Saddam, gay!
Osama Bin Laden, gay!
Most child molestors, gay!
Son of Sam, gay!
Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, gay!
The President of Iran, Gay!
Posted on 12/29/2005 11:55:25 PM PST by Notwithstanding
Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, it is very popular and very "progressive", although its stated goal is to present factual information wit a neitral point of view. A perfect example in the Kwanzaa "article" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa), as is the "article" on abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), and the article on President Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).
Any attempt to add balance to these articles is met by severe censoring and shouting down or shutting down editors. I suggest people sign up (free and anonymous) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin) and start politely editing. Once there, to gain "credibility" I suggest you look around and then for the first few days edit only uncontroversial articles for grammar or choppiness or poor citation - you will then be seen as a neutral editor (everyone is an "editor"). I suggest using a different screen name than you do at FR.
When it comes to abortion, you guys lose all sense of proportion. This article was fine...Where on Earth do you see it's slanted towards abortion?
The Science and History is pretty and I don't go there for politics or pop culture.
O.o Hokay then. Hanlon's and Occam's razors need to be applied here. Attack based on a logical fallacy is only applicable when the fallacy is being used in an argument, in such a way it would serve to the advantage of the arguer. Second, and perhaps more important, I didn't bring it up in the first place, I was responding to (paraphrased) "This Lincon is gay crap".
How does the editor prove to the software that blocks the article that wiki has permission to use a block of text?
No, but you certainly did equivocate around wikipedia's promotion of the "Lincoln is gay" crap just as you equivocate around practically any flaw that anybody points out with wikipedia and the people who control it.
"Persons of confirmed lesbian, gay or bisexual orientationThe following list includes people who have confirmed their homosexuality or bisexuality, or whose homosexuality or bisexuality is not debated."
Yet if you take a look at the list of supposedly "confirmed" and "not debated" homosexuals you will find dozens upon dozens of historical figures who are listed there based on 20th and 21st century claims by revisionist homosexual "historians," almost all of which are based upon innuendo, speculation, and unreliable sources.
For example, 12th century St. Aelred of Hexham is included in the "confirmed" list based on 20th century speculation and innuendo about his writings
Alexander the Great is included as "confirmed" and is given an Oliver Stone-like treatment based on modern interpretations of rumors in the works of greek writers who lived several centuries after Alexander's death.
Julius Caesar is listed as "confirmed" based on rumors spread by Caesar's political opponents. It should also be noted that the Caesar article itself on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar) includes graphic homosexual descriptions including a claim that Caesar was "penetrated anally," none of which has any genuine scholarly merit.
These and dozens of other historical figures with no direct or conclusive original source confirmation of their alleged homosexuality are included on the "confirmed" list along side the likes of Ellen Degeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, and Barney Frank.
Woooooah. You just opened a whole new can of worms here. Wikipedia reflects popular belief and academic research that exists out there, not the Truth in any ontological sense other than something as simple as 2+2=4. If you want to say that the work of these "revisionist homosexual 'historians'" is invalid, I really can't argue one way or the other. Wikipedia reflects that these things have been accepted by the academic community at large, not that they are considered true. If you have a work by an academic of credibility that suggests otherwise, go ahead and add it in
I'm reasonably certain you're using equivocate wrong, and you have a number of questions I've asked you that you havn't responded to. And once again, how the hell can you control a project this big? If we're talking about just controling politically charged articles, its pretty big conspiracy and I would argue, insignificant in the Grand Scheme of Things. At anyrate. you still have yet to provide proof of a large, overal slant, just a few innacuracies with a few articles.
"It should also be noted that the Caesar article itself on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar) includes graphic homosexual descriptions including a claim that Caesar was "penetrated anally," none of which has any genuine scholarly merit."
Erm. Not sure if you're serious or just bullshitting. The actual sentance is:
"Male lovers In ancient Rome male homosexuality was common and widespread throughout society, especially amongst the upper classes. However, it was thought to be improper for a freeborn boy or man to be penetrated anally as Caesar was alleged to have been in his youth."
No. Not really. I simply restated and elaborated upon my original complaints with this article. Right now the Wikipedia homo list asserts that several dozen historical figures are "confirmed" homosexuals. In reality there is great debate as to whether many of these figures were homosexual, and in many cases the only evidence in favor is circumstantial innuendo that is normally promoted by persons with a pro-homosexual political agenda.
