservative website (not one on which liberals track right wing excesses or anything like that). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Found the Right Wing News interview. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Help me write [[Out of context]]. It also might need a title change. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== interesting artlcle ==

As you can imagine (if you read my user page) I somewhat disagree with Ms. Coulter on one or two issues. What I found amusing about this article was that, after the blushingly adoring intro paragraphs, there are a bunch of quotes. Ironically, they are the ones I am familiar with, from hard core left wing sources. Nice job on the balance! First she is praised, then her nut-job ideas are actually quoted so people can "decide" <s>who</s> what she is. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:The misquote was obviously intended to make Coulter appear to be joking about genocide when in actual context it is nothing of the sort. She ''in fact'' is paraphrasing liberals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about ''all of them''. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Are you saying these quotes are made up? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::No, not at all. I just find it odd that the same quotes that travel in liberal circles to show, um, what we think of Ms. Coulter are the ones being presented here. Meaning, they mostly horrify me, rather than make her seem like a leader or intelligent pundit. Ah, and the previous comments get confusing - I was asking "which quote" is the "misquote". My first comment was about "all of them". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why do you find it surprising that liberals would comment on the outrageous things that Ms. Coulter has said? Do you think that her horrifying comments about executing liberals and her disgusting smear against women who lost their husbands to 9/11 are not revealing and should not been repeated when assessing her as a pundit? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Do conservatives really consider her a "thinker" or am I reading too much in this? She sounds like a total fruitcake. I mean, if she didn't go to law school, I imagine her pushing a shopping cart and arguing with mailboxes. That's about the level of thought I expect form her. Who cares what she says? She's a total idiot. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::She's a "total idiot" who is regularly invited to give her opinions at major Conservative gatherings and on nationally broadcast talk shows, and the misinformation she's disseminated about, for instance, Joseph McCarthy, is routinely repeated as fact by naive and ignorant souls who mistake her books for nonfiction. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I know, I know. I'm just saying she's basically a troll that gets fed by ultra-conservatives and I wish they'd stop. Kind of like watching an ugly guy ask out a cute girl and the process takes a long time and is ''really'' uncomfortable.... That is what I think every time I see her on TV. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:21, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Why should they "stop feeding her?" She's not only a valuable source of misinformation, she helps to push out the boundaries of debate in this country closer and closer to direct advocacy of violence and political repression against Moslems, liberals, and other people she dislikes. They like that. That's why they "feed" her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::makes my heart "bleed" a little more every time I read the first two lines of her column on Thursdays. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Strong following? ==

While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:

"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".

Every right-wing american I know either considers her a joke, or at least "you have Michael Moore, we have Ann Coulter, they are equally bad" (not that I would ever compare Moore to Coulter). [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

"We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " [9]

A very Christian idea. I'm sure Jesus approves whole-heartedly. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is capital punishment in the Bible. Do you think the dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged" was meant to give ''carte blanche'' to evil? Jesus spent most of his time telling people to stop doing bad things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. Jesus regularly advocated burning sinners to death. I'm agreeing with you.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The only places I can think of where Jesus did anything like call for the death penalty is when he's calling out the Pharisees in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Jersey girls ==

''moved from [[User talk:Ed Poor]]''

"Ad Hominem" Attacks:

"Rather than answering any of her criticisms of liberal ideology substantively, critics made ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem or "to the person", rather than against what she is saying. It is typical of liberals to change the subject and refuse to debate issues but rather to distract people with side issues or outright irrelevancies."

::Okay Ed, let's see if I've got this straight. Ann Coulter describing the Jersey Widows as "harpies," suggesting they hurry up and pose for PLAYBOY before they get too old, and announcing that they are "enjoying" their husbands deaths is NOT an ad hominem attack on these widows -- But objecting to her insulting these women in such a gross, deeply personal manner IS an ad hominem attack?

::Care to explain this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:::[[Ad hominem]] means against the person, not against what they're saying. If the Jersey widows have presented a POV on topic X, and if Coulter wore to say that their POV is wrong or should be ignored because of personal attribute Y, then she'd be making an ''ad hominem'' argument. If so, you should describe all that in the [[Ann Coulter]] article. Be sure to state whet the widows' POV is first, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:03, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

(afterthought) I just found out the the phrase "ad hominem" is also used simply as a synonym for "[[personal attack]]". It does not have to be a fallacy, it can simply be bad manners. Perhaps this is the sense in which you were using the term? If so, please be clear.

We need to distinguish between (1) [[ad hominem argment]] (sometimes expressed in Latin as ''argument ad hominem'') and (2) a [[personal attack]], e.g., a gratuitious swipe, an insult, etc. If you plan on staying around in this encyclopedia project, you must be prepared at a moment's notice to explain yourself more clearly. Using straightforward, unambiguous terminology is always better than using vague language, especially when it's about a hot topic. Clear terms can cool things down. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:12, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, Ed, I know that "Ad Hominem means against the person, not against what they're saying." And yes, ad hominems quite frequently take the form of a personal attack, as Ann Coulter's ad hominem against the Jersey Girls most certainly does. It therefore qualifies as both a fallacy and bad manners. What do you consider unclear about this? What do you consider puzzling or ambiguous about the inappropriateness of a passage in which Ann Coulter's refers to these women as "harpies" who are enjoying their husband's deaths, makes the disgusting suggestion that they pose for Playboy before they get too old, and suggests that their deceased husbands might have been planning to divorce them anyway? Do you really need me to explain to you WHY this passage of Ann Coulter's qualifies as both an ad hominem attack and an outrageous and inappropriate personal attack on them?

:::The Jersey girls roused Coulter's ire by insisting on the formation of the 9/11 commission and by being both vocal and critical about the way in which 9/11 has been handled by the Bush administration. Coulter responded by grossly insulting them. I invite you to read Laurie Van Auken's July 22, 2005 statement (http://www.nowpublic.com/node/16472) and explain to me where exactly she talks about enjoying her husband's death, where she speculates about maybe appearing in PLAYBOY, where she talks about her husband trying to divorce her. Then maybe you can explain HOW Coulter galloping off into speculation about their marriages and their looks qualifies as a substantive response.

:::Still looking forward to your vigorous defense of the...uh..."arguments" presented by Coulter in that quote. Remember, Ed -- use "straightforward unambiguous terminology" while you're offering us all what you know about these women's personal lives and appearances, and be sure to explain to us how it's relevant. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this web site. I'm not about to "defend" anyone, any more than you would be justified to "attack" them. We have already agreed that personal attacks are out of place here. Or at least I have '''decreed''' them to be out of place, and I have fairly consistent backing from senior staff on that. Whether you agree or not, I'm not sure.

:::But as you know, Ed, the issue is not whether or personal attacks are acceptable here on Conservapedia. The issue is Ann Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls in her recent book. I included the relevant quote in a Conservapedia article on that book. You removed it on the strange grounds that somehow that quote was irrelevant, and then added an odd little paragraph about how liberals are frequently guilty of ad hominem attacks -- something that made no sense unless you were claiming that objecting to Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls somehow qualified as a liberal "ad hominem" attack on her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Your strategy seems to be to attack Coulter and then challenge me to refute your attack. What you hope to accomplish by this strategy is beyond me. If it has any connection with writing the [[Ann Coulter]] article, I'll allow it, though.

:::My "strategy" is to include relevant passages in Conservapedia articles. You didn't want that quote from Coulter included, probably because it reveals far too much about why so many people object to Ann Coulter. I maintain the passage is relevant and belongs in the article.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:40, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you find Coulter's remarks insulting.

:::Don't YOU find her comments about the Jersey Girls insulting? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If so, you might want to add something to the article about her writing and/or speaking style. Does she pepper her comments with personal attacks? If so, how often? And how does the frequency or percentage of this compare to other pundits, authors, or public figures? Do politicians ever do this?

:::Yes, she peppers her comments with personal attacks, far more frquently than other pundits, authors, and public figures who enjoy the same level of exposure. I know of no politician who has made remarks comparable to her's about "physically intimidating liberals" or her "witty" implications that Moslems smell (quotes happily supplied on request) and I would be very interested to learn of any, if you know about them. And if you really REALLY want me to add these kind of comments to the article on GODLESS I'll be happy to do it -- and will expect those comments to remain in place once they're there. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or maybe it is [[Personal attack]]s in general you disagree with. That's a red link, which as you know means that you are free to start an article on that topic. Are personal attacks always out of place?