Wikipedia reflects that these things have been accepted by the academic community at large, not that they are considered true.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. Try again. There are very few if any mainstream scholarly biographies of Caesar out there that (1) assert that he was "anally penetrated" in graphic detail or (2) conclusively purport him to have been a homosexual. Yet Wikipedia's portrayal of Caesar says both of him.
If you have a work by an academic of credibility that suggests otherwise, go ahead and add it in
The simple fact that several of the historical figures on that list are NOT conclusively established to be homosexual should permit their removal from the "confirmed" list. I strongly fear, however, that if I were to do so one of the pro-homosexual Wikipedia administrators who guards that article would immediately revert me.
Do you believe otherwise? If so, why don't you try a little experiment and remove one of the historical figures for whom there is no conclusive evidence from the "confirmed" list then we'll see what happens.
And I'm reasonably certain I've correctly used it to describe your defenses of wikipedia here. Whenever somebody raises a substantive criticism of a specific flaw or bias on wikipedia you dance around it and brush it off as insignificant.
And I'm sure you have dozens of credible sources that show Caesar was "penetrated anally" in his youth.
/sarcasm.
The President of Iran, Gay!
But to remove all doubt that he had an evil reputation both for shameless vice and for adultery, I have only to add that the elder Curio in one of his speeches calls him "every woman's man and every man's woman."
see Section LIIor Section 52
The issue here is not whether innuendo suggests some historical figure might have been gay - it's whether it can be conclusively asserted as fact that a historical figure was gay, thus meriting his or her inclusion in Wikipedia's "confirmed" list along side people who have conclusively admitted that they themself are gay (e.g. Rosie O'Donnell). For Caesar, much like Alexander and dozens of other historical figures on that list, all you've got is innuendo written centuries later that at best says "maybe" - not "confirmed."
For sure, I have no idea how much is true, and how much is Roman politics. It's still fine invective!
I have a number of credible sources that say that homosexuality has a rapidly changing definition that people have a hard time tracking down. I also have a number of credible sources that show that powerful men had sex with everything that moved in ancient greece and rome. I further have a number of credible sources that Ceaser was lambasted by his collegues in the senate for being, in common parlance, a "pussy", "penetrated anally as Caesar was alleged to have been in his youth.".
As an aside, a male being penetrated anally (as opposed to orally) is not typically considered sign of one sexual orientation or another. What you're being penetrated with might have something to do with it, but thats a seperate story
The sentance would probably better read "In ancient Rome homosexual sexuality between males was common throughout society, especially so amongst the upper classes. However, it was thought to be improper for a freeborn boy or man to be penetrated anally, as Caeasar was alleged to have been in his youth."
Key word, being alleged, which you already agreed was in fact, the case.
I'm reasonably certain that stating I do not believe GWB (not my baby), Abortion (I guard this, pointed out systemic bias), Kwanzaa (under heavy construction), and list of homosexuals (systemic flaw with academic research, and possibly wrong on a number of places, but not any you've pointed out thus far for non systemic reasons) is sufficient evidence to show an overwhelming bias. Let us assume, all of my defences of these articles fall, and further assume I missed a few of your article related complaints. I will be generous and say you have found 12 out of 1000 contraversial articles, and 20 out of 895 000 overall articles (damn number keeps going up), you have NOT provided sufficient evidence of overwhelming bias.
Furthermore, your accusations of "liberalism" (which I assume you think is a Very Bad Thing) does not neccessarly prove that any or all of these have slanted the bias on more than one article, only a couple individuals on your previously mentioned 1.2% of contraversial.
Furthermore, you have not shown any good faith effort to find evidence that counteracts your own (which I know, is a rare idea, but is excellent science, theology, history, etc.).
This isn't equivocation (linking one thing to another in casual but not casual relationship and homping someone will jump to the other) but a very long way of saying:
I don't believe your evidence is sufficient.
You have a number of intresting criticisms. Cut the tone, and you're welcome to take it up on the article talk pages, show your proof, show the article's lack of proof, etc. Please, you're welcome to help out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.