:::Unless you are a close relative and friend, yes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it wrong to accuse people of personal faults?

::: If the "personal faults" you are accusing them of involve information you have no way of knowing, like how they felt about their husbands, what the state of their marriage was, and whether they have plans to pose for nudie magazines, yes, it is wrong.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or is it only wrong when you do so to distract attention from what-they-are-saying to who-they-are?

::: The kind of remarks Ann Coulter made about the Jersey Widows are wrong in any context.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you think of [[Double standard]]s?

::: They stink. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Should one standard of conduct be applied equally to all people and all nations?

::: Yes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or should our political opponents be held to a substantially higher standard than our political allies?

::: No. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

How much slack are we entitled to cut our friends?

::: None. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or, to put it another way, how much wrongdoing must we overlook in our friends before we finally have to say, "You have crossed the line. I just can't cover for you any more."?

::: None. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Back to the matter at hand: you have repeated in some additional detail that Coulter attacked the "Jersey Girls". I'm not sure why you added all this detail, because I read a lot about it when the flap occurred. There's no question that her comments constitute a [[personal attack]]. Same as her swipe at Edwards:
*At the end of her speech ... Coulter said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, [[John Edwards]], but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot, so I'm kind of at an impasse." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610.html]

::: I added "that detail" because in a discussion of the book in which it appeared, it is relevant. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Would you like to write something about the way Coulter attracts attention to her message with sarcasm and insults? The JG and JE cracks certainly look typical. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*A member of the Sept. 11 commission ... lashed out at ... Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain. [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm]

::: I am more interested in the extent to which the right continues to invite her to important conservative conferences, even as they attempt to deflect criticsm of her remarks with the old "She's just kidding," or "the poor dear just wants attention..." wheezes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Even though this is a completely one-side article which amounts to a personal attack on Coulter, we can cite it - if we investigate the context of Coulter's remarks. Was she just ''saying'' that the widows used the deaths for their own political gain, or did she offer any grounds for saying this?

::: How does simply quoting Ann Coulter and noting that her comments aroused controversy qualify as a "personal attack?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

An even more interesting question, of course, if whether she ''only'' responded to the widows' political remarks or requests with an attack - or whether she had counterargments. If the press only reported her "insult" then the real story is how one-sided the press is. Are AP, Washington Post, USA Today, et al. dominated by Democratic [[partisan]]ship or are they known to be utterly objective or even neutral? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:15, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

::: That question is completely irrelevant, Ed. Even if Coulter included substantive counter-arguments to the JG's statements, that would not excuse her calling them "harpies," accusing them of "enjoying" their husband's deaths, and nastily implying that they should pose for PLAYBOY.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

=== Oh, dear... ===
She looks like a crackwhore of some kind. Is she ill? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:An Inconvenient Truth

2007-07-15T23:23:16Z

SirJim:

Maybe nothing but I can find the article on climate cycles, so maybe you should put a source there to support your theory otherwise remove it. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 15:45, 19 June 2007 (EST)

==source==

do you really consider a townhall article reposted from Newsbusters a reliable source? Wow [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 19:23, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot

2007-07-15T19:40:27Z

SirJim:

This article would look a lot nicer with more than the one source for 95% of the article.
::Untrue, I cited a church member as well. In addition, I cited the film documentary [[A Nation Adrift]] which anyone is free to purchase. I also alluded to what the San Franciso Chronicle stated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I elaborated on the San Francisco Chronicle article which condemned the attack on the church(the liberal newspaper which previously was part of the local news blackout). I added/edited the article so it says the following: Even the [[San Francisco Chronicle]] which had refused to cover the story earlier condemned the attack on the church and wrote in a editorial: "The demonstrators at Hamilton Square Baptist Church endangered not only their own cause but the cause of freedom itself."[http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsNov1993.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I found a Christianity Today article today. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== A Nation Adrift ==

Does anyone have the video [[A Nation Adrift]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:27, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Can anyone could get online access to this full text article? ==

Here is something a librarian gave me and I was wondering if anyone could get online access to the full text article?

Christianity Today; 12/13/93, Vol. 37 Issue 15, p65, 1/2p, 2bw

Document Type: Article
Subject Terms: *CHURCH

NAICS/Industry Codes813110 Religious Organizations

Abstract: Presents news on church people and events. '''Criminal charges against organizers of a protest at Hamilton Square Baptist Church; Suit filed by Ebenezer Baptist Church Pastor Eugene Lumpkin against San Francisco''', California Mayor Frank Jordan; Appointment of Wesley K. Stafford as president of Compassion International; More.
ISSN: 0009-5753
Accession Number: 9405040391

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Jonathon Katz ==

The San Francisco Chronicle states the following in their November 9, 1993 edition: "Jonathan Katz, 35, of San Francisco, was cited for inciting a riot, disturbing the peace, trespassing, battery and resisting arrest -- all misdemeanor offenses." Wikipedia has an article on a Jonathan David Katz and I don't know if the two Katz's are the same individual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_David_Katz The article said he was a co-founder of Queer Nation San Francisco. According to Wikipedia Queer Nation was founded in NYC because of outrage regarding anti-homosexual violence and because they believed there was prejudice in the media and arts (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation ).

Does anyone have any interest in finding out about the Jonathon Katz who was cited in regards to whether or not he went to trial and if he did go to trial was he found guilty by a jury? Also, I would be interested in knowing if that Katz is the same as the Wikipedia Jonathon David Katz. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:53, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
::I just found the following: "You can't look for explicit reference or the terms gay or lesbian," says Jonathan D. Katz, a Yale professor who heads the Larry Kramer Initiative. "You have to be alive to all sorts of possible ways of expressing things." Jonathan Ned Katz, an authority on gay history, curated the show."[http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_archive.html] It will be interesting to see if we can find out who is the Jonathon Katz who was cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
:::According to Wikipedia Jonathon Ned Katz was born 1938 so if Wikipedia is right about his age and the San Francisco Chronicle is right about the age of the Jonathon Katz cited then Jonathon Ned Katz cannot be the same Jonathon Katz. Wikipedia does not give the age of Jonathon David Katz but says he got his PHD in 1996. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia difference #6 - jourlaism and experts ==

In [[Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] I asked about how that point meshes with articles such as these. Is there any chance of getting a response there? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:27, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Reliable Source==
::Can anyone find a reliable source for this article.... I've been searching Yahoo and Google for about twenty minutes and can't find any notes about this incident except the statements from the church and the reprints from rightwing sites.... Did any major news organizations cover this at all? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 15:40, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-07-13T05:48:13Z

SirJim:

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

{{debate-project}}
==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::And this site's response (plastered all over the front page) isn't also political and self-serving? This smacks of '''hypocrisy''' somewhat. The lack of compassion that you're showing here is also rather distasteful. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Hello, pot. This is kettle. I wish to discuss with you your hue. On this very site, the day after the massacre, Andy was trying to pin the blame on porn (Apparently it's fine to write non-family friendly gossip, as long as your name is Aschlafly.) If that's not attempting to exploit the event to score political points, I don't know what is. Shame on you for reading subtexts which aren't there in to the acts of students who have recently lost friends in a sudden and brutal manner, and using it to attempt to score a cheap hit on "liberals" --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 23:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, when you put it like that, perhaps I've made a mistake. One of the things I really like about working with you on this project is that you have such a mellow way about you. Your remark just now was like a refreshing drink of cool water, just when I was feeling parched. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, we don't allow baseless namecalling here. Calling anyone a "bigot" here, particularly when it is baseless, results in blocking of the account. In your case, I've warned you repeatedly about wasting the time of productive editors.

: Ideas do matter, and Conservapedia will continue to criticize liberal notions here. The poem on the main page is an example of that. The liberals here protest too much the valid criticism of that political, self-serving poem that is officially posted on the front page of the Virginia Tech website. Virginia Tech officials should hear criticism, and it is not just Conservapedia's main page that is criticism them.

: People who threaten to stifle Conservapedia's free speech by threatening it will obviously also find their accounts blocked. Wikipedia will welcome your political correctness with open arms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This may be news to you, but AmesG, Myk, WhatsGoingOn, and many others have spewed their own brand of hatred, and THAT is wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:And how are your responses here (and your threats of blocking, and erasure of their edits) not hatred? They post something that you disagree with, so you reply with personal attacks and slanders. Or don't you realise that it's '''wrong''' for you too? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::First and foremost, I have neither slandered nor attacked anyone. Second, I blocked users who deliberately and willfully harmed or threatened to harn Conservapedia, and I have blocked users who refused to let a debate be a debate and instead allowed it to become hostile. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Namecalling against editors and/or Conservapedia is not allowed here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please cite the examples of my ''own brand of hatred'', explain what was hateful about it and, if justified, I will try to mend my ways.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::fair enough...the above line, mocking the "trustworthy encyclopedia". Your own mockery of this site is on about every posting you have made since you got here, and you could very well be taking steps to help make this a better encyclopedia, but you're not, are you? I would call that hatred. If you do not like this site, you are free to edit elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Others would call my contributions [[constructive criticism]] and welcome them as part of a drive to improve overall encyclopedic quality. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Simply phrasing something as a question does not mean it is respectful of free speech here. I'm not inclined to block your account like the others, yet, but it's a close call. Name-calling against editors or Conservapedia in an attempt to stifle something will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I thought you were for free speech, against censorship, and against 'stifling something.'
:::#13:12, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "AmesG (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (namecalling ("bigot"), also an attempt to stifle free speech by making a threat)
:::#13:07, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "Myk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (for comment "hate spewing toy"; also may violate 90% talk/10% edit rule)
:::There is no commandment prohibiting 'namecalling' or 'hate spewing toy comments'. I dont know how your rules are more concise than wikipedia's when you have like five unwritten rules. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 13:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Free speech contains responsibility. Just as you don't claim a right to free speech when you walk into that theater and scream "FIRE" when there is no fire, you don't claim it by name-calling here (or worse) anytime you please. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Dear [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], have I somehow not been ''respectful of free speech''?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not going to say you've been disrespectful of free speech, but you have been disrespectful of this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In addition to Karajou's observation, the following statement (copied from above) by WhatIsGOingOn was an apparent attempt to censor Conservapedia's criticism of the official Virginia Tech poem: "Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this Trustworthy Encylopedia sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?" WhatIsGOingOn, if you want to censor conservative criticism, then please go to Wikipedia for that. Don't try to censor such speech here. And don't distract productive editors further here. Build some good entries before more talk, talk, talk. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to ''censor'' anything'' - I was exercising ''free speech''. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Free speech comes with responsibility. If we here on this site are indeed doing something wrong, then be constructive about it, show us where, and offer suggestions as to improving it...don't be destructive! We most certainly do not come into your house and rant and rave about how your house looks and expect to get away with it under the guise of free speech. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I suggest that someone offer a definition of free speech? I think, from reading this debate that both sides are operating under a very different definition of the term, and I suspect that if it were clear what both sides mean by the term there might be less disagreement. Those criticizing the posting of the poem see the post as an abuse of the free speech of those who posted it and see themselves as using their free speech to correct this wrong, those defending the posting of the poem see the posting of the poem as a use of free speech and the criticism of it as an attempt at censorship and/or an abuse of free speech. (I intend that to be descriptive of the broad positions I am seeing advanced here, not as an attempt at a definition) I hope/believe that if everyone understood what the other side meant by free speech this argument could become a discussion.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Darn good request. Our article on [[Free speech]] is minty fresh, having only been started yesterday morning. Perhaps it was sparked by this feisty debate, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:23, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::If I may say so, Reginod's post was a needed breath of fresh air. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's please not get off-topic.
#First of all, on the main page, it is listed as the "official reponse" of the English department. This is plainly not true. This is a poem that Nikki Giovani, an extremely famous poet, said. The English Department just printed it on their webpage, that's all. Take that down.
#"Denies accountability" Are you suggesting that the English department might be accountable for the events that transpired? Are you seriously suggesting that?
#"Environmentalism" Of course, not wanting Elephants killed for their ivory is indeed environmentalism, but come on, she's not trying to push that killing elephants is bad. I'm not completely sure what she's doing, but it's definitely not pushing liberalism.
#"anti-Bush" No. It's not anti-Bush. It's just anti-war. That's all it is, and if it's indirectly criticising Bush because he invaded Iraq, then that's fine, put "anti-war", but don't put "anti-Bush."
#"environmentalism" Okay, this is really stretching. Destabalized land is bad, that's fairly standard. I don't think that anyone here is for destabalizing land.
I honestly don't see anything that's agenda-pushing for anything majorly liberal, and they definitely aren't hijacking the shootings like they might have Coretta King's funeral.
Not only that, but you have to remember: '''this is one person'''. Just one poet. She doesn't represent every liberal in the world, and therefore, if she does something bad (which she hasn't), you can't look at it and say "oh, look what the liberals are doing now." K, i'm done. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 14:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: GofG, I'm not ignoring you, but I'm here to build an encyclopedia and I hope that's why you're here also. I've reviewed your edits and you seem to violate the 90%/10% [[rule]]. Please correct first and then let's talk, talk, talk.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::"This is a debate page, not an article. Opinions are welcome." Apparently not those who are disgusted by the way conservapedia is displaying this poem. Like I said before, it's sad to see people who call themselves good christians acting in such a way. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Have people been blocked because of this discussion? [[User:DoonTheWater|DoonTheWater]] 23:09, 21 April 2007 (BST)

:yes, [[User:AmesG]] and [[User:Myk]] ... if you scroll up a bit someone posted the block logs. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: + This is simply another move by Mr. Schlafly to capitalize on this tragedy for his own political ends, nothing more, nothing less. It is in poor taste at best and morally bankrupt at worst. We should be ashamed. [[User:NothingVentured|NothingVentured]] 19:41, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I think that it's awfully paranoid to assume some conspiracy theory after a tragedy like this. Virginia Tech did not seek to rid the world of christianity after this event (as proved by the numberous crosses/banners provided by the college) - they were a bit too busy mourning.[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:And saying "We did not deserve this tradgedy" was saying that the students weren't responsible - it's pretty low to politicize something like that. And the other remarks are true - regardless of whether your for the war or not - it's a fact that teenagers do have to avoid bombs - bombs thrown by both sides - but it's not the teenagers fault. Elephants are massacred for ivory - but it's not the elephants fault for being an elephant. And boulders are destabilized - it's hardly environmentalism. [[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::Why don't we get up the full poem - just so everyone can see how biased it is. (By the way - just because god is not mentioned (p.s., he was mentioned by many speakers before this one), doesn't mean it's a secular propoganda machine)[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Poem ==

Read for yourself the official response by Virginia Tech's English Department. '''No mention of God or prayer, but many invocations of unrelated liberal causes:'''

 We are Virginia Tech

 We are sad today
 We will be sad for quite a while
 We are not moving on
 We are embracing our mourning

 We are Virginia Tech

 We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly
 We are brave enough to bend to cry
 And we are sad enough to know that we must laugh again

 We are Virginia Tech
 We do not understand this tragedy
 We know we did nothing to deserve it [denies accountability]

 But neither does a child in Africa
 Dying of AIDS

 Neither do the Invisible Children
 Walking the night away to avoid being captured by a rogue army [globalism]

 Neither does the baby elephant watching his community
 Be devastated for ivory
 Neither does the Mexican child looking
 For fresh water

 Neither does the Iraqi teenager dodging bombs [anti-Bush]
 Neither does the Appalachian infant killed
 By a boulder
 Dislodged
 Because the land was destabilized [environmentalism]

 No one deserves a tragedy

 We are Virginia Tech
 The Hokie Nation embraces
 Our own
 And reaches out
 With open heart and mind
 To those who offer their hearts and hands

 We are strong
 And brave
 And innocent
 And unafraid

 We are better than we think
 And not yet quite what we want to be

 We are alive to imagination
 And open to possibility
 We will continue
 To invent the future

 Through our blood and tears
 Through all this sadness

 We are the Hokies

 We will prevail
 We will prevail
 We will prevail

 We are
 Virginia Tech
...
 [http://www.english.vt.edu/ here].

'''Our prayers continue to go out to the victims' families of the Virginia Tech massacre.'''

::Wow.... Just Wow..... I'm simply amazed... for crying out loud.... Since when is mentioning facts a liberal cause.... Really.... Do you deny that teenagers are dodging bombs in Iraq? And Note, America is not the largest cause of bombs... you may have heard of Islamic Terrorists that seem to be doing a bit of detonating these days. and Please, PLEASE explain to me what Virginia Tech did to cause the tragedy and specifically, How they deny their accountability... By the same Logic, America deserved to be attack on 9/11 and saying that we didn't makes us all liberals.... Also, please tell me how pointing out that children are being abducted and conscripted into armies in Africa is a liberal cause..... Again, using your own logic, conservatives caring about and supporting Isreal is globalism and we're all liberals. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 01:48, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Media bias

2007-07-12T22:32:23Z

SirJim:

Several severe cuts:

the [[partisan]] skewing or

Media bias is a natural result of the differing opinions of persons involved in the media, specifically news-media, which may show through to various degrees in program content or focus.

attempt to eliminate bias as much as possible

Left wing media bias has become a rallying cry for most right wing groups, in the United States in particular, who view it as a symptom of the degeneration of traditional values and and possibly even a cohesive conspiracy to corrupt America's values.

[[Conservapedia]] came about confronting radical [[liberal bias]], See: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

It has been reported that one of the major mainstream media (MSM) organisations, the [[BBC]] admits anti [[Christian]] & anti [[Israel]] bias.
<ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52574 BBC confesses bias on religion, politics], WorldNetDaily, [[October 23]] [[2006]]</ref> <ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582,00.html BBC admits: We are biased on religion and politics], y net news.com [[October 23]] [[2006]]</ref> & has been accused by an Archbishop as being pro [[Islam]] & frightened of criticising [[Islam]] <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/nmuslim14.xml BBC frightened of criticising Islam, says archbishop], Telegraph.co.uk, [[November 15]] [[2006]]</ref>.

[[Conservative bias]] is also present in the media; the UK ''Guardian'' newspaper accused [[FOX News Channel]] of this, while the [[BBC]] displayed concern over one-sidedness at [[Conservapedia]].
----

I took a journalism class from a famous Boston Globe columnist, and she did nothing to help me write in unbiased way, although she paid lip service to the idea. Sorry, I don't have any class notes to back this up, so I better not say her name.

Also, Columbia University has a "respected" journalism department, but aren't its graduates among the most [[liberal bias]]ed of anybody in the media?

Another aspect of this topic is that the word "bias" is habitually applied to "any idea I disagree with". It's like calling someone "prejudiced" or "stupid". Is there really such a thing as [[objectivity]], and if so how can we attain it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ellen Goodman? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Organization of article?==

(I just added FAIR to the outside link section). This article seems rather strange to read - it is three lists, basically. Not sure I follow the "notes" section, one is just a link to a geocities web site? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Jewish?==

Let me guess, the author of this article is Jewish? [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I don't think so, but you will note that Israel and anti-Semitism are favorite huggy-bears of conservatives. It's the one kind of prejudice they don't tolerate. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess, but it still looks cheap to have 9 out of 12 examples be about Israel.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Irony Beyond Irony ==

So the examples posting on the media bias page link to Christian Broadcasting Network, Newsbusters, Worldnet Daily, Jihad Watch, and Israel Insider..... Do you not see the irony in this? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:32, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-07-11T12:04:32Z

SirJim:

{{protect|TK}}

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-09T11:36:27Z

SirJim:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

== #1 ==

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

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

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

== Liberal bias ==

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

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

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

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

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

== The Deluge criticism ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #47 ==

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

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

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

== #41 ==

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

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

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

== What the heck…? ==

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

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

== Suggested edit ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

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

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

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

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

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

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

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

== Whinny Article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #3 ==

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

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

== D. James Kennedy ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Midge Potts ==

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

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Costello ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Math Error ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Golf ==

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

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

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

Talk:Media bias

2007-07-09T01:19:42Z

SirJim:

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-08T22:42:33Z

SirJim:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

== #1 ==

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

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

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

== Liberal bias ==

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

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

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

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

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

== The Deluge criticism ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #47 ==

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

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

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

== #41 ==

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

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

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

== What the heck…? ==

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

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

== Suggested edit ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

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

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

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

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

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

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

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

== Whinny Article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #3 ==

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

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

== D. James Kennedy ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Midge Potts ==

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

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Costello ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Math Error ==

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

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

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

== Golf ==

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

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-08T22:24:29Z

SirJim:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

== #1 ==

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

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

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

== Liberal bias ==

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

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

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

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

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

== The Deluge criticism ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #47 ==

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

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

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

== #41 ==

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

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

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

== What the heck…? ==

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

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

== Suggested edit ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

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

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

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

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

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

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

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

== Whinny Article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #3 ==

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

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

== D. James Kennedy ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Midge Potts ==

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

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Costello ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Math Error ==

